Complaints about journalistic standards failing in VR are just Luddism.<p>Complaints that Google Cardboard is terribly inferior VR, on the other hand, are totally accurate.  A point of view that was sadly missing from the short piece.  I&#x27;m working in VR, and have terribly mixed feelings about Cardboard.  On the one hand, it&#x27;s great that it&#x27;s pushing VR to the masses, quickly.  I understand the Cardboard app had one million downloads <i>before</i> the Times shipped their &#x27;headsets.&#x27;  That dwarfs all the Oculus DK2s by a factor of at least 10.<p>On the other hand, Cardboard is terrible.  It has a narrow field of view, huge chromatic aberrations, and latency that will make some users sick.  (Gear VR has much lower latency, thanks to kilohertz-class MEMS sensors and some solid engineering... nevermind it only has to run on a single piece of hardware.)<p>So yeah... part of me wishes Cardboard just didn&#x27;t exist, and part of me wishes it were just substantially better.  Because a bad introduction to VR is worse than a late introduction to VR.  It&#x27;s not like the VR hype cycle is lacking for opinions anyway; this is a sector that could probably use fewer semi-informed opinions.<p>(So to be clear: if you&#x27;ve tried Google Cardboard and nothing else, you haven&#x27;t really experienced 2015 VR.  That&#x27;s my position and I&#x27;m sticking to it.)