It has many of the problems, but it also has crucial improvements (mostly nails the user interface, vastly better pass-through, massively better screens). Did you read the article or just immediately come here to drop comments?

The author is also delusional, having pushed Oculus before VR was ready for the masses. It wasn't then. It isn't now. The technology won't be good enough for a decade.

I don't think anyone is saying the AVP is a mass market product, and neither were the early Oculus products.

VR as a category is niche. Apple will expand the public consciousness of it, but at $3,500 AVP is also niche.

There's nothing wrong with that. If it takes a decade for the tech to be good enough so be it--I'll be glad people were innovating and experimenting in the interim to get it right, and that the folks willing to sign up as beta testers helped push progress forward.

People get mad about this stuff--you don't have to buy it! I still haven't and probably won't until it feels more ready.

The Commodore 64 (or, staying on-brand, the Apple II) wasn't ready for the masses. Still if we hadn't had that, the computers that followed would have been worse due to not benefiting from lessons learned, built up user affinity etc.

And being there it was hella interesting to see it develop. Most tech isn't born right for the masses. And without the pioneers it likely won't get there.