| While I was being slightly sarcastic up above, thank you @hcazz, @RajT88, @Eugr, @saurik for the replies and descriptions of the viewing experience. If they're nice enough for use in a semi-dark airplane, I may need to look into a pair. Spend enough time in restaurants and other low lighting areas, it might be worth it for mobile computing purposes. @hcazz, question: can you use them effectively while walking around in broad daylight? @RajT88, @Eugr, thank for the viewing descriptions. Those types of issues were a little bit of what I was worried about. Hallway feeling vision, and tiny "correct" spot for viewing. The multi-monitor setup idea is kind of neat, since then you could have floating layer screens with overlap you work on. Floating code/text highlighting for a programmer for example. A portion of the question above, was closer to: "why is all the discussion in America completely dominated by two FAANG choices when there are apparently so many other decent/good/great alternatives?" People are apparently paying $3500 to look goofy in public and have uncomfortable viewing experiences? (the reviews I've read on the Vision Pro and Quest have not been great) This Vox article [1] for example has almost the same statement: "Goggles. They’re goggles. Also, let’s imagine ... that maybe one day they’ll just become glasses." (while [checking...] $380 AR glasses with decent reviews are available) The "meta verse" and Quest got almost the same response. See this Verge article [2]. "Meta’s $1,499 headset is better at showcasing VR’s weaknesses than strengths." [1] https://www.vox.com/technology/2023/6/5/23750064/apple-visio... [2] https://www.theverge.com/23451629/meta-quest-pro-vr-headset-... |