Wow this article does a lot, and has a lot of really well thought out content and yet my closing thought was “wow more clickbait based on Apple-bashing”. I hav

Wow this article does a lot, and has a lot of really well thought out content and yet my closing thought was “wow more clickbait based on Apple-bashing”. I haven’t used the AVP, but neither has the author. That said, the reviews are generally positive- even for the direct use case he’s claiming is ridiculous. But I honestly find his end claim ridiculous: > The image quality can be no better than its weakest link. If the AVP has 3X the pixels and roughly 1.75x the linear ppd, the optics must be much better than the MQP to deliver the same small readable text that a physical monitor can deliver. I think this is a bad take. It doesn’t have to be the weakest link, because people probably rarely use the edge of the displays compared to the center. I will concede that Apple calling it a 4k replacement is BS and he gets that right. But a 1440p monitor probably delivers similar readability and is good enough for most people, so the end result is a valid monitor replacement