I very much disagree with you. Especially since I wear glasses, and also a helmet while riding long distances. It's not that bad :p

Yet what other ways do you envision? The http://www.broomx.com/mk-player360.php to turn your room into a VR cave? Which has been tried before too and will be a lot more expensive. Or perhaps https://uploadvr.com/red-hydrogen-one-smartphone-holographic/ which is neat to have holograms floating above your phone. It's nothing like VR inside a headset though.

It's already way way beyond what it was in the 90's in terms of popularity and acceptance. VR is going to stick around this time and grow.

Apple has yet to make an equivalent to the Gear VR, and I believe this is holding back VR in it's potentially most mainstream sector; Mobile. Smart phones have a huge install base and are powerful enough for entry level VR experiences.

Nintendo popularized motion control by integrating it fully into their Wii console. Integrated solutions for new technologies are more effective than peripheral attatchments because you get access to the entire market rather than a fraction of it. Imagine Nintendo creating a VR console in 5 years time with 4K resolution, no wires, 150 degrees field of view, lighter and smaller form factor with support for Mario Kart, Zelda, F-Zero and the VR equivalent of Wii Sports.

It doesn't have to be powerful for it to be mainstream, if anything the weaker consoles have generally been the most popular. 

Try riding with a VR helmet on instead :P

I think something more along the lines of this:

Essentially, a direct interface between brain and software; where the user controls the motor skills of the virtual character, rather than their own body. We already do this in dreams, except the reality is a construct of our brains.

This sort of concept has been explored in videogames (Xenosaga and Shadowrun), as well as TV shows/movies (Star Trek, the Matrix, Stargate).

Apple can't make smart watches a success and they're far less niche and cheaper than VR.

Playstation VR is the bare minimum of what is broadly acceptable as a decent VR, and for many (myself included) that is still considered to be way,  way too expensive. Nintendo can't bring anything to the table that is a) cheaper, and b) an equivalent experience without putting out hardware that eats the Switch for breakfast power-wise.

Besides, Apple has no reason to ever care about VR. They don't even care about video games, and don't give a fuck if games like DOOM or Counter Strike aren't playable on OS X (I have no idea if they actually are). If they don't care about games, why would they care about a device whose primary utility would be games?

Sony was in the best position to make the most widely accepted most popular VR experience ever, and they put out something decent, but not great. Nintendo or Apple wouldn't fare any better.

mobile games regularly make up the majority of the revenue of apple's app store (apparently >70%) , so yes, Apple does care about games

...yeah... because what VR really needs is Candy Crush VR. That's totally what I was talking about.

Apple has yet to make an equivalent to the Gear VR, and I believe this is holding back VR in it's potentially most mainstream sector; Mobile. Smart phones have a huge install base and are powerful enough for entry level VR experiences.

Nintendo popularized motion control by integrating it fully into their Wii console. Integrated solutions for new technologies are more effective than peripheral attatchments because you get access to the entire market rather than a fraction of it. Imagine Nintendo creating a VR console in 5 years time with 4K resolution, no wires, 150 degrees field of view, lighter and smaller form factor with support for Mario Kart, Zelda, F-Zero and the VR equivalent of Wii Sports.