People will get over it. Especially if Apple does it.

I remember clearly in 1999 going to dinner with co-workers, all of us pulling out our cell phones for something and one of the co-workers wives call us all geeks for even having a cell phone. I'm sure that same person is now more addicted to her smartphone than her husband.

The same will happen with AR. It will seem "ewww gross" until it doesn't

Do you mean to pass the real world through, or for scanning the world?

If the display is see-through - perhaps with a removable view shield for switching AR/VR - you can have pass-through without a camera. Like magic leap, but without the magic "black pixels" tech.

Alternately, if it has lidar you could display a wireframe / point cloud version of the environment. I don't think people will consider a lidar scan to be "a picture of me," even if it actually captures more detail.

Alternately again, it could have a camera but just never expose that feed to the real world or allow recording. It's their own closed hardware after all.

For scanning it. It's a good point that something like lidar might be more socially acceptable.

>To do AR, it'll need a camera. People hated google glass because of the camera.

I remember the fuss, but it's so weird -- everyone carries a smartphone with camera with them all the time, even into public bathrooms. If someone wanted to record me I think I'd have a better chance of noticing someone looking at me with their face than I would someone doing it while pretending to be scrolling twitter.

The article suggests it will have 12 cameras.

AR doesn’t necessarily need a camera. Might be possible with IR structured light?

To augment something you need to have whatever is there to begin with - so they either need a camera or you need transparent screens. An IR structured light depth camera is still ... well ... a camera.