I disagree with the article's comment on inevitability. Sure, if society wants to put a lot of effort into stopping something, we can. For instance, nuclear rock blasting might never happen, despite us having the technology to do so since the 50s. Getting to that point, however, required a massive geopolitical movement powered by everyone being terrified of nuclear weapons.

The problem with VR is simply that the technology is still not there yet. The Vision Pro is cutting edge technology; but it is still cumbersome. The display might be technically impressive, but it still offers less pixels per degree than a typically monitor at typical distances.

All that the Vision Pro demonstrates is that optics, computers, and display technologies are not yet advanced enough to make VR a mass market viable technology. I see no reason to believe that there is any barrier that means they will never become sufficiently advanced. And once the technology does reach that point, I see no indication that it will not be a success.

Even given the limitations of the technology, VR products that are technologically inferior to the Vision Pro seem to have found a sustainable niche.