Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Glasses Will Reportedly Use Sony's 'Cutting-Edge' OLED Micro-Displays to Deliver 'Real AR Experience'

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,228
39,036


Earlier this week, Japanese publication Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun reported that Sony will supply Apple with OLED microdisplays for its widely rumored AR/VR glasses, as spotted by Mac Otakara. The report has since been corroborated by display industry analyst Ross Young, who said multiple sources have informed him that Apple is indeed planning to use Sony's microdisplay technology for its head-mounted accessory.

arglassesyay.jpg
A generic mockup of AR glasses​

According to FRAMOS, a supplier of embedded vision technologies, Sony's OLED microdisplays are small, cutting-edge displays with an ultra-fast response rate, ultra-high contrast, a wide color gamut for precise color reproduction, high luminance, low reflectance, and other benefits that would be ideal for Apple's glasses:
OLED (Organic LED) Microdisplays from SONY® Semiconductor Solutions are cutting-edge small video displays providing fast response, high-contrast image technology and precise color reproduction. The very thin displays bring greater visual impact to applications in AR/VR/MR, broadcasting, electronic view finders, industrial maintenance and medical. With large aperture and high luminance, a wide color spectrum, less reflectance and a high dynamic range they operate in extreme speed without showing any motion blur.
Click to expand...
Sony's microdisplays also have integrated drivers for a thin and light design, and power-saving modes are available for longer battery life.

sony-oled-microdisplays.jpg

Young said the glasses will use a 0.5-inch display with a 1,280x960 resolution, and these specs appear to correspond with Sony's ECX337A component. According to Sony's website, this microdisplay in particular has a max brightness of 1,000 nits, an ultra-high contrast of 100,000:1, and an ultra-fast response rate of 0.01 ms or less.

The high contrast provided by Sony's microdisplays allows an additional information layer to appear seamlessly, and not as an overlay. "This information is simply added to the background for a 'real AR' experience," according to FRAMOS.

sony-high-contrast-apple-glasses-article.jpg

According to the Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun, Apple plans to release its AR/VR glasses in 2021, but analyst Ming-Chi Kuo does not expect a release until 2022 at the earliest. Young also believes that the glasses will be introduced in the first half of 2022. For a recap of all rumors to date, be sure to read our detailed Apple Glasses roundup.

Article Link: Apple Glasses Will Reportedly Use Sony's 'Cutting-Edge' OLED Micro-Displays to Deliver 'Real AR Experience'
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/10/22/apple-glasses-sony-oled-microdisplays/
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U
Very curious to see what Apple comes up with. Tim has dropped enough hints about AR that I expect it’ll be pretty compelling (he doesn’t casually hint about many other things the way he does about AR).

Of course, there will be a contingent along to say, “Did you learn nothing from Google Glass?” Yes, yes we did. We learned that Google can’t be trusted to hold onto a product until it’s ready to ship, they throw crappy prototypes out there in public and give the whole endeavor a bad name, and then throw in the towel. That’s not how Apple generally operates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tongxinshe, jeffirl, Stargher and 13 others
These specifications are not sufficient for a high quality AR experiences. 1000 Nits with no opacity control over a moderate to wide FOV is not useable outdoors, so these will only work okay in dimly lit interiors unless they have a very narrow FOV (which I suspect, because indoors only is kinda useless). We know this because both Magic Leap and HoloLens have similarly bright 1000 Nit displays and both are only really usable indoors, and with tinted visors at that to reduce ambient light. The resolution is also very low for anything other than a very narrow field of view. Apple will want to maintain "retina" display quality, which means you're going to be limited to a 10 or 15 degree field of view.

Essentially, these display specs only make sense if they are extremely narrow FoV so the brightness remains high enough to be viewable outdoors (it's extremely unlikely they have per pixel masking solved in a small headset, current laboratory prototypes occupy a small table with optics and weigh many kilos). Think of an improved Google Glass style experience and you're probably on the right track. This is not going to be *anything close* to a wide FOV futuristic AR experience.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: duanepatrick and aylk
Everything Apple has does with AR to this point has been a proof of concept for this product. No one wants to look through their iPhone view finder for more than few seconds.

This has the opportunity to augment unreal amounts of your environment. The possibilities are staggering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: insomniac86
CarlJ said:
Very curious to see what Apple comes up with. Tim has dropped enough hints about AR that I expect it’ll be pretty compelling (he doesn’t casually hint about many other things the way he does about AR).

Of course, there will be a contingent along to say, “Did you learn nothing from Google Glass?” Yes, yes we did. We learned that Google can’t be trusted to hold onto a product until it’s ready to ship, they throw crappy prototypes out there in public and give the whole endeavor a bad name, and then throw in the towel. That’s not how Apple generally operates.
Click to expand...

