Sure, but that's a bit of a theoretical argument. The ability for at tech to be co-opted isn't something that prevents a v1 launch. That's something that happens later.
Google isn't going to be the one that creates breakthrough AR because that both requires sustained effort over long periods of time and being savvy about what mix of capabilities and details consumers will like. Google is structurally disadvantaged in both of these, which is why Glass has been a failure to date.
Facebook could make the hardware, they have a good research group. But they're at a big disadvantage for meeting core use cases because they lack any maps team, and place-based info is critical to early AR success. And as a company they're engagement-oriented, not really usefulness-oriented. AR is fundamentally a usefulness product, not an engagement product. VR is much more about engagement.
Google isn't going to be the one that creates breakthrough AR because that both requires sustained effort over long periods of time and being savvy about what mix of capabilities and details consumers will like. Google is structurally disadvantaged in both of these, which is why Glass has been a failure to date.
Facebook could make the hardware, they have a good research group. But they're at a big disadvantage for meeting core use cases because they lack any maps team, and place-based info is critical to early AR success. And as a company they're engagement-oriented, not really usefulness-oriented. AR is fundamentally a usefulness product, not an engagement product. VR is much more about engagement.