I wasn't implying you didn't read the posts (like you implied with "If you bothered to read it"). I asked the reader (e.g. you) to read the posts, as in reread them. That's a subtle difference. I didn't say reread but that's what I meant though. When I wrote that, I actually went to reread them myself to double check if I really misunderstood the context. Frankly, after rereading it, I came to the conclusion nope I did not though I might've better replied to your parent. Either way, the two were clearly being mixed up throughout this discussion.

I'd say, that when AR is "boring" that actually means it succeeds. It blends in without being annoying.

If you remember the time when desktops and mobile phones and smartphones become boring; that is when they started to gain traction among the common man; arguably, when they started to become good.

Take the traffic light example I mentioned earlier. If that's rolled out and seen as "boring", I'm happy with it. Because that means it works. Right now, it isn't yet boring, btw. It is seen as an innovation.

Same with innovations like electric vehicle and autonomous cars. Once they're "boring", their functionality is accepted. And we are talking about the "West"; it hasn't been adopted in poorer countries at all, not yet.

VR def. has the wow factor, I agree on that. Look at all the VR movies the past 30 years. AR is much less apparent, though its there as well.

Ultimately, for me games are just spielerei they might be fun (not so much for me anymore as I grow older); they have little to nothing to do with productivity. AR is going to be more useful for productivity than VR. I just don't see a lot of use for VR, especially not on the short term. You can notice this how the VR glasses are largely marketed for gaming, while AR has professional applications which -ultimately- aim to make our lives easier.