Although AR glasses present interesting use-cases (and invasions of privacy too- i.e. glassholes), I'm still not convinced the wider general public will accept having to wear glasses, especially by people who don't wear them to begin with. Apple will have its work cut out trying to market them, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vanilla35, filchermcurr, brucemr and 1 other person
iReality85 said:
Although AR glasses present interesting use-cases (and invasions of privacy too- i.e. glassholes), I'm still not convinced the wider general public will accept having to wear glasses, especially by people who don't wear them to begin with. Apple will have its work cut out trying to market them, IMO.
Click to expand...

That's a fair view.

While not many people wear reading glasses, majority of the population do wear sunnies.
I also recall EVERYONE saying Apple Watch - "Ptfff.. Who the hell wears a watch anymore?"
And truth is at the time, most people didn't wear a watch unless it was a luxury watch to look the part.
However these days, I see smart watches on almost everyones wrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aylk, iReality85, NightFox and 1 other person
insomniac86 said:
That's a fair view.

While not many people wear reading glasses, majority of the population do wear sunnies.
I also recall EVERYONE saying Apple Watch - "Ptfff.. Who the hell wears a watch anymore?"
And truth is at the time, most people didn't wear a watch unless it was a luxury watch to look the part.
However these days, I see smart watches on almost everyones wrist.
Click to expand...
I don't know. People started with fitness bands so moving into a smart watch was a natural progression. There's no precedent for these glasses.
 
CarlJ said:
Of course, there will be a contingent along to say, “Did you learn nothing from Google Glass?” Yes, yes we did. We learned that Google can’t be trusted to hold onto a product until it’s ready to ship, they throw crappy prototypes out there in public and give the whole endeavor a bad name, and then throw in the towel. That’s not how Apple generally operates.
Click to expand...
That's a very inaccurate representation of Google Glass. Glass was ready to ship. The problem was it was shipped to the wrong audience. Consumers reacted negatively to the high price and invasive nature of the product. Couple that with Google's privacy reputation and you have a product that was dead in the water before it even launched. Lesson learned. They didn't throw in the towel with Glass. They redirected the focus of the project to an area of concentration they should have pursued from the beginning: Enterprise; where they are on their 2nd Edition of the product.

What some learned (and many already knew) is Google is not good at higher level consumer facing sales. It's not their forte' Their Pixel lines (tablet, phone, laptop) are evidence of that. But they didn't give AR a bad name (tons of companies are still working on it) and they didn't throw in the towel.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: CarlJ and Vanilla35
I don’t really understand at all how the transparent display would work, but I would have thought it would be ideal for outside, because the sunlight would act at the backlighting, and make the image as bright as it needs to be. Then the 1000 nits would be to enhance and control the image when needed.

Does that make sense? Or am I way off?

kmanmx said:
These specifications are not sufficient for a high quality AR experiences. 1000 Nits with no opacity control over a moderate to wide FOV is not useable outdoors, so these will only work okay in dimly lit interiors unless they have a very narrow FOV (which I suspect, because indoors only is kinda useless). We know this because both Magic Leap and HoloLens have similarly bright 1000 Nit displays and both are only really usable indoors, and with tinted visors at that to reduce ambient light. The resolution is also very low for anything other than a very narrow field of view. Apple will want to maintain "retina" display quality, which means you're going to be limited to a 10 or 15 degree field of view.

Essentially, these display specs only make sense if they are extremely narrow FoV so the brightness remains high enough to be viewable outdoors (it's extremely unlikely they have per pixel masking solved in a small headset, current laboratory prototypes occupy a small table with optics and weigh many kilos). Think of an improved Google Glass style experience and you're probably on the right track. This is not going to be *anything close* to a wide FOV futuristic AR experience.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vanilla35
I’m still of the meh persuasion when it comes to AR. There are a few legitimate and clear use cases for it but as a general consumer electronics device? I just don’t see it yet. After the novelty factor wears off, will people find enough utility to keep it going? The Apple Watch didn’t have a winner until it shifted gears from fashion and silly accessory to being fitness focused. What will be the must have aspect of AR that solves real user problems that aren’t solved through other means - beyond the few known use cases.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Vanilla35, Deliro and filchermcurr
I don't understand why people continue to compare Google Glass to wearable AR devices. Google Glass did not utilize AR whatsoever. It was a simple heads-up display combined with a voice assistant and a few other components... that is not even close to what augmented realty is. Heads-up displays have only one factor going for them: convenience/readiness. Wearable AR will have nearly unlimited use cases in the future and is an entirely new product category that will undoubtedly revolutionize the tech world like the smartphone did. It's only a matter of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aylk
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back