I don't begrudge people getting grumpy about terms evolving through gradual misuse over time. It's certainly annoying. What I would say though is that if you ha

I don't begrudge people getting grumpy about terms evolving through gradual misuse over time. It's certainly annoying. What I would say though is that if you have specific subsets of functionality that demarcate clearly through various dimensions - how hard they are to do, the type of technology needed, the typical use cases and real world value they create - then you really need some way to distinguish them if we are going to talk about it. Alternatively, if you are going to just stick to one hyper general term then you can't really complain that product X is bad at Y because it doesn't do every single thing the general term Y encompasses. Language is fluid for a reason - it adapts to our needs to define and distinguish things. In this case, the Quest Pro does a subset of things quite well, while completely leaving other aspects of AR on the table. Whatever we refer to that subset as, it's not really valid to then say it's generically bad just because we don't have good words to describe what it does do.