[nilkn]

The overwhelming majority of people don't want any VR device available today at all.

I'm perfectly fine being the minority for now. You say that as if you think I'd have a problem with that. That does absolutely nothing to sway my thinking, which is based on my own principles, not a popularity contest at a single moment in time. You are dramatically underestimating my personal comfort maintaining an unpopular perspective for an extended period of time (years) based on fundamentals.

> Anyone with a $300 headset can stream games to it

No thanks. This is, of course, technically possible, but the quality is so astoundingly low compared to the Vision Pro that, for me, it would be a waste of time. You're welcome to do this if you so please with your time.

[bigyabai]

I'd imagine that you do have a problem with it. You're reliant on AR experiences, which are reliant on install bases, which the Apple Vision Pro has none of. There is currently no incentive to produce software for this dead platform like there is for iOS or iPad, so much so that you're bragging about streaming games that the hardware could run natively - if Apple respected their users.

It's no skin off my back when you pay $3,500 for that type of mistreatment. Whatever "principles" that led you down that path aren't going to make the Vision Pro a more enjoyable experience. You're virtue signalling a platform that everyone predicted would be a failure.

[nilkn]

Couldn't care less. I'm not reliant on anything you just imagined I'm reliant on that supposedly doesn't exist, yet somehow I'm reliant on it. I use the Vision Pro for Mac Virtual Display, movies / entertainment / reading / browsing, and occasional game streaming from the PS5. Those use cases alone justify the product for me.