$300 is a barrier to plenty of people but it's really not a sticking point for a lot of the target demographic.

From an employer POV, a hypothetical equivalent $300 VR headset would be cheaper than two 4K 27" screens. Cost could even incentivize adoption, really.

It's certainly an interesting concept. I'm not an expert but from what I've come across, it's currently very expensive to match the resolution of a 27" 4K monitor that's 2 or 3 feet away from your eyes. This is because the headset would need a very high pixel density on the very small screens sitting a few inches from the user's eyes. I'm sure someone has done the calculation somewhere but I couldn't find it. This page says we're at 2,000 pixels per eye but we need 4,000 to get "Immersive VR" (not sure if that will fit this use case) https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/virtual-reality-desktops-save-...

So it might happen eventually. People are actually leveraging "Virtual Desktops" now, but accepting the inherent resolution issues.

> it's competing against something that everyone already has.

thankfully (?) we have forced-obsolescence and improvements in tech so over time, as things improve, they may make different decisions.

> Everyone already has a phone

Also i doubt the VR/AR headset would compete with a phone.