Kuo: Apple's AR Glasses to Launch in 2020 as iPhone Accessory

[lionsy]

I very much doubt Tim Cook will announce an AR product until he can walk on stage with a pair of glasses almost identical to his own and pull a "..And I've been wearing them this whole time..".

Apple have learned a lot from the Apple Watch, if all the processing power is going to be on the iPhone, they're going to sell frames and prescription lenses, etc.

 

[Cosmosent]

It's gonna be Offered Up as a FREEBIE, to anyone who Buys a High-End 2019 iPhone.

They probably didn't plan it that way, but AAPL is now Out of Favor in the Stock Market, & Cook & Co want to keep their jobs.

So, it will be offered up as a FREEBIE.

I believe AAPL will pitch it as a "Bundle" ... get our cool, new AR Glasses with the purchase of any 2nd-Gen XS or XS Max !

 

[JimmyHook]

Sceptical. How can the tech be there?

Look what MS released? hololense 2. not very impressive, and the price tag. jesus

And also Magic Leap, not very impressive at all.

How can Apple possible create something that is ready for mainstream 2020? Also, carmack said AR is 3 - 5 years behind VR in regard of pure tech. VR is not ready for mainstream yet, and the displey tech etc etc with screen door is not very impressive. Not sure how apple can pull this off?

Also, what happend to: Its not about being first, its about being best?

You are criticizing an unreleased speculative product for not being best??? Also, maybe the tech is there at Apple and nowhere else. A little thing called invention?

 

[iPadCary]

This not ready for primetime boondoggle will be the downfall of Tim Apple.
Finally ....
[doublepost=1552094957][/doublepost]

"When someone finally does this right,
we could be looking at a tech shift as big as the iPhone/smartphone."

Nobody's saying it won't be.
MR has always been touted as the next standard for computing: QWERTY/Mouse/Touch/MR.

What we are saying, and what both Magic Leap & Microsoft have clearly shown,
is that the tech is nowhere near what it has to be in order for that "next standard" to happen.
Wait a few more years and then we'll see ....
The "Apple Has Surprises In Store!" wishful thinking can only go so far, you know.

This will prove to be Tim Apple's downfall.

 

[EvilEvil]

Ah, yes, because "what other people think of me when I use it" is high on my list of things to consider before purchase.

I bet you wear shirts with big logos too.

 

[Gogeta-Blue]

How??? How, you ask?

That's the Apple for you, they seem clueless and absent, and then they pop out of nowhere and show the competition how it should be done.


And then... everyone returns to their drawing boards.

sorry to disagree but I think apple are the ones that have to return to the drawing board
but I do agreed that they are clueless and absent
some times is not what it seems, but other times it is what it seems because it is what it is

 

[radiologyman]

This is indeed way of the future. When done right, possibilities are endless. People nowdays need to stare (usually motionless) to get visual information from printed media and screens/monitors/tvs at work, home and during commute. This already consumes most of the awake time for some. Rich contextual information that is added to your field of view and manipulated in 3d space in real time can let you travel/exercise while studying college material or working... I really hope Apple has the right ideas and first gen glasses will be good enough.

 

[shiseiryu1]

Presumably the glasses won't have a cable running from the phone, so what high-bandwidth low-latency video transmission technology would be used?

They might not need that type of technology if they start out with a vector-based interface. The 1st gen will probably be a glorified CarPlay for your glasses; check email, messages, get directions, etc. For all of that you wouldn’t need crazy bandwidth.

Now if they’re going to project high-red graphics onto the real world (like the iPad AR demos) then yeah that’s a whole other issue, however, I’d be surprised if 1st gen was like that. Apple doesn’t care about gaming in general so the glasses will be more about “staying connnected” and “convenience” I suspect.
[doublepost=1552101520][/doublepost]

I’m curious what examples you have in mind of Apple leading in the tech field. Every single thread I’ve seen here about Microsoft, and now Samsung, copying Apple has always included people making the point that Apple is rarely first with anything.

I think even Apple would make the point that they choose to be right, not first.

Ditto on pricing. Back in the old Mac/PC days when they bogeymen were Microsoft and Dell, people argued that Apple should lower their prices to gain marketshare.

I’m glad that for the most part Apple is not first. They tend to wait and put out higher quality, more refined products instead of trying to be first out the gate. I’m sure Samsung will put out a half dozen crappy AR glasses before Apple does. Thats what happened with the watch and probably what’s going to happen with foldable phones.

 

[Abazigal]

As a person who wears glasses, why would anyone want to wear glasses if they didn’t have to?

To augment your vision.

