Almost as unlikely as people walking around in public with their eyes glued to an iPhone clutched in their hands...
There is a serious argument behind the mickey-taking: Apple's - er - vision - for AVP was clearly to promote widespread serious applications of augmented reality, some of which rather did assume that users were going to wear their goggles more-or-less all day at work - otherwise it would be easier to just pick up an iDevice or look at a screen than keep taking your goggles on and off. I don't think current tech is light and comfortable enough (or has sufficient battery life) for that.
OK, shoot for where the ball is going to be, not where it is - but in that respect maybe Apple are shooting at where the stadium is going to be built in 10 years' time... They have history there: some people loved their Apple Newtons, too.
Apart from making your workgroup look like a Daft Punk tribute band, anybody managing AVP is going to have to deal with people who can't/won't use goggles because of eyestrain, headaches, nausea (stereoscopic '3D' does tend to send conflicting signals to the brain), the need for expensive prescription lenses - or just complaints over messing up your hair. Then you risk equity issues if non-AVP wearers feel sidelined or excluded from virtual meetings etc. (or the hammer will come straight down because the boss is the one with the Helmet Hair Syndrome...)
Of course, the "virtual eyes" on the screen are pure "welcome to uncanny valley" and guaranteed to scare small children and enrage dogs... but if Apple can program them to maintain eye contact while the user looks out of the nearest window I guess they could find a market...
So (to try and drag this vaguely back on topic) there's often a serious side to mockery (even if, sometimes, the mocker can't articulate it) - especially if you step back and look at the bigger picture rather than your preferences.