What makes you think vision pro is dominating? Unlike iPhone etc it has no distinguishing feature I know of.
My interest in VR is basically solely for gaming, so the Vision Pro for me is a complete miss and I have no plans to purchase one. That being said, in the realm of productivity VR, I'd say they are dominating in that they're the sole entrant to the market that I'm aware of and their offering is extremely compelling.
So, the question is this. If you know anyone who actually got VP. Are they using it obsessively? I got occulus rift a while ago and so did many of my friends. We bought it but never really used it. Like probably a few times in a year to show friends.
On the weight front, it's significantly lighter than a Valve Index, by roughly 20%, and that's just the unit I'm pretty sure, the Index has an umbilical cord that is not-insubstantial in mass by itself that dangles off the back of your head, so already the Vision Pro is quite far ahead on comfort.
VAC is of course a factor in any headset and this really comes down to the per-user situation: I personally got my "VR legs" in about thirty minutes way back when I got started, and am able to use full motion movement pretty well now with only minimal vertigo when things go up and down too fast for my brain's liking. However, the VP is going to have a distinct advantage here with it's big complicated camera system that allows it to operate both in VR and in AR, with most applications seeming to live in the latter realm. I think that's going to lend itself to big comfort gains for people who aren't as blessed as me in that regard.
Isolation also is much improved with the VP, what with it employing again, the camera system, and also the fact that the Vision Pro (much like my Valve Index) doesn't cover or obstruct the ears. And you get those weird CG eyes you can plaster on the front of the thing, haha.
Like again, I don't know if this will work out long term, I'm interested to see if it will really. But I see people keep comparing it to other headsets and as a fervent enjoyer of many of these headsets, I really cannot overemphasize how bad that comparison is.
Wearing a headset / computer on your face is a cost (vs wearing nothing) that the value prop gotta offset. We’ll see if it is a net positive, worth the tradeoff for a significant amount of people. Previous evidence indicates it isn’t.
I've also used it for reading, watching movies, and reminiscing over old photos. Something I don't think that has really been captured well in reviews is how incredible it is to look at life-size recreations of photos you took on your phone, even plain old 2D ones. There's something really special about seeing a photo at life-size scale wherever you want, even if you technically can achieve this with a massive projector. And that's to say nothing of the bittersweet nostalgic nature of spatial video / photos, which has, if anything, been profoundly understated.
It is not my first headset. Previous to the AVP, I owned Quests 1, 2, and 3, and I experienced the Rift before that. I tried, hard, to work all day in each of the Quests as that was my primary use case for them, but flamed out after a couple of hours every time.
Or, if you are using virtual desktop, you can use your mouse and keyboard to control VP natively as well. The only drawback is that this may not work if you are on VPN (even if the desktop comes through OK). I'm hoping this is a software issue that will get straightened out soon.
This might sound trivial but it determines how long the user is able to use the device exclusively without relying on their phone, computer, etc which is a major factor in it being used at all.
A graphics card could make your spreadsheets go faster, but that's not really why they bought them.
It's plausible, however improbable, that a VR headset targeted at Serious Business Reasons could open doors that entertainment has not. And in particular, slightly unwieldy price points that can be rationalized a bit easier.