To be fair, it also gives vague hints on resolution with “more pixels than a 4K TV for each eye”, which is simultaneously more verbose and less informative than giving the actual resolution.

Yeah, "4K TV resolution" doesn't mean anything as that completely ignores viewing distance. Pixels Per Degree (PPD) is the core metric and it drives me bananas that marketing professionals continue to intentionally obfuscate basic facts about products for sale.

I assume they're just ashamed that after billions of dollars in product development, they were unable to obtain the requisite 35PPD necessary to emulate a very basic "virtual computer monitor" and display readible text - or get close to the 62PPD that actually represents the limits of human resolution and is the golden benchmark to shoot for.

Maybe they did achieve these goals, which would be impressive, but without using standardised meaningful metrics for HMD resolution you just can't tell.

Fair point! Anyone can do a quick math on the PPD with their announcement of "23 million pixel microOLED" with this calculator? https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

I trust they would have mentioned that if they had it. "4K TV resolution" is the best they could say, so in turn you can expect the minimum you could possibly squeeze out of that statement.

I mean, they said it's got 23 million pixel microOLED.

Dual 4K would be 16.5M pixels.

So it's comfortably 40% more than 4K per eye, so as long as say a virtual TV screen filled up most of your vision it should be at least close to 4K quality. Maybe a bit less in the end, but even somewhere between 1080p and 4K should look great.

Ever been to a movie theater using digital 2K projectors? Looks pretty good to me still.

It should look fine for video, text is another story.

M2 chip + R1 chip

So it is only useful with net power.