I don't think any of those are true. The Apple II OS wasn't graphical. The hardware had very simple colour, which made it stand out. Mac was graphical, but it

I don't think any of those are true. The Apple II OS wasn't graphical. The hardware had very simple colour, which made it stand out. Mac was graphical, but it was a productised/commodified version of someone else's R&D. Nokia's Communicator range had cellular data long before the iPhone was a thing. What iPhone did differently was - again - productise and commodify existing technologies to create something that was more than the sum of its components. Touch was the biggest part of that, but the App Store really killed the competition. iPads were never particularly low cost. There were numerous tablets before the iPad. The iPad difference was - again - touch. And the App Store. iWatch wrist phone may be true, but I suspect it's not the main use case. (I've yet to see anyone talking into an iWatch. I'm sure it happens, but not nearly as often as phone conversations do.) The common factor - apart from iWatch - is taking/blending existing tech and packaging it into an accessible non-nerdy form with obvious and instant mass market appeal. And creating a vibrant developer ecosystem around it. And adding design stylings that make the product cool. That's exactly what this display project doesn't have. Even if it does its job well it has no obvious instant applications. And clamping a rubber facehugger to your head is the opposite of cool. It may have mass appeal after version 4 or 5 when it's closer to the ideal of stylish glasses with a supporting ecosystem. But I suspect version 1 is going to have a very limited market.