Apple Cancels Mac-Connected AR Smart Glasses

[johnsawyercjs]

Nah, the phone batteries have been evolving significantly in the last decade. The issue is that we simply took advantage of the extra energy to run more power-hungry hardware so we still end up with iPhone that last for a day with a single charge. Probably, Apple should change the focus and decide what is more important for the user. Maybe we don't need a display with 2622‑by‑1206-pixel resolution at 460 ppi or three-sensors big-ass camera module for cinema/DSLR-level photos and videos or an extra button just to take photos or so much RAM to run the gimmick AI features. Every hardware improvement comes at a cost.

Sure all those things come at a cost to battery life due to some additional power draw, and because they use space that could be used for a larger battery, and we also get the bulging camera bump, etc., but Apple's not going to start removing features from the iPhone just to increase its battery size so it can be dual purpose, both as a phone and as a tethered battery and processing unit for AR glasses. Among other things, that would make using your iPhone pretty clumsy, and drain its battery even faster than currently, making the user wonder if they should be carrying two iPhones. In fact, the iPhone Air will have a few less features but its battery will be slimmer.

If the rumor described in this article is true, Apple has just decided not to tether their glasses to a Mac or an iPhone for purposes of supplementing the glass's computing and battery power. This doesn't address whether Apple might still tether their glasses to an external battery pack, as is done with the AVP, but somehow that seems doubtful, but if they don't do that, it's hard to say how they'd get decent all-day runtime (if that's one of their goals) with just the batteries that can be placed inside the glasses, since all the glasses manufacturers have issues with that, and you can bet Apple will want to cram as much power-hungry circuitry and displays into their glasses as they can manage with the technology.

 

[nikaru]

Sure all those things come at a cost to battery life due to some additional power draw, and because they use space that could be used for a larger battery, and we also get the bulging camera bump, etc., but Apple's not going to start removing features from the iPhone just to increase its battery size so it can be dual purpose, both as a phone and as a tethered battery and processing unit for AR glasses. Among other things, that would make using your iPhone pretty clumsy, and drain its battery even faster than currently, making the user wonder if they should be carrying two iPhones. In fact, the iPhone Air will have a few less features but its battery will be slimmer.

If the rumor described in this article is true, Apple has decided not to do tethered glasses for purposes of supplementing the glass's computing power. This doesn't address whether Apple might still tether their glasses to an external battery pack, as is done with the AVP, but somehow that seems doubtful, but if they don't do that, it's hard to say how they'd get decent all-day runtime with just the batteries that can be placed inside the glasses, since all the glasses manufacturers have issues with that, and you can bet Apple will want to cram as much power-hungry circuitry and displays into their glasses as they can manage with the technology.

Well, if the iPhone Air rumors are true, Apple is definitely considering cutting on key features such as camera capability and probably display quality in order to offer a thin and light iPhone.

 

[johnsawyercjs]

Well, if the iPhone Air rumors are true, Apple is definitely considering cutting on key features such as camera capability and probably display quality in order to offer a thin and light iPhone.

Sure, as I noted in my comment.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

“Apple may have cancelled a product that they might or might have not been working on”
— People who get paid to write this, apparently

 

[rymc02]

“Apple may have cancelled a product that they might or might have not been working on”
— People who get paid to write this, apparently

I'm not sure you know how a "rumor" site works.

 

[Jean Claude]

Bummer, I was really looking forward to AR glasses that look like just normal specs. I didn't know they were trying to tie them to the Mac though - that seems like a BIG mistake (let VisionPro fill that space). I just want glasses that would pair with my phone and could be used as everyday glasses with basic UI features built in ... getting directions .... reading messages, emails, etc.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

I'm not sure you know how a "rumor" site works.

I’ve been following MacRumors since 2008 and trust me, it wasn’t like this

Let me be perfectly clear since my humorous remark obviously wasn’t: my problem isn’t that rumors don’t always come true, my problem is that it makes zero sense to announce the supposed cancellation of a product that was never announced in the first place

Also I’m not sure why you’re telling me I don’t understand what rumors are when there’s people in this thread reacting like all of this is factual information, either gloating that Apple’s AR efforts are failing or expressing disappointment that a product they were looking forward isn’t happening.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I’ve been following MacRumors since 2008 and trust me, it wasn’t like this

Sure not every rumor has a source and ends up being real but we didn’t have this nonsense about rumors being rumored to be cancelled

Let me be perfectly clear since my humorous remark obviously wasn’t: my problem isn’t that rumors don’t always come true, my problem is that it makes zero sense to announce the supposed cancellation of a product that was never announced in the first place

The rumor game has changed a lot

The companies are all trying to stop it a lot harder than they once did, so sources are working with what they can get ... and thus we discuss

If the bar is raised too high for "what qualifies", we'll simply have no rumors to actually discuss
That's not better, is it?

