Our intention is to offer constructive criticism of Meta's product vision, not a sour attitude. Meta is marketing the Quest Pro as a productivity device, but to us it doesn't seem to have much teeth: it can't replace someone's laptop, requires WiFi tethering to a host machine to be used as a VR Desktop machine, caps the # of screens it can emulate to 5, and has poor pixel density.
Are these not fair things to point out?
Imo the most damning part of this article for SimulaVR is this annotation:
>[6] There are lots of tradeoffs involved in battery life vs. headset weight that we still need to decide on.
The Quest Pro has already made these trade-offs, and exists as a real device with specs that are available, while Simula is still trying to figure out the balance of your device?
It's unfair to compare a released product to something that might be available to consumers sometime in the next year.
How much closer to Q4 do we have to be for it to qualify as "real soon" in your book? I'm asking as it is Oct 24 with Q4 starting Nov 1. Unless, I'm not business savvy and have my fiscal confused with physical again?
"We expect units to ship no earlier than Q4 2022, with priority given to Founders Editions."
Given that, as you've said, we're in Q4 and there's no updated information available on their purchase page, I doubt it's going to be any time in the next few weeks.
You can't install Linux on it sadly but like... can it run any Android app? Can it connect to a PC Linux software in any way a power user would want? Can it run any program that can practically be built for it? I feel like it can but I obviously want more and something better.