[laumars]

> The technology stack to support Google Glass is almost entirely distinct from the technology stack which supports in-phone AR. Maybe both are AR, but then all that means is it's not a particularly useful term, because it can mean things that are entirely different from both a technology and user perspective.

Bullshit. The technology cinemas use for their stereoscopic 3D is totally different to the technology used for Samsung’s 3D TVs, and different again from the Nintendo VirtualBoy which is also different from Google Cardboard. Yet all of the aforementioned are stereoscopic 3D.

Not every technical term depends on a technical implementation.

> So I think we need to define terms

It is a defined term. You just seem intent on moving the goal posts for some reason.

> (But moving about a bit of furniture through the camera view on your mobile phone is very different to something like magic leap, or oculus passthrough).

I agree. But 30 years after the first time I tried VR and the whole industry is still basically a novelty. Whereas AR is already providing practical value to millions (eg Google Translate) simply because it is more accessible and has more scope for useful utilities.

Which brings us full back circle to the very point I opened with. ;)