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

The rumor game has changed a lot

The companies are all trying to stop it a lot harder than they once did, so sources are working with what they can get ... and thus we discuss

If the bar is raised too high for "what qualifies", we'll simply have no rumors to actually discuss
That's not better, is it?

You say that but the iPhone X was leaked weeks before its release and there was plenty of tangible evidence for the AVP before its debut, it’s not like Apple used to leak everything before either - I remember the iPad leaks being a huge deal because you didn’t usually get that much information on an Apple product before its unveiling

Let me clarify, my problem isn’t the accuracy of these rumors, my problem is with how all of this is worded: if you say “Apple is working on X” you need a source. The source is obviously anonymous and can be fake, that’s not your fault

But you can’t just take a look at the market and go “yeah I think Apple is gonna do X” and have it published as “Apple is working on X”, that’s my beef with the scene moving from actual rumors to analyst speculation

I suppose it CAN be entertaining to speculate but honestly it’s hard for me to see this as more than bait to drive traffic as people fight over the fate of a product that wasn’t even in the drawing board

 

[turbineseaplane]

But you can’t just take a look at the market and go “yeah I think Apple is gonna do X” and have it published as “Apple is working on X”, that’s my beef with the scene moving from actual rumors to analyst speculation

Totally fair -- I appreciate you clarifying what you meant

 

[surferfb]

I expect that Apple investigates EVERYTHING. If, in fact, they're not investigating everything, then that's malpractice and a lot of the criticisms against Tim Cook's Apple are valid. However, I suspect that almost everything proposed in these forums exists in Apple's labs. Thick iPhone with no camera bump and a whole lot more battery? Sitting somewhere in the labs. AR/VR display that runs using the Mac/Phone's processor? Sitting somewhere in the labs. Foldable phone? In the labs. Cheaper AVP without eyes on the front? iPad that runs MacOS? Both in the labs. Meta RayBans competitor? Kindle competitor? Oura Ring competitor? All sitting in the labs. You get the drift.

In a lot of cases, it's probably apparent very quickly whether there is a there there, or when the technology isn't there yet to allow Apple to produce the item (at Apple's scale, which, as a side note, is a huge part of "Apple's competitors are innovating and Apple isn't" that is often forgotten on MacRumors) at a cost that makes sense. In others, it requires more investigation. However, if you are investigating everything, that means you're going to kill lots of things.

In this example, I could see it being any number of things. Was Apple investigating AR glasses that were tethered to the Mac? Sure. Was it investigated seriously? I'd imagine if Gurman is writing about it, the answer is yes, but I obviously don't know for sure - always could be someone in Apple loved the idea and is mad it got spiked and so leaked it to Gurman. But we also don't know the reason it was killed (or even if it was killed). Maybe they killed it because turns out it's a bad idea, or maybe they killed it because they have some breakthrough elsewhere that means they don't NEED a version that tethers anymore because they "figured it out" (I doubt it, but stranger things have happened), or maybe they've just said "you know what, AR glasses aren't going to be a thing, so we'll cede that to Meta" (also seriously doubt that, to be clear), or maybe the reporting is wrong and it wasn't killed at all.

As I said in another thread recently, given Apple's size and the advent of social media, leaks are going to happen more now than they did earlier in Apple's history. I'm convinced there is no way the iPhone or iPad could have been announced as a surprise today - just don't think it's possible. So we are going to see a lot of "Apple kills x, y, or z" reports, but I don't necessarily think that means anything other than we hear a lot a more about what Apple is investigating now than we used to.

I guess this post is a really long way of saying, while I agree with @Haiku_Oezu that analysts speculating on what Apple is working on shouldn't be the source of rumors, it wouldn't surprise me if the analysts have sources, be that from Apple or the supply chain, and we're just hearing about it more now given Apple's position in the industry and the money to be made in the market (which is the reason analysts exist).

