All these optimistic articles without showing a single AR application - is Apple allowing access to devices only to pre-vetted publishers that would never criticize their products? 4k per eye sounds good but if it's only used for displaying 2D stuff it's kinda pointless as the resolution is still too low for that and the GPU is too weak for 3D stuff at that resolution (that would need like a minimized 5090 to make it work).
How do you know the resolution is too low, and what do you think is needed? I find the Oculus Quest 2 (1920x1832 per eye) to be passable for working on virtual monitors. Not great, but feels 60% of the way there. I would expect 4K per eye to be a huge difference.
I have HP Reverb G2 which is 2048x2048 per eye and it's great for the MS Flight Simulator 2020 or Automobilista 2 but utterly terrible for virtual desktop. Imagining 2x denser pixels still doesn't cut it for working with text, i.e. one still will see jagged lines/edges. Also the lens are unfocused towards edges which would require head movement instead of eye movement to keep focused area sharp. Imagine programming a foot away from a 55" monitor.
Vision Pro is supposed to be 23Mpx so let's assume it's evenly distributed per eye, making it 11.5Mpx per eye, and with a square resolution per eye, so that's approximately 3391x3391, i.e. 1.65x denser than Reverb.
