I was curious if the micro led display could withstand more heat than the Quest headsets but I can't find anyone testing (accidentally or otherwise) on an actual device.
As far as tracking goes, the AVP has downward facing cameras and a lidar system that presumably works as well in the sun as their phone lidars.
The definitions of these terms are certainly not fixed or universally agreed-upon, but on the spectrum from VR to MR to AR, the Vision Pro is definitely not at the AR end of things, and is very much not the class of device that the term "AR glasses" refers to.
The problems that "AR glasses" have with operating outside in full daylight are inherent to a class of devices that does not include the Vision Pro. To the extent that the Vision Pro works better outdoors than whatever "AR glasses" OP had in mind, it's because the Vision Pro is a fundamentally different kind of device with wildly different tradeoffs and design goals.
So to summarize: unlike other AR glasses, it isn't unusable in sunlight, because it uses cameras to provide augmented reality, rather than something else.
Because a refusal to understand what someone means when it's obvious, doesn't (as the delusion would have it) make that person look intelligent or win them imaginary internet points. It's just annoying.
You are correcting his terminology using a categorization (AR, MR, VR, XR, etc) which is not standardized or even commonly used. So what's the point of correcting?
The simplest common-use definitions are:
* Augmented: combines synthetic and real-world imagery
