>If apple really believed this were a revolutionary product they would have done the entire keynote with every presenter wearing and using the device.
To what purpose? At best, we'd all get to see how the virtual eyes thing worked, and that's about it. You wouldn't see them do any interactions with it, even if they were replacing their teleprompters it would all be automated scrolling. So what would be the purpose of putting it on the presenter's faces?
They're on that stage to sell us the vision of AR improving all of our lives. If they can't even be f'ed to do it in front of the most captive and interested audience for the device... it is a major tell and the device is doomed.
Think about it, if even the presenters on stage have no use for it or don't want to be seen using it then why would you?
But how does them using it while presenting help sell it to me? What use case are they demonstrating by doing so that is more compelling in that case? I don't expect them to have airpods in their ears when announcing the next airpod (or even the first). I don't expect presenters to be sitting in a car when they announce a new model. If Nike introduces new running shoes, I don't expect to see the presenters in those shoes on stage at a business convention. When telling me about a new food, I don't expect the presenters to be stuffing their faces all presentation long. Likewise it would be distracting as hell for presenters to be working out while announcing a new fitness routine or machine.
So again, what is the expected value you think there would be in the presenter wearing the device that wasn't provided otherwise in the rest of the presentation?
To what purpose? At best, we'd all get to see how the virtual eyes thing worked, and that's about it. You wouldn't see them do any interactions with it, even if they were replacing their teleprompters it would all be automated scrolling. So what would be the purpose of putting it on the presenter's faces?