Once again, nothing at all to do with holography. Its amazing the shameless way tech companies who know better allow their marketers to misappropriate words to promote their parlor tricks. Microsoft is simply using their version of the Oculus with some overcomplicated video rig for AR to do something far from new. Yet another Rube Goldberg machine destined to be a punch line.
Real holography doesn't require glasses to view, and is not subject to the limitations and discomfort of route stereographic effects. This has been around in one form or another since the early 90's, it never gained wide appeal because of the fact you are secluded from your environment by the headset, and because using it (due to the inherent nature of stereographic effect with fake, nauseating parallax) can only be done for short time periods.
History repeats itself, and life imitates art.
Edit: For more on why I think this is a huge fad, just read this article about the death of 3D TV (which is fundamentally based on the same stereoscopic concepts):
"However the single biggest obstacle that 3D faced wasn't different versions, incompatible glasses, exclusivity, lack of content or screen sizes, it was simply that people didn't like wearing the glasses at home. Consumers were happy to wear 3D glasses at the cinema, which are predominantly the cheap and light passive variety but they were less keen to do so in their lounge."
Consumers didn't like wearing glasses then, and they won't like wearing them now.
Well, Google Chrome isn't made from actual chrome either ;)
And while certainly VR goggles may eventually share the same fate as 3D TV, I don't think the comparison is valid (other than they both involve stereoscopy).
It's a very different thing when sub-millimetre head tracking is involved, and when the virtual interocular distance is fixed to what a person's actual distance is. When everything appears to be the correct size and fixed in space, it crosses a significant perceptual threshold. I don't know if you've ever put on modern VR goggles, but there's no way I'd put it in the same category as 3D TV; in fact I don't think I'd put it in the same category as anything else I've experienced either.
And so I don't think you can take the lessons learned from people's willingness to wear glasses for a low-incremental-value 3D TV experience when the VR goggles have a markedly different offering - it's certainly plausable to me (though far from certain) that VR's value is high enough that people will be willing to put up with glasses.
Technically it's not holography, but using the term is the simplest way to convey the idea to the average person. What would you suggest calling it instead?
AR is much less likely to cause nausea, because you still see the real world which your brain will "anchor" to when trying to balance. If the tracking is fast and accurate enough, it won't be a problem.
Your only strong argument is that people don't like to wear glasses, but that could change if it is considered valuable enough. Have you seen the demos of what they can do?
Real holography doesn't require glasses to view, and is not subject to the limitations and discomfort of route stereographic effects. This has been around in one form or another since the early 90's, it never gained wide appeal because of the fact you are secluded from your environment by the headset, and because using it (due to the inherent nature of stereographic effect with fake, nauseating parallax) can only be done for short time periods.
History repeats itself, and life imitates art.
Edit: For more on why I think this is a huge fad, just read this article about the death of 3D TV (which is fundamentally based on the same stereoscopic concepts):
https://www.avforums.com/article/in-memoriam-the-death-of-3d...
Choice quote:
"However the single biggest obstacle that 3D faced wasn't different versions, incompatible glasses, exclusivity, lack of content or screen sizes, it was simply that people didn't like wearing the glasses at home. Consumers were happy to wear 3D glasses at the cinema, which are predominantly the cheap and light passive variety but they were less keen to do so in their lounge."
Consumers didn't like wearing glasses then, and they won't like wearing them now.