So you think that instead of something black, if something clear was kept in front, it would technically be an AR system? Of course, then the question is how to make sure the projected items are bright enough with the environment shining through.

Yep. Also that the grooves in the hologram don't screw up the light that passes in through the front. For instance you might get "lens flare" effects which could get obnoxious.

It is a lot of details to work out, which is why current AR headsets are still at the bridesmaid and not the bride phase.

Oh okay very interesting. I didn't realize that AR headsets were significantly behind compared to VR headsets. But the question is how behind is it, because clearly Apple is able to somehow pull it off, right?

Well, to "pull it off" involves multiple levels of development.

VR headsets are workable, but somewhat expensive, and content is lacking.

AR headsets are very expensive, have poor image quality, and even less content. It seems every defense contractor and electronics conglomerate got patents for holographic waveguides in the 1990s when the F-35 was under development; that headset is not so bad but it costs $250,000 and the original version was heavy enough to break your neck when the election seat fires.

Apple may be working on an AR headset, it may be a big hit in the end, but I will believe in product-market fit when I see it.

I suspect there's a fundamental reason the backstop is opaque. Keep in mind, to scale the size down, they may have had to cram some stuff directly behind the lenses.

I suspect they've tried to augment the device for AR already since many of the forward looking trends focus on AR.

True... It could also be likely that they haven't published the AR version of the technology, if it's possible...

> it would technically be an AR system

I think the head tracking is not as forgiving for an AR system.

For sure, but it's technically an AR system, right? ;)