I'm honestly kind of boggled by the HN comments so far, all seem to be various forms "I can't see how wearable displays can offer any value unless they're cheap

I'm honestly kind of boggled by the HN comments so far, all seem to be various forms "I can't see how wearable displays can offer any value unless they're cheap". To me the use case is obvious: getting rid of the fucking screen. There is no inherent law of physics reason I can't have a full size desktop 10k 40" or whatever max is "display" for every single system I interact with, anywhere. The current paradigm of lots of different screens for different computers (desktop/notebook/tablet/phone/watch/appliances) is because nobody has yet been able to sufficiently directly project photons into retina via something good enough and wearable. Products like the RETISSA II demonstrate direct retinal projection working but without enough resolution, too clunky, etc. But the fundamentals work. The killer app IMO for a wearable display is replacing every other display. I can sit down at my desk or anywhere else and have whatever screen size/config I want, the only difference being how much local compute I have available and at what latency. No more need for "headless servers", just have the right display key pairs and you can pull up a screen/console just from what you're wearing. Same with anything from network switches to printers, can have augmented local display tech using a full size screen vs some tiny little LED thing at best. On a plane or a train and want to watch a movie, or pull up SSH sessions or whatever else? Full screen, and in total privacy. NV/FLIR, or digital [LMH]VPOs could all just feed into my worn display too. Which would be perfectly crisp even for those of us with bad eyes. And on and on and on. It's so obvious. All the challenges involved are engineering/polish/politics (in terms of agreeing on some level of industry standards at least for a minimal level of universal interaction). Which doesn't mean it couldn't be mucked up but the promise is clear. I've spent many many thousands of dollars on displays of all sorts. When one wearable one can replace them all I'd cheerfully pay $5k let alone $3k. It'll also open up entire new realms of form factors for computers. Apple may or may not manage it, and certainly probably not the first go around, but it's pretty clear why they'd want to be getting going on real experience with it even if it's mostly for devs and such to start. It's the definition of a looming disruption, a huge amount of their current visual product design is about "very nice screens, with stuff on them". Something that eventually obsoletes the "screens" bit would be one obvious way someone else could pull the rug out from under most of Apple's current offerings, and conversely is a big new opportunity for them too long term. It might take them 5-10 years, but if they think now is the time to get iterating I don't see why they shouldn't get going even if it's a touch aggressive.