> no ones playing games, recording videos, taking pictures or doing any kind of immediate activity with smart watches.

This is a good point, but my point was more that if a smart watches are doing less than a smart phone and people still seem to be happy to have to charge them everyday, I'm not so convinced that having to fast-charge a set of AR glasses for time-limited use would put people off if they felt it was useful enough.

For context, I was imagining that most of the AR/VR overlays would be time or context dependent. Perhaps when travelling to aid with directions or on a commute for entertainment.

Are people really going to be walking through life with an always-on HUD? If they are then yes, completely fair point around battery usage. Perhaps once a global network of wireless charging is fully operational this will be a problem of the past...

Right, they're _passive_ devices that don't need active engagement.

That's not a good case to make that active devices that consume orders of magnitude more power are going to make it on the market if they can't last 8-10 hours on a charge doing active things.

Maybe people misunderstand just how much power AR/VR require and think it's similar to wireless ear phones.

There's just a huge band gap in power requirements. EVs have similar issues in the consumer confidence when it comes to matching range requirements.

No matter how much on paper you explain to people what they actually do vs what they want to do, the salesman needs to sell at what they want to do.

SUVs and Trucks are similar, except inverse: people want to do a bunch of things, but what they actually do is very little. They'd still never drive a small vehicle just because it gets them good range.

So, when I say the tech/battery isn't there for the consumer, it's recognizing the consumer is an idiot, and the nerd-requirements are different than average consumer expectations.