>I tried the Quest 2 last year mostly out of curiosity for the use cases that Meta themselves would go on to push as the primary focuses of the Quest Pro; VR productivity and virtual monitors. I was left drastically underwhelmed at the time with the resolution and viewing experience from the Quest 2
That's not really a fair assessment of the Quest 2. The Quest 2 is just a budget (400 Euros) gaming console, and for that it works great.
A 400 dollar gaming console with a theoretical resolution of 1,832 × 1,920 per eye, is obviously not gonna perform well if you use it to emulate high resolution virtual monitors meant to sit further away from your eyes, further decreasing the perceived resolution, so you can read text and perform productivity tasks. Of course it will suck at that, but it was never meant to do that.
That's like complaining your Toyota Aygo sucks at offroading or track racing.
Isn't the Quest 2 the newest headset they offer? Why wouldn't it be fair to try that out and see if it worked, and come to the conclusion that it was underwhelming?
No, the Quest 2 has been out since 2020. The Quest Pro is the latest.
It's unfair because the Quest 2 is mainly a console and was never marketed as a productivity AR device. That's like trying to do your job on a PS5 and claim it's underwhelming, or take your Ferrari off-roading and claim it's underwhelming or trying ML workloads on a Gameboy and claim it's underwhelming.
You are are of course free to try those scenarios and have your opinion that the devices are underwhelming, but nobody can take your point seriously.
The Quest Pro is "newly" available now (as of late Oct 22 it appears), but the GP said they had tried last year... I guess now that we're in 2023, that could mean some time in 2022, though. I took their comment to mean that they tried out the 2 in anticipation of the release of the Pro, some time in the more distant past.
That's not really a fair assessment of the Quest 2. The Quest 2 is just a budget (400 Euros) gaming console, and for that it works great.
A 400 dollar gaming console with a theoretical resolution of 1,832 × 1,920 per eye, is obviously not gonna perform well if you use it to emulate high resolution virtual monitors meant to sit further away from your eyes, further decreasing the perceived resolution, so you can read text and perform productivity tasks. Of course it will suck at that, but it was never meant to do that.
That's like complaining your Toyota Aygo sucks at offroading or track racing.