 

[thebart]

AR glasses are best used out in the open world. Does not make sense to tie them to a Mac

 

[paradox00]

With the exception of XReal Air Ultras these aren’t augmented reality products or barely spatial computers. They’re head worn displays. It’s not entirely clear the benchmark of experience in the report of what Vision Product Group is aiming for. But I don’t think there are interested in making head worn displays that have no understanding of reality to augment.

Having said that I am curious how the XReal Air Ultras (their only true AR product they offer) perform.

I wasn't claiming the others were true AR glasses, just that they prove Apple could do it if they wanted to. What I was aiming to say was that the form factor for AR glasses already exists if you can accept a wire (which the article implies is acceptable). The only real issue with the iPhone is battery life, which would be solved with battery pack. So the stated rationale for giving up on that product makes no sense.

I too would also like to see how well the XReal Air2 ultras perform, although I think there are simply unsolved "what is AR good for?" use cases that need to be resolved. I have Viture One Lite glasses that I just use to watch videos (my primary purchase reason). I don't use their "AR" app, although I may once I set up my camper van to have a computer workspace. AR needs well a well implemented OS and software that I'm not sure the current vendors will provide. Would love to see what Apple could do in this space instead of the $3500 one.

 

[John_Blackthorne]

But the facehugger just wants to be loved

Ha! Partly! Partly is the screen. It CONSTANTLY needs to be wiped and you cannot touch the lens or the cameras when handling it, which to me is poor design. Maybe you can handle it without touching the lenses, but it is not easy to do. Then you must use the special cloth to wipe everything down and THEN use it.

But if you missed any spots on the lenses, you have to go back and re-wipe.

That and the weight.

 

[johnsawyercjs]

Ha! Partly! Partly is the screen. It CONSTANTLY needs to be wiped and you cannot touch the lens or the cameras when handling it, which to me is poor design. Maybe you can handle it without touching the lenses, but it is not easy to do. Then you must use the special cloth to wipe everything down and THEN use it.

But if you missed any spots on the lenses, you have to go back and re-wipe.

That and the weight.

I compromised and went with a Quest 3 since the AVP is out of my current budget range, but maybe I'd have a similar smudged lenses issue if it weren't for the fact that I wear glasses which prevent my face and eyelids from contacting the Quest's lenses. Unfortunately, at some point, my glasses rubbed the Quest's right-side lens the wrong way, producing a very faint, short scratch, and while it's barely visible when you look at it, and not visible in use, I wish I'd bought lens protector rings earlier than I did (though I have them installed now).

My fix for the light blocking gasket's pressure and weight has been to buy a halo-style head strap, which shifts the weight of the Quest off my face and onto the head strap, which mostly presses against my forehead and the back of my head instead, which is much less annoying. This has also allowed me to remove the gasket altogether, so that the Quest hangs in front of my face instead of pressing against it (except sometimes lightly touching the bridge of my nose). There are a few halo-style head straps for the AVP too, but I don't know anything about them. The only downside for me, after removing the gasket, is light leakage around the periphery, but often I prefer to be able to see the outside world around the periphery of my vision. I haven't tried reinstalling the Quest's gasket, but that might block light adequately while still allowing the halo head strap to take enough pressure off the face.

 

[surferfb]

Ha! Partly! Partly is the screen. It CONSTANTLY needs to be wiped and you cannot touch the lens or the cameras when handling it, which to me is poor design. Maybe you can handle it without touching the lenses, but it is not easy to do. Then you must use the special cloth to wipe everything down and THEN use it.

But if you missed any spots on the lenses, you have to go back and re-wipe.

That and the weight.

I use it daily, don’t think I’ve wiped it more than once a week and honestly don’t notice a change after I do. So either my eyes are terrible or we have two very different experiences using the thing 🤣

 

[johnsawyercjs]

I use it daily, don’t think I’ve wiped it more than once a week and honestly don’t notice a change after I do. So either my eyes are terrible or we have two very different experiences using the thing 🤣

Same here. I wasn't going to suggest something like Mr. Blackthorne's eyelids might be oiler than mine though. But maybe the geometry of some people's faces and heads, combined with needing to tighten the head strap more than other people need, might push the lenses closer to their face, sometimes causing them to touch.

 

[frownface]

I would say they should just buy Xreal, but a $1 billion valuation is insane lol

and yet apple is worth 3000x that; 1 billion is couch cushion money to apple.
I'd be surprised if apple didn't spend circa that much on this project that they've just canned.

