> I don’t think they’ve broken new ground in terms of resolution (compared to Pimax) and refresh rate (12ms is a bit less than 90Hz, which is equivalent to Quest Pro and worse than Quest 2 in dev mode).

I don’t think it’s unprecedented on the raw hardware capacities but the combination is: the Pimax is only a VR headset, so it’s missing half of the hardware, and it has half the PPD; the Quest 2 can go higher on refresh rate but has much lower resolution, no eye tracking, etc. while the Quest Pro gets closer on some of those features but at under a third the PPD.

I mention that because one thing which has stalled AR/VR adoption is the high threshold your brain sets for accepting a scene as real, especially for AR. We won’t know until it ships but I did find it interesting how many reviewers mentioned this being the first time things came together. It might be that much of the conventional wisdom around AR is too pessimistic and it’s simply that you need to reach an aggressive combination of resolution, color depth, responsiveness, tracking precision, weight, etc. similar to how it took decades for digital cameras to hit the quality/weight/cost thresholds where the benefits became compelling. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it turned out that the Vision Pro is barely over that level for Apple at a high price point and out of reach for Facebook for a few more years since they don’t have a high-end CPU team in house and have to wait for the commodity market to advance.