Not the same thing at all. Smartphones have reached the point where further improvements are largely superficial for years now. Pinephone's price point is only possible because of over a decade of the proliferation of cheap smartphone components.

Consumer VR headsets are nowhere close to that point. The Quest 2 is right at the edge of usably clear text for work - with a price point that is only possible through the backing of a giant corporation desperately gambling their future on their whole metaverse shtick.

Trying to do better means requiring optics and display technology that is going to drive that price point up, especially for a hackable headset that is automatically going to rule out monetisation through user data.

tldr: nobody should care about providing cheap hardware to entitled "hackers" at their own loss. Hardware doesn't grow on trees.

OK, I agree. Why are you calling me entitled, though? I'm not demanding that the headsets be sold at loss. By "I don't care whether it makes companies money", I meant "I don't care whether it makes more money for the company purchasing them" (because the context of the discussion was that it would be companies purchasing these headsets for their own corporate efficiency reasons). A selling company must obviously make enough money to keep the production line going, how is it sustainable otherwise?

All I am saying is that:

A) certain conditions need to occur for a hackable home headset space to flourish

B) said conditions haven't occurred yet, and will not until the price comes down

That was not clear to me at all from the context but maybe I lack reading comprehension.

Otherwise, I think we are in agreement.

The pinephone is totally useless.

For your use case. For someone else's, it's useful enough.