 

[surferfb]

and yet apple is worth 3000x that; 1 billion is couch cushion money to apple.
I'd be surprised if apple didn't spend circa that much on this project that they've just canned.

To give you an idea - assuming sales estimates are correct - if every single one of the (what I am told repeatedly on here is dead product/flop/failure) AVPs sold were base models, Apple would be at $1.4b in revenue for that product.

 

[John_Blackthorne]

I use it daily, don’t think I’ve wiped it more than once a week and honestly don’t notice a change after I do. So either my eyes are terrible or we have two very different experiences using the thing 🤣

Maybe. I have large hands and long fingers (my arms are literally 38 inches long--you can imagine I have long fingers). Handling it without touching glass is not easy. If I see anything that even looks like a smudge I take it off and wipe it down.

 

[John_Blackthorne]

I compromised and went with a Quest 3 since the AVP is out of my current budget range, but maybe I'd have a similar smudged lenses issue if it weren't for the fact that I wear glasses which prevent my face and eyelids from contacting the Quest's lenses. Unfortunately, at some point, my glasses rubbed the Quest's right-side lens the wrong way, producing a very faint, short scratch, and while it's barely visible when you look at it, and not visible in use, I wish I'd bought lens protector rings earlier than I did (though I have them installed now).

My fix for the light blocking gasket's pressure and weight has been to buy a halo-style head strap, which shifts the weight of the Quest off my face and onto the head strap, which mostly presses against my forehead and the back of my head instead, which is much less annoying. This has also allowed me to remove the gasket altogether, so that the Quest hangs in front of my face instead of pressing against it (except sometimes lightly touching the bridge of my nose). There are a few halo-style head straps for the AVP too, but I don't know anything about them. The only downside for me, after removing the gasket, is light leakage around the periphery, but often I prefer to be able to see the outside world around the periphery of my vision. I haven't tried reinstalling the Quest's gasket, but that might block light adequately while still allowing the halo head strap to take enough pressure off the face.

I have a Quest 3 as well. Much better product. Much better. I rarely have issues touching glass on the Quest 3 and it is far more comfortable than the AVP.

I don't care about the materials, price or interoperability--the AVP is a lesser product valuewise.

Anyone who buys an AVP unless they are DIE HARD AR or absolutely need to watch movies on the thing (alone), is foolish.

 

[smulji]

I have a Quest 3 as well. Much better product. Much better. I rarely have issues touching glass on the Quest 3 and it is far more comfortable than the AVP.

I don't care about the materials, price or interoperability--the AVP is a lesser product valuewise.

Anyone who buys an AVP unless they are DIE HARD AR or absolutely need to watch movies on the thing (alone), is foolish.

speaking of Meta and VR, this is from leaked memo by Meta CTO

Meta CTO: 2025 is a 'Make or Break' Year for Meta's XR Ambitions, Internal Memo Reveals

Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth released an internal memo to employees, stating 2025 is going to be “the most critical year” for the company’s XR efforts yet, Business Insider reports. Titled “2025: The Year of Greatness”, the memo (seen below) largely takes an inspirational tone, urging Reality Labs...

www.roadtovr.com

 

[turbineseaplane]

speaking of Meta and VR, this is from leaked memo by Meta CTO

Meta CTO: 2025 is a 'Make or Break' Year for Meta's XR Ambitions, Internal Memo Reveals

Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth released an internal memo to employees, stating 2025 is going to be “the most critical year” for the company’s XR efforts yet, Business Insider reports. Titled “2025: The Year of Greatness”, the memo (seen below) largely takes an inspirational tone, urging Reality Labs...

www.roadtovr.com

Whereas 2024 already "broke" the AVP ... didn't even take a year

 

[smulji]

Whereas 2024 already "broke" the AVP ... didn't even take a year

It's not over, yet.

 

[johnsawyercjs]

I have a Quest 3 as well. Much better product. Much better. I rarely have issues touching glass on the Quest 3 and it is far more comfortable than the AVP.

Sounds like the lenses in the AVP are a lot closer to the user's eyes than in the Quest 3, even with the light gasket in place on both.

If you find the AVP's face gasket is more uncomfortable than the Quest 3's, then since I find the Quest 3's gasket to be pretty painful after an hour or two, I can only imagine how uncomfortable I might be with the AVP's gasket. I'm glad that the more common path to XR hardware development has become the glasses and goggles form factors, rather than the huge light gasket face hugger design of the AVP, Quest, etc.