I had the same reaction, and the article only says that the effective resolution, accounting for their "pixels per degree", is something less than 1080p. Which sort of implies it is better than 720p...somewhere between the two. Plus whatever benefit blocking out the things around you in the plane has.
I'd much rather hear some reviews of the experience from run of the mill people that don't have much experience with VR.
I suppose the article does, though, at least set a reasonable expectations bar.
My interpretation is that it is some sort of cognitive bias, which is very common: Because A is better than B, we start to think of B as not good, while in reality B is still good and A is just better. In particular A may only be marginally better, or only be better on paper, according to an irrelevant metric.
I see this come up a lot in hardware discussions (Megapixels come to mind) and manufacturers love to jump on this effect.
I had the same reaction, and the article only says that the effective resolution, accounting for their "pixels per degree", is something less than 1080p. Which sort of implies it is better than 720p...somewhere between the two. Plus whatever benefit blocking out the things around you in the plane has.
I'd much rather hear some reviews of the experience from run of the mill people that don't have much experience with VR.
I suppose the article does, though, at least set a reasonable expectations bar.