> Whether that was Atari Pong, a ZX Spectrum or a NES, it wasn't ever a market that people "didn't care about".

I'm talking about PCs, so the ZX Spectrum as mentioned above, and others like the C64 and IBM clones in general - these had the additional barrier of seeming to have no real use in the home beyond just a narrow selection of usecases. This was the general consumer consensus - either that or indifference.

You can see that here:

Being seen as in search of a use: https://www.academia.edu/320362/1980s_Home_Coding_the_art_of_amateur_programming

Many PCs collected dust: https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150629134551/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf01313/patterns.htm

They were seen as having no compelling use in the home: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yS4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA66&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

It was often considered longer to do tasks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycVyGb5ID90&t=228s

Another report in the low usage rates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07xxyfLySA&t=761s

Another report on the apparent lack of usecases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8REddtaRG3E&t=1101s

> Same with TVs, to be honest. I don't know what makes you think the "limited programming" had anything to do with it, it's actually almost impossible to find someone of that generation who DIDN'T have a TV.

What generation? I didn't specify a timeframe, but I meant from the mid to late 1920s and 1930s - there just wasn't much enthusiasm for TVs in the home.

> People know exactly what they want and what they'll use them fo

As evidenced above by how people had no idea what they wanted with PCs, this isn't how things usually are. VR is the same, in that people see it only as a gaming device, but the most actively used apps are social apps, which most people without a headset think have no use in VR or don't even know such things exist.

> MR is a bollocks term attributed as some kind of new extension to VR and AR as if it's something different to AR. It's not. In fact it's so woolly that there's no real definition of how it differs to those two, or what it adds to either.

MR has been defined since the 1990s as the spectrum from which VR/AR exists within. It constitutes a device that does both and is indeed different than AR as it is a superset and includes a third term - AV (augmented virtually, augmenting virtual worlds with real objects) which will likely be an important feature for a lot of future VR users in the future. Why? Safety, allowing people to still feel highly immersed while keeping an eye on their sibling, partner, dog, food/drinks, keyboard for typing.

As for pure AR, no one wants/uses AR (as a wearable) because there isn't a single worldwide consumer AR device out there. The market is at best, in the Apple I stages and is awaiting an Apple II consumer launch.

MR hasn't failed and AR hasn't failed. They are both very early on - optical AR especially.