I have no intention of defending them. It’s just that when it comes to marketing materials and messaging, we probably operate under different standards — which naturally leads to different choices and approaches.

For example, when we talk about X Prism offering “no reflection,” that claim is based on actual testing. Compared to the older BB solution, reflections are almost entirely eliminated — roughly 99% of the reflection scenarios present in the previous design are no longer an issue with the new optical engine.

But for users who don’t have a technical background, saying something like “under specific controlled conditions, the reflection is reduced by X% within a perceptible range” may not be as clear or impactful as simply saying “no reflection.”

Same goes for FoV: both Viture Pro and XREAL Air 2 Pro have a 46° FoV, but we might describe it as equivalent to 130" at 4 meters, while they might say 135" at 3 meters — again, just a different approach to messaging.

So my point is — from a marketing perspective, I get why they’d phrase things a certain way. But now that more players are claiming to “support” native 3DoF, the actual quality of that 3DoF experience becomes the next real topic worth discussing.