Apple's 2026 Smart Glasses: Five Key Features to Expect

[ArtOfWarfare]

The real question is whether they can replace my actual glasses that I wear everyday anyways because I need them.

If they can, they have a real shot at taking off in a way no other VR headset has.

Meta failed because they made them sunglasses instead of regular glasses. Google failed because it was a third set of glasses that nobody needed for anything.

Give the world augmented vision. Make them glasses for everyone that does everything - no prescription needed, they auto-calibrate to your eye or whatever. It's just a screen instead of a lens so it automatically dims (like transition lens, but much quicker and a much wider response) and it automatically brightens (like something the military would want.) Give it zooming so I don't need binoculars or a magnifying glass. Give it zoom-out so I can have the equivalent of a helmet with mirrors. Literally give me eyes in the back of my head so I can keep an eye on one kid while I'm taking care of another. And of course, make it the world's fastest camera - never miss a picture because your phone was in your pocket.

Boom. There you go. I described "smart glasses" that you could price at $5K and you'd have no shortage of demand.

This wasn't hard to think of. I don't think it'd be all that difficult to make... all these companies that just put out their "AI Pin" products or whatever demonstrated we have plenty of capacity for designing/building wearable devices... just the feature set is utterly uselessly wrong. Nobody wants AI. I just described the actual next blue ocean.

 

[sflagel]

It's not about what I personally "want", it's about justifying buying yet another gadget that will not contribute to anything beneficial. I wear my watch for fitness and AirPods for music and notifications, and everything else on iPhone. Why do I need to purchase a pair of smart glasses that will not at least replace one of my existing devices?

People even still underestimate how much of what we used to do on the iPhone can now be done with the Apple Watch and AirPods. Leave it at home.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

People even still underestimate how much of what we used to do on the iPhone can now be done with the Apple Watch and AirPods. Leave it at home.

I'm a big fan of using your phone less and I don't know what percentage of people have the cell model (with cell service enabled), but I don't personally know anyone with the cellular Apple Watch. The one person I know with a Ultra doesn't have it enabled.

I had it for enabled for 6 to 9ish months, and ended up turning it off because I never used it. I'm an extremely light iPhone user, though.

 

[Tig_one]

Seriously, imagine if your iPhone was entirely Siri dependent for all functions.

I'd get a different phone probably by next week.

 

[Nada Ting]

Being well indoctrinated consumers, you'll buy anything they put in front of your face.

 

[cardfan]

I honestly hope that Apple doesn't release this device. These are currently (rightfully) 100% associated as creepy and privacy-violating devices that no-one truly wants to wear because of that. And even for those left that still do want to wear them for some use case, they're not practical because they're too big (yes even the new meta raybans).

You'd guess Apple would have learned from their advertisement fiasco with the creepy situation of parents filming their kids birthday wearing their Apple Vision Pro.

All perfectly legal. Smile you’re on a camera in public most of the time.

 

[MNJohn]

Apple is working on a set of smart glasses to rival the Meta Ray-Bans, and now that Meta has debuted glasses that include a display, Apple wants to speed up development on its first-generation model. Work has stopped on the next Vision Pro so that Apple can prioritize getting the glasses to market.

They'll Be Fashion Forward

Like the initial versions of the Apple Watch, the Apple Glasses will be a fashion accessory rather than clunky frames with limited style availability.

Apple is planning to offer multiple frame and temple material options for a personalized look. There needs to be space for a battery, a chip, and multiple cameras, so it's not clear how slim Apple can get the glasses, but different color, size, and shape options are likely.

Meta had limited color and style options for its Ray-Bans to begin with, but over the last few years, it's added more shapes and colors, and expanded to Oakley frames.

Siri Will Play a Major Role

Apple can't release smart glasses until it has a functional, next-generation version of Siri. Controls will be largely voice based, which means Siri needs to be intelligent enough to understand what you want and act on it.

Apple rearchitected Siri with large language models, and a smarter Siri that's more like Claude, Gemini, or ChatGPT is coming in spring 2026.

