It's neat and all but I can't help being skeptical that, beyond certain narrowly specific use cases, volumetric displays like this will measurably increase actu

It's neat and all but I can't help being skeptical that, beyond certain narrowly specific use cases, volumetric displays like this will measurably increase actual utility enough to be worth the increased cost, size, weight, power and complexity. I'm assuming "utility" here to be something like "usefully actionable increased comprehension of a 3D object or terrain". My reasoning is that the human visual system already has a bunch of neural wetware that's evolved to be really good at turning visual cues like highlights, shadows, reflections, specularity, depth of field, etc from a 2D scene into an internal 3D representation. When you add extra cues over time like object/light source motion, moving POV and parallax it gets even better. And all those cues are already "free" with common 2D displays + motion. Adding a bit of additional hardware to 2D commodity displays enables things like stereo binocular views from 3D glasses, head tracking and interactive control which further deepen scene comprehension at only slightly more cost, space and complexity. That's a lot of pre-existing, cheaper, easier alternatives that are as good as volumetric displays for most use cases and nearly as good for the remaining use cases. Beyond a few specialty use cases, research labs and military trials, I suspect the majority of these displays will be deployed as a novelty to attract attention or as social signaling (eg trade show booths, high-end retail, corporate hospitality, etc). Unfortunately, those kinds of use cases tend to have a shelf life only about as long as the novelty and high early adopter prices last.