I have a HoloLens. It's a really cool toy, but attempting to sell this device to the general public would be a disaster and MS knows it. I think there's a wonderful future ahead for AR googles when they get the tech and use cases nailed, but VR is here now and AR is just a prototype.

By the way, the surprising amazing thing about the HoloLens isn't the holograms - it's the world tracking. I can lay down holograms in a couple offices and the hallways, and wander about freely and it always knows exactly where I am. And it persists the world correctly at all times. No cameras or laser projectors or outboard sensors needed. This makes room-scale VR look like child's play.

Lastly, on the subject of VR: Vive is fantastic. The dual tracked controllers actually give you a real tactile sense into the world. Oculus, on the other hand, sucks due to not having it. (Although their optics might be better, I'm still deciding.) Being in VR and using an Xbox controller to play is weird and disconnected and fundamentally not that fun. (The single camera setup also means Oculus has some nasty occlusion issues.) Vive feels like what VR should be. Hopefully Oculus Touch will address the issue later this year.

By the way, the surprising amazing thing about the HoloLens isn't the holograms - it's the world tracking.

^This.
It really does make the Oculus and Vive's IR tracking systems seem "old technology"!

Hopefully Oculus Touch will address the issue later this year.

The tracked area will still be smaller than the Vive's, due to there only being two cameras in front of you, rather than one projector on either side of you... but the prototype Touch controllers IMHO are waaaay better than the Vive controllers.
Thumb:
* Vive has the thumb touch pad, which is more flexible -- virtual buttons, virtual mouse, virtual thumb-stick, swipe gestures, etc...
* Touch has a traditional thumb-stick and a few buttons, xbox style... which I prefer. Touch also has capacitive touch so it knows whether you've got your thumb resting on the controller or not, allow you to give a "thumbs up" gesture as an input.
Index finger:
* Vive and touch are both pretty much the same - an analogue trigger. Vive's trigger feels a little firmer. Touch has the capacitive sensor, allowing a "finger guns"/"pointing" gesture as input.
Middle finger:
* Vive has a stupid button that takes an awkward amount of force to squeeze.
* Touch has another analogue trigger, just like the index finger (again with a capacitive sensor for "finger off trigger" detection). Picking up items by squeezing feels far better than with Vive's button. It sounds minor but this made a massive difference in immersion to me.

VR is far more challenging that it looks (like many other things). To get some understanding of issues, I would suggest reading Micheal Abrash blogs for start, like: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/09/24/oculus-chief-scientist-michael-abrash-on-the-core-challenges-facing-vr-oc2/

It's already been said, but Google Glass is not functionally on the same playing field. Plus, there's something more immersive about a helmet. Google Glass is designed in a way that you are still aware of and seeing your complete surroundings. A good VR experience is completely immersive.

In the long run (10 years or so), I'd expect the two technologies to converge. Without much modification even to current tech, AR could approximate VR by shutting out the light from the outside world, VR could approximate AR by filming the outside world and integrating it with the display. The rest is software.

I think there are big parallels to the console and smartphone world, where VR is consoles and AR is smartphones. VR's immersiveness is going to be better for gaming, and it's going to beat AR to the mass market. AR has far more applications outside of gaming, and will eventually reach a much wider audience.

As with smartphones, people will eventually end up having an AR device which they carry with them everywhere, and they'll be able to play games on them in VR mode. As with consoles, hardcore gamers will also have VR devices at home because of the advantages of their specialized gaming hardware, but for most people, their AR devices like their smartphones will be sufficient to scratch any gaming itch.

In the long run (10 years or so), I'd expect the two technologies to converge.

Samsung is already half-way there, at least idea-wise. They patented "VR in contact lens" some 2 years or so ago, if I remember right. Now the only thing that remains is a working implementation...

It's already been said, but Google Glass is not functionally on the same playing field.

This conversation had been 4 months dormant. It's not a good idea to necro long-dormant threads. New visitors to the thread probably won't notice the date, and probably won't read the whole thread, before replying (and the OP probably isn't still watching the thread). I should probably close the thread but I'll leave it open for now.