You should be able to ask Siri all kinds of questions, and with cameras integrated into Apple's glasses, Siri could be able to do things like provide feedback on what you're seeing, look things up for you, translate foreign languages, remember where you parked or put your keys, offer instructions to help you with tasks, play music, send messages, and more.

Apple will want to match many of the features of the Meta Ray-Bans, and Meta AI can do all of the above.

Rumored Apple Glasses Features

Apple's first-generation glasses won't include a display like Meta's latest Ray-Ban Display glasses, but they will have the same AI features, cameras, and audio capabilities of Meta's less expensive Ray-Bans.

We don't know everything about Apple's glasses yet, but we've heard rumors about some of the capabilities that will be included.

• Take photos
  
• Record video
  
• Play audio, including podcasts, music, and audiobooks
  
• Offer directions
  
• Answer questions
  
• Describe your surroundings
  
• Identify plants, animals, landmarks and more with Visual Intelligence
  
• Make phone calls
  
• Send messages
  
• Translate languages

You'll Still Need Your iPhone

The Apple glasses will have an Apple-designed chip that's based on the chip in the Apple Watch, but you're still going to need an iPhone to use them. They won't be able to operate standalone, and will need a connection to an iPhone for AI processing and other features.

We don't know what the battery life will be like, but handing tasks off to the iPhone should help extend battery life.

We Could See the Glasses as Soon as 2026

Apple is speeding up development on the smart glasses, and current rumors suggest Apple could show them off in late 2026. It sounds like Apple might announce them in 2026 and then launch them in early 2027.

There is no word yet on how much the glasses might cost, but Meta Ray-Bans start at $380 and Apple may want to price its version competitively.

Read More

We have an Apple Glasses guide that aggregates all of the rumors that we've heard so far. We update it regularly when new info comes out.

Article Link: Apple's 2026 Smart Glasses: Five Key Features to Expect

Here’s my list of the five things to expect:

1) Product will be delayed
2) Release software will be buggy
3) Siri will be useless
4) Tim Cook will look goofy wearing a pair during the announcement
5) Product will either never come to market or will be cancelled after first generation

 

[KENESS]

There's no way a real person wrote this. Maybe I'm autistic and don't get sarcasm

Could be. Seeing as they have done exactly this in the past. More than once.

 

[egdiroh]

I don't know that the features are there for me to go after this, especially as someone that is already a glasses wearer.

 

[Jason2000]

Given that Apple has addressed design challenges with techniques like notches and plateaus, it might do the same with glasses and redefine what people expect glasses to look like.View attachment 2562869

Oh man. Someone should block and report you for posting these. Horrible...lol.

 

[laptech]

If Siri is to play a major role with the glasses then I can envisage there will be people out there who will target Apple glass wearers and shout for Siri to do stuff much to the wearers annoyance, provided the wearers will have left the default options of siri left on. siri can be trained to respond to only the owners voice.

 

[Jason2000]

No one wants to talk to themselves (i.e., Siri) in public. I just can’t fathom these are going to do any better than the AVP. And I own a Vision Pro.

I don't agree. People already walk around with Airpods in their ears talking to others on the phone like they are the only ones in existence. This would be no different.

 

[Blackstick]

At 41, I still don't require corrective lenses but I assume readers are coming before my 50th birthday. This is timed well.

 

[jicon]

Four eyes revenge. All you 20/20 people can go pound sand...

Next in the pipeline... release innovative left hand only computing tools. Erasable ink pens were the bane of my existence.

 

[lgochoa]

As shareholder, it's time to change Tim we need a new CEO. We need more innovation not to copy the competition.

 

[anthonymoody]

Give the world augmented vision. Make them glasses for everyone that does everything - no prescription needed, they auto-calibrate to your eye or whatever. It's just a screen instead of a lens so it automatically dims (like transition lens, but much quicker and a much wider response) and it automatically brightens (like something the military would want.) Give it zooming so I don't need binoculars or a magnifying glass. Give it zoom-out so I can have the equivalent of a helmet with mirrors. Literally give me eyes in the back of my head so I can keep an eye on one kid while I'm taking care of another. And of course, make it the world's fastest camera - never miss a picture because your phone was in your pocket.

