Step 2: Open source projects implement whatever they want. Preferably, they provide a framework that allows high extensibility, if the software provider didn't already.
Step 3: People download and install open source plugins that violate stupid patents. It's still a patent violation, but as long as the people providing it aren't profiting monetarily, the ability to recoup damages from lost profits or royalties is very hard.
There's some nuance there, and different ways it could (and should) be done to avoid most consequences, but not so long ago (maybe still?) people commonly combined codecs and software from different parties for ffmpeg, which to get around some issues with distribution refused to compile the source and provide a binary, because that would make them a target, but just the source didn't (to a greater or lesser degree).
Where there's a will there's a way, and if a company is going to obtain stupidly simple patents which they often claim is to keep other companies at bay, we can put that to the test. If they go after individuals for usage, pressure them.
If we're lucky, what we're seeing is an ebb and flow between open source and the companies that capitalize on it, and we're in the ebb. I'm hoping for the flow.
I don't have too much experience with them, but I thought the ultrabook category was the answer of the rest of the market to the Air, at least.
I'm not sure the problem is that nobody makes the quality hardware, but that maybe it's just as pricey and that nobody trusts the companies that do the same as they do Apple to buy it at a large premium. Many companies have the ability to put together something of a similar quality and sell it (even if not at quite the profit, still probably some profit), but are you going to trust an Asus or MSI product that costs the same as the equivalent Apple product to have the same quality? Perception is important here. MSI or Asus could put out something better than Apple if they wanted to and didn't care about the cost, but I doubt anyone would actually believe that it was better even if they did (and even if they like it initially, they may suspect it won't hold up over time). Such is the power of the brand Apple has built, and that's in many ways more important than the actual quality they provide.
On the quest 3, I've felt like the screen is just a bit too low res to use comfortably as a monitor anyways, so I imagine the Frame won't be much different. The better weight distribution should help a lot though.
What I was thinking of was on iPhone. It was Eye Tracking + Dwell for selecting.
Hands act as a pointer on the Quest, with a pinch action to select and drag.