"* The Oculus is a couple of months from launch. This is an early beta."
And it it wasn't when DK 1 and DK 2 were released. It's not a valid point.
"* The Oculus is small screens in front of your eyes connected to a GPU in your computer. This is essentially a super-light computer that you wear."
Oh you mean like a phone? It doesn't justify the cost. Furthermore, if it is more like a super-light computer it bodes ill for the retail price of this thing if/when it finally sells. It bodes so ill in fact that I wonder if this is Project Natal / Kinect all over again where the final product was severely gimped to make it affordable.
"The Oculus is a VR device. This is an AR device. These things are not the same thing. They serve different purposes and work in different ways and have different demands."
They might serve different purposes. I don't see how that conflates with the fact that the dev kit costs 10x as much.
* Approx. £2,500 is not that much for something focused on professional development houses which is what this is. The Oculus is being used for games right now and home hackers - it's essentially a pre-release product at this point."
That's not a valid excuse for a several reasons.
1) Microsoft is trying to pitch this thing at games - witness various demos they've made of it for that purpose, e.g. minecraft video. In fact they're on record as justifying buying Minecraft for hololens. And their plans include XBox One front and centre and it's hard to imagine that the device would possibly succeed or achieve mass market sales otherwise.
2) Denigrating the Oculus doesn't remove the point that their dev kit is and has been 1/10th of this thing.
3) Even if we were to say the hololens is more complex, that still doesn't justify the honking disparity in the price of the kit or that its a barrier of entry. And if this disparity carries over into production then woe betide them. VR will be a hard enough sell (which IMO will fail). Something costing more again isn't going to do any better.