Boom. There you go. I described "smart glasses" that you could price at $5K and you'd have no shortage of demand.

This wasn't hard to think of. I don't think it'd be all that difficult to make... all these companies that just put out their "AI Pin" products or whatever demonstrated we have plenty of capacity for designing/building wearable devices... just the feature set is utterly uselessly wrong. Nobody wants AI. I just described the actual next blue ocean.

In your scenario, if I'm Apple, I buy Warby-Parker and push the smart glasses through them. Tons of different styles, all sorts of infrastructure for eyeglasses, etc.

 

[bmark]

The real question is whether they can replace my actual glasses that I wear everyday anyways because I need them.

If they can, they have a real shot at taking off in a way no other VR headset has.

Meta failed because they made them sunglasses instead of regular glasses. Google failed because it was a third set of glasses that nobody needed for anything.

Give the world augmented vision. Make them glasses for everyone that does everything - no prescription needed, they auto-calibrate to your eye or whatever. It's just a screen instead of a lens so it automatically dims (like transition lens, but much quicker and a much wider response) and it automatically brightens (like something the military would want.) Give it zooming so I don't need binoculars or a magnifying glass. Give it zoom-out so I can have the equivalent of a helmet with mirrors. Literally give me eyes in the back of my head so I can keep an eye on one kid while I'm taking care of another. And of course, make it the world's fastest camera - never miss a picture because your phone was in your pocket.

Boom. There you go. I described "smart glasses" that you could price at $5K and you'd have no shortage of demand.

This wasn't hard to think of. I don't think it'd be all that difficult to make... all these companies that just put out their "AI Pin" products or whatever demonstrated we have plenty of capacity for designing/building wearable devices... just the feature set is utterly uselessly wrong. Nobody wants AI. I just described the actual next blue ocean.

Apple can't even get Siri right! Trusting them with your eyes might make you blind.

 

[ericinboston]

The whole "you'll need to have your iPhone within range to use 100% of these features" is such a lame design. Why do I need to have my $1000+ iPhone near my, very likely, $500 smartglasses? Why can't Apple do this:

1)Apple should be able to stuff some kind of CPU, logic, and storage in the frame of the glasses. Should be able to easily store 256GB of data. Micro SD cards are $20 for 256GB and $35 for 512GB anywhere online.
2)The glasses sync/download all kinds of what's-around-me-relevant map data, "visual data" (like trees, flowers, birds, stuff around town/state, landmarks, restaurants, etc.) to the glasses WHEN the 2 devices are nearby. When they're not near each other, the glasses use the latest data download which I will call this mode "offline".
3)When "offline", the glasses should have 256GB worth of data regarding where the person was last located. So if 2 hours ago the 2 devices were last synced in Boston, then when in offline mode I should have relevant data regarding Boston (landmarks, roads, phone numbers, birds, trees, flowers, restaurants, famous Bostonians, historical Boston sports players, upcoming Boston sports games, etc.) AS WELL AS non-Boston-relevant data (what a backpack looks like, what a car vs. bike looks like, translate languages, etc.)


I can't imagine how this is going to be a good product...needing to be tied 100% to the iphone, constantly bluetoothing every. single. thing. you. ask. to the iphone. The glasses can literally DO NOTHING by themselves (according to the article).

I understand most people will have their iPhone with them most/all of the time. Fine. But that doesn't mean your iPhone is on the internet 100% of the time...so constantly needing to bluetooth the iPhone and have it ask the mothership a question and get a response does you no good when you're out in the woods or on a boat or a train or simply have quite a few dead zones in your location.

 

[ericinboston]

As shareholder, it's time to change Tim we need a new CEO. We need more innovation not to copy the competition.

Apple has been riding the iPhone/iPad gravy train farrrrrrrrrr too long. How stockholders don't see this is beyond me.

