Here's a controversial idea I had with some friends today while talking about it: VR/AR headsets will never succeed, and that is for the same reason 3D movies a

Here's a controversial idea I had with some friends today while talking about it: VR/AR headsets will never succeed, and that is for the same reason 3D movies aren't worth it for most studios these days. Somewhere in people's brains there's a calculation of cool factor/utility vs convenience - and for the film industry, the cool factor carried it for quite a while. That is, until it "normalised" and people realised that 3D is irrelevant when you're immersed in the medium, and then all that remains is the inconvenience of having to put on an extra pair of glasses. and that tiny inconvenience is already too much for most people. So our conclusion was: AR/VR cannot succeed, even if it solves the performance, battery and fov problems down to the form factor of passive 3D glasses. Because a screen is less effort. And yes, that only leaves the niche of places where you can't get a good monitor, on the train or a plane maybe, where the convience of having a big screen in the form factor of a small pair of glasses outweighs the inconvenience of having to put them on.