Even if it did, people won’t wear them in public. Google Glass looked half normal and people were still getting accosted in restaurants.

People freak out at the idea of cameras of some random dude constantly watching them.

This is a bit funny because they'd be watched by multiple cameras in any restaurant or supermarket. OTOH the viewpoint of the overhead monitoring cameras is very distinctive, and the resolution is usually barely enough to see a face. The Glass's camera gave more "normal" and higher-resolution footage.

There is no irony here.

People freak out because it's worn by a _person_ who, specifically, is watching _them_.

You'd probably react similarly if somebody, during a party, for no reason kept pointing a recording microphone at you, even though there were voice assistants like Alexa in the room.

People are discussing whether AR device could be worn in public. But I’m wondering: should it? I mean, I’m the last guy to question novel technology. I was desperate to get the first smartphones. But why would you want an always-on screen in public?

That doesn't matter for industrial applications though.

Yes, but that problem was much more “Google” than “glass”.

Perhaps so. I’m just skeptical that the viewed would accept such VR-pass through style goggles even if the viewer finds them innocuous.

I was working on enterprise Google Glass apps in 2014. The problem was lack of applications. You could do very few things with it beyond showing some text and pictures.

I think this is a "grass is greener" type argument. There are also massive problems with pass-through AR (VR with cameras).

I'm not entirely sure it is. Pass through has serious engineering hurdles to get over first with latency, power consumption, weight etc.

But the waveguide method has limitations rooted in physics and math that won't change until 30%+70% stops equalling 100%.

I know which one I'd put more Hope's in.