I don't expect Apple to come out with revolutionary new products every year but Apple has just been doing very little innovation the past 10 years:

1. Apple should have created a great Apple television. A tv. Just like Bose has/had so many great a/v entertainment systems, Apple could have been the Bose of television.
2. Siri, as we all know, as been terrible since birth.
3. The Homepod was a disaster.
4. The Watch is quite nice but it's been doing nothing for the past 5 or so releases. I find absolutely no reason to replace my Series 7.
5. They killed the iPod. Do they know how many families/parents/kids-under-13 would love to have a great music player and also takes fair video/pix?! No...we are not buying our 11 year old kids $1000 iPhones with 6000 other temptations into terrible apps, marketing, and the bowels of the internet.
6. Apple could have made some kind of higher-end digital camera for $800 that is close to many DSLrs but AT LEAST far better than iPhone technology. Stuff a great wifi/sync ability to your iPhone and Mac and that camera would sell like hotcakes. I've tried a few DSLrs with wifi and they are just clunky and then I have to install apps. Just automatically sync it to Photos and then I can quickly send the pic to family via the iPhone/iPad. That's all the camera has to do: take pix and sync them with your iDevice or Mac. Done. Simple.

 

[turbineseaplane]

1. They killed the iPod. Do they know how many families/parents/kids-under-13 would love to have a great music player and also takes fair video/pix?! No...we are not buying our 11 year old kids $1000 iPhones with 6000 other temptations into terrible apps, marketing, and the bowels of the internet.

This problem is the result of Apple getting addicted to that sweet juicy IAP revenue lockdown on iOS.

It's completely perverted their incentives and flies in the face of how they traditionally would have been all about the best, safest, most private and healthiest devices and experiences for families & those with kids.

 

[magicschoolbus]

Siri wil play a major role? say no more - I'm in

 

[gazmac]

Zuck’s keynote demo fail aside, the Meta Display glasses reviews have me sold at this point. I have the Meta Ray-Ban’s and they are pretty good. Why Apple has waited this long to get into the glasses market (Vision Pro mess doesn’t count) is beyond me. Glad they are now apparently moving at speed to do so. But they are going to have to ship something better than what Meta is doing with Display and it sounds like they won’t be with their first iteration. It is just so sad that Apple seems to have lost the Jobs injunction to think differently. The car failure, the Vision Pro waste of time ( unless some of that tech can be ported to glasses) – the innovation stopped a while ago. I even upgraded my iPhone last year in the hope that Apple had cracked AI but I was sold a dud with Apple Intelligence. Hoping Apple does glasses right and delivers some real wow. Last chance saloon.

 

[duranduran]

Right? I miss the days when apple simply released the first personal computers, first digital music players, first smart phone, first tablet, first wireless earphones, first VR headset, etc...

I think all of those items can be dated pre-Apple. *shrugs* Easiest is Research In Motion's Blackberry.

 

[sflagel]

I'm a big fan of using your phone less and I don't know what percentage of people have the cell model (with cell service enabled), but I don't personally know anyone with the cellular Apple Watch. The one person I know with a Ultra doesn't have it enabled.

I had it for enabled for 6 to 9ish months, and ended up turning it off because I never used it. I'm an extremely light iPhone user, though.

Interesting. Teaches me not to project myself to others. I would never buy an Apple Watch that is not mobile phone enabled. That’s the whole point of having an Apple Watch.

What would be the purpose of an Apple Watch if you have a phone on you? (no, please don’t say the silly fitness rings, or heart rate monitor or such nonsense - you can have those with a £20 wrist band that only needs to be charged once a week) Interesting, indeed.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Interesting. Teaches me not to project myself to others. I would never buy an Apple Watch that is not mobile phone enabled. That’s the whole point of having an Apple Watch.

What’s the purpose of an Apple Watch if you have a phone on you (no, please don’t say the silly fitness rings, or heart rate monitor or such nonsense - you can have those with £20 wrist band that only needs to be charged once a week)? Interesting, indeed.

I'm a Garmin user, but I could be swayed to an AW cellular model as my way to get a "small phone" .. But I want and need it to be a more standalone (no iPhone ever required) experience.

I thought for sure by now they would have gone that way, at least optionally.
I remain really disappointed with how little they've actually done with the Watch after all these years.