Hard to understand why so many commenters appear to have difficulty understanding that VR and AR are completely different things. Different products, different markets, different purposes and use cases, different operational environments, different hardware and software, different technology, and so on. The only relationship between them is that they go on your face and are primarily visual oriented devices. Same way that computers, tablets, smartphones, smart watches, etc. are all different things that serve different markets and purposes, with the only commonality that they share some fundamentals of technology. Which is why many people (probably almost everyone here) owns and uses products in more than one of these categories - quite commonly all of them. If VR and AR eventually measure up to their promise, most of us will eventually end up owning devices in both categories, because the purpose of one is to put you into a fully artificial reality unconstrained by the limits of the physical world, but the purpose of the other is to enhance your interaction with the real physical world around you. There is a time & place for each, not a question of either/or. Neither does one evolve into the other merely because they share certain enabling technologies.
in practice, most likely VR will reach technological critical mass to become a mass market item before AR. We might find out on June 5th, but sounds like possibly Apple has devised a VR product that can measure up to general market expectations using available technology. It sure seems like practical and desirable AR will require technology still beyond the state of the art. Especially battery technology - hard to see how AR reaches even initial expectations without solid state battery technology, which seems to be perpetually just about here now.
