What Display Daily thinks: The discussion below is an interesting segue into the discussion that we could be having: if the Vision Pro was a venture-backed startup would be having the same discussion?
Everything about a device like the Vision Pro, or Meta’s Quest headsets, revolves around the pros and cons of the microdisplays. That creates a lot of fun conversations and some eloquent insights into next gen display technologies. It creates a lot of noise solely based on the huge, and preposterous, investments being made in these devices.
Take out the multi-billion strong customer lists for Apple and Meta, and you really don’t have much else to sell these products on other than a mathematical calculation based on response rates to spam. That;s the selling strategy: given two billion users, and very low conversion rates, can you sell a million devices? Sure.
If you want to figure this out in a more realistic manner, as a concerned citizen of the display industry, you assume that the Vision Pro, the Quest 3, are start-ups and start asking the real questions, especially about the displays. The answer is very simple, the people developing microdisplay technologies would probably not want to take their funding and speculate on the success of those startups.
I don’t want to be a nabob of negativity but I do yearn for an MR, Alt reality, device forum that has a focus on real people, real needs, real problems, and solutions that are not based on someone’s recollections of their childhood watching cartoons or sci-fi shows.
My money is on transparent displays over microdisplays for smart glasses or MR headsets. That’s the sci-fi vision that makes sense. It’s also a bigger opportunity for MicroLED.
