I think it's devolved beyond that into a marketing term, I've seen realtime mean anything from milliseconds to hours. I'd mostly interpret it as "faster than what you already have/are used to".
That's what I hate about sales&marketing - it will fuck up everything that's cool.
And journalism, I guess is to blame too (they are marketers too, competing for our attention). My pet peeve: ever heard about a company "going nuclear" or taking "a nuclear option"? That phrase should not be used to mean anything less serious than threatening to deploy an actual ICBM.
In machine-assisted translation, "realtime" is whatever speed (milliseconds) is fast enough to have a conversation without pausing. In business, "realtime" is whatever speed (minutes/hours) is fast enough that the feed of information outpaces your ability to absorb and change strategy in response to the information.
Interestingly, VR technology is "realtime" by both definitions: any perceptible latency (layman's definition) is unacceptable and causes feelings of "VR sickness"—so hard limits on frame delivery (technical definition) must be set. Or, "VR must be hard realtime in order to be realtime."
That's actually a reasonable definition that could lead to re-interpretation and new usage by lay people. VR is a good example. Matter of fact, we did use that in game design because we had to differentiate between what had no delay and the pre-rendered graphics used in cut-scenes. We normally just said gameplay footage but some said "rendered in real-time." Those using VRML (the "VWWW") on dial-up knew what the opposite of real-time was. ;)
As though without it there would be some sort of batch processing delay when driving the car...?