Claiming dual 8k displays (remember, 2 8k displays does not turn into a 16k display headset, because you need to double the height as well). From MacRumors: https://www.macrumors.com/2018/04/27/apple-ar-vr-headset-8k-...
Further rumors claims it'll run a custom 5nm processor (https://www.macworld.com/article/3269471/consumer-electronic...), even though there are currently NO fabs that can get 5nm.
Apple might be working on a VR headset, but I doubt these rumors are true.
Do you? I suppose everything that doesn't match the traditional 16:9 aspect ratio we use now is incorrect then? What about the fact that our displays were all 4:3 prior to that?
I guess it depends on whether we are considering 16k and 8k as something denoting specific sets of height and width that are standardized, as we have started to do with 4k (which is usually talking about 3840x2160, to my knowledge, because nobody wants to say 2160p).
Both eyes see mostly the same "8K" of content, just from a different perspective.
edit: Actually that's not quite right, even if you forgo a stereoscopic mode, the same content has to be shown to each eye. It's not like having dual monitors on a desk.
Regardless of what's being shown, if the unit can display that many pixels in a row (possibly bifurcated), I don't think it's out of the question to refer to it that way. From a device-centric perspective, it's more accurate. From an "end-user that will use it primarily as a stereoscopic headset display" it's less accurate, even if that user may not be able to see all of the display space at once anyway(?).
> edit: Actually that's not quite right, even if you forgo a stereoscopic mode, the same content has to be shown to each eye. It's not like having dual monitors on a desk.
It's not the same content if used for 3d. It is very similar content tough (possibly verging on being identical in what I suspect are rare instances).
And TSMC is Apple's preferred supplier so the rumour looks reasonable.
More likely it's 8k total (4k per eye foveated rendering), and a single 20x9 display, but that's just a guess. You can do lots of things for a demo.
Edit- note the pictures are from MagicLeap and the idea that there are miniaturized high resolution microLED displays is pretty funny... perhaps they mean microOLED? Those top out below 8K even for max reticle size (30mm) die with 8um sub-pixels.
There are microOLED manufacturers like eMagin which integrate the active matrix into a Si substrate and use a color filter over white OLED, but even they are limited to ~2k RGB (per eye) at 9um pitch.
And as for driving the displays it's possible today for a single 8K monitor. So maybe Apple has internal technology (or assumes the technology will improve) to drive dual displays.
I totally believe they're working on the technology. But I would bet that they'll wait to release anything until other people have demonstrated that a real, non-novelty market exists, so that they can come in with a much more polished solution than everybody else.
(Unless I'm missing something, of course. I keep looking for a user base where a VR headset is a daily driver. But as far as I can tell, it's still in the early adopter realm. Which is fine, but I don't think it provides a situation where Apple can polish something into a mainstream hit.)
So I wouldn't expect Apple to enter the "VR as monitor replacement" market until there's already a bunch of early-adopter types who are wearing goggles 8 hours a day.
I would love a field of view display space, with the option to stack windows behind one another and cycle through them.
2) It isn't a VR headset. It's a dual AR/VR headset. AR has a lot of real world applications.
Consider Google Glass. Or 3D TV. Or the Brewster Stereoscope . All of these were novel, exciting, and sold hundreds of thousands of units. But after the novelty wore off, did people use them? When the first one wore out, did they buy a second? Not really.
In contrast, MP3 players, smartphones, and smartwatches are in that category. They have more than novelty value. If VR has gone beyond that, I haven't seen it yet. My own VR doodad is gathering dust somewhere, for example. It was fun to play with, but it wasn't enough better than existing devices (phone, laptop, projector) that I continued to bother with it past the experimental phase.
I'll note that AR has some modest industrial uses; Boeing has been doing it since 1990. But Apple's design and marketing genius is centered on the consumer space. My bet is that they won't launch a product like this until somebody else has developed enough success with a niche audience that Apple sees it can take the product across the chasm. 
The iPhone took all those features and repackaged them into a stunningly simple and intuitive device. It was absolutely a repudiation of the existing devices and industry, but that was the design, not the features.
Props to them for their many achievements. But it's frustrating to me that people seem to think the smartphone didn't exist until it sprung fully formed from the head of Steve Jobs.
Because retina is a brand meaning nicer display anything else is purely marketing kool aid having nothing to do with reality.
Additionally, typically the "other players" in the given field like to support the rumors that what they want to deliver is also "the next thing from Apple" too. More than once I've read claims that "Apple is producing" the features of iPhone that more matched the short-time next that was released by Samsung then what Apple actually produced, typically much later, even some years later.
But in this case I have no trouble believing...
Apple need an edge somewhere... they were the first to come up with retina display, afterall...
Still true today they buy them.