[rvz]

> You seem to be making reference to an «overall execution» that appeals to the masses, not to the involved user.

Yes, because that is what counts in terms of market dominance and mass adoption of a product category. This has worked for several companies in reintroducing the smartphone and smartwatches without being 'first'. After targeting the average user, the same companies focus towards the professionals and build a version targeting them.

Thus, it is both the masses and the professionals along side the overall execution of that.

It turns out that Epson's ones appeal more towards B2B2C uses than directly towards the average user. The other way round is true for the smart glasses in this HN article but targets a niche of sports users. Neither have separate versions that targets both markets or is even remotely mass adopted.

Without targeting the masses first, they risk being disrupted by the ones that do and will lose entirely or get acquired once the disruptors begin to target the professionals. Whoever does the overall execution of all of the above for the smart glasses, simply wins.

[mdp2021]

We are currently missing a decent pluralism in production. Smartphone and smartwatches are a example: thousands of inadequate similar models, and with software and systems the "intended user" (say, those of us, probably many, who kept programmable electronic devices in their pockets since the earliest years) does not trust. That «win» is a problem, if you are a consumer needing instruments - instead of just a citizen at the arena watching gladiators fight.

In fact, I am not sure which «smartphone and smartwatches» are those for the professionals in «After targeting the average user, the same companies focus towards the professionals and build a version targeting them».

The Augmented Reality Eyeset technology is ready already for mass adoption - in terms of results. The problem is just with a couple of missing details.