Ok, I'll agree it was a quite callous comment that I don't fully agree with either. You're absolutely right that the Quest-way of using virtual screens instead of windows is chaining you to obsolete technology. I guess my perspective is more that its a better way to bootstrap new tech through old tech. Like you said "its something users know". I think the next decade+ of (productivity) VR will be dominated by "shim" experiences like virtual desktops that just drop in a computer into a screen in a nice desk. Everyone understands what those IRL experiences are and how it works. VR is perfect for skeuomorphism, and I think it'll have a strong place for a while.

That said, while I do think the "screen" isn't the unit of graphics we'll end up with, I do think that we'll end up disappointed by how much of VR is still "boxes" of 2D content like computers and tablets and phones before it. Sure there'll be changes, but I suspect that we'll mostly see things like phone app widgets make their way out into the "virtual world". I suspect beyond UI elements, we'll (mostly) end up stuck with floating web-view pages that are still rectangular. I'd love to see a 3D world where I can flip through slack channels like a filing cabinet, but I doubt it'd be mainstream.

> In fact even the concept of a "Window" isn't a great fit. Why restrict yourself to 2D views in a 3D world? UI elements could actually stick out so you can reach out and touch them or the whole app could even take the shape of a 3D object. Of course apps will need to be rewritten but the same was necessary with smartphones. There's a ton of UI stuff like that to figure out.

I said it earlier, but this is where I think the disappointment will come. You mentioned smartphones... a huge chunk of the apps I use are basically web views, or could be (even settings apps are a half step away from a crud web app). Things were rewritten, but largely the only thing that experience wise changed was replacing a mouse with a finger and moving things to portrait.

I will also add that a truly immersive 3D "{content display/window} manager" could easily just create an overwhelming mess of info/text everywhere that wouldn't be very appealing. I think there's a real risk of "content overstimulation" that would need to be managed. The idea of PDFs here and documentation pages there and a browser yet somewhere else could be a mess of swinging your head around looking for content [1]. Today, most of the screens I consume (even at work) are with apps in "fullscreen mode" and the OS just lines it all up (or just browser tabs occupying a vill browser window). I can just tab between them and the OS handles it... and I do it looking straight ahead the whole time. Why would I want to look around a floating orb of windows to find my reference material?

Anyways, I hope I'm wrong, and I hope simula succeeds. I really do - I almost pre-ordered one, but its a little too expensive for me to buy without knowing I'll use the product. It is a full (high spec) computer after all. I really like VR and I really think there's a great future for VR Productivity, and I think it'll make work (and WFH) better. But I see photos like this [1] and I think "thats not it".

[1]
https://twitter.com/SimulaVR/status/1557832672998789127/phot...

PS. I think my view on Simula is filled by that tweet. Someone said "i don't know if I want 1 window or a hundred (through VR)" and simula replied with a picture of a hundred and said "why not both". I want simula to show me an experience that looks like both.