This being a whole system that will allow you to put whatever software you want onto it makes me think that it might actually succeed at being what the Vision Pro wanted to be.
I'd be willing to take the L on the hardware in order to be able to actually run the software I care about. (I own a Vision Pro and barely use it because the pejorative description of "an iPad on your face" is more accurate than I would like to admit.)
Monochrome is rough, but I think pixel count is a few orders of magnitude less important than being able to actually use the damn thing. The Vision Pro has been out for over a year and I haven't seen a single notable application that takes advantage of the hardware, and it seems that that's largely in part due to it being nigh impossible to develop and run software on it.
Vision Pro wants to be an iPad on your face. The hardware's just not good enough (in the sense of general manufacturing capabilities, not lack of investment from Apple) to make that an enticing product yet.
I would agree, but I'm a bit sad about the resolution. I either want a mediocre resolution for cheap, or a can-do-it-all machine with great resolution for more money. I'm fearful that because of its great computing specs it's going to be expensive, but it's not going to be good enough for me visually to be used a lot.
I mean, I have a Quest 2 and it'd be a step up but not a huge one. I've seen the Apple Vision and that did wow me. The vision is just in a weird corner inside a closed ecosystem and a tech demo for apple. No thanks. Valve will absolutely do that ten times better. But will it be visually so much better than a quest 2? I doubt it.