Why do people wear Fitbit trackers on their wrists when they don’t normally wear watches? Because they believe that tracking their activity can provide them with some measure of utility and is worth the inconvenience.

Same here. If the AR glasses is able to provide utility to the user, and assuming they value that utility enough, what’s stopping them from wearing them despite having perfect vision, the same way some people wear sunglasses either as a fashion statement or for protection from the sun?

As for what this value might be, I think it will be an improved view of the world to its user, as well as additional context to what you see. I don’t have anything more specific than that at the moment, but I do feel that Apple Glasses are inevitable.

And if it’s any company who can pull this off in the mass market (where aesthetics and branding matter just as much as specs), it’s Apple.

 

[Tech198]

Don't wear while driving. You just know people would because it looks cool

 

[AppleScruff1]

To augment your vision.

Why do people wear Fitbit trackers on their wrists when they don’t normally wear watches? Because they believe that tracking their activity can provide them with some measure of utility and is worth the inconvenience.

Same here. If the AR glasses is able to provide utility to the user, and assuming they value that utility enough, what’s stopping them from wearing them despite having perfect vision, the same way some people wear sunglasses either as a fashion statement or for protection from the sun?

As for what this value might be, I think it will be an improved view of the world to its user, as well as additional context to what you see. I don’t have anything more specific than that at the moment, but I do feel that Apple Glasses are inevitable.

And if it’s any company who can pull this off in the mass market (where aesthetics and branding matter just as much as specs), it’s Apple.

My point was, I’d rather not have to wear glasses. I wear them out of necessity, not because I like to.

 

[Abazigal]

My point was, I’d rather not have to wear glasses. I wear them out of necessity, not because I like to.

I agree. I wear glasses too.

However, think about how many people wear fitness trackers on their wrists more for the health tracking benefits rather than telling time.

Could we not see a similar paradigm with smart glasses? If they can offer sufficient benefits, I can see people being willing to wear them, even if they have otherwise perfect vision.

 

[cmaier]

My point was, I’d rather not have to wear glasses. I wear them out of necessity, not because I like to.

Me too.

But I wouldn’t wear a watch that only told time either - for thirty years I hadn’t worn a watch until Apple Watch.

Make the glasses useful enough and attractive and people will wear them. And those of us who already wear glasses may be greatful that they can do even more (how great would it be if they could zoom in

 

[Bonte]

Presumably the glasses won't have a cable running from the phone, so what high-bandwidth low-latency video transmission technology would be used?

The real world data from the censors are all numbers and if the overlay images are vector based then there is no need for a camera or video transmission at all as everything from start to end will be vector based, the glasses themselves would need a dedicated vector GPU for that to work.

 

[ipponrg]

I agree. I wear glasses too.

However, think about how many people wear fitness trackers on their wrists more for the health tracking benefits rather than telling time.

Could we not see a similar paradigm with smart glasses? If they can offer sufficient benefits, I can see people being willing to wear them, even if they have otherwise perfect vision.

I don’t see it the same way.

I think smart glasses will be targeted for a niche population just like how VR/3D played out so far. Can you imagine having AR glasses with polarized lenses, fashionable, platform independent, ubiquitous, long battery life, and maybe with Rx prescription? It’s a mountain to climb right now.

If Apple wants to lead the charge from a consumer perspective, that’s great. It will be a while till they can even possibly hit all those bullet points, and I’m sure competitors will end up trying to do what Apple did to them.

 

[whiteboytrash]

Sceptical. How can the tech be there?

Look what MS released? hololense 2. not very impressive, and the price tag. jesus

And also Magic Leap, not very impressive at all.

How can Apple possible create something that is ready for mainstream 2020? Also, carmack said AR is 3 - 5 years behind VR in regard of pure tech. VR is not ready for mainstream yet, and the displey tech etc etc with screen door is not very impressive. Not sure how apple can pull this off?

Also, what happend to: Its not about being first, its about being best?

VR headsets are very different than AR. VR is not a solution that enables long term use. AR is different.

 

[Abazigal]

I don’t see it the same way.

I think smart glasses will be targeted for a niche population just like how VR/3D played out so far. Can you imagine having AR glasses with polarized lenses, fashionable, platform independent, ubiquitous, long battery life, and maybe with Rx prescription? It’s a mountain to climb right now.

If Apple wants to lead the charge from a consumer perspective, that’s great. It will be a while till they can even possibly hit all those bullet points, and I’m sure competitors will end up trying to do what Apple did to them.

That’s precisely what I expect Apple to do - sell an entire line of Apple Glasses including various lenses (prescription, light-responsive, polarized, and clear). There would also be different sizes for men and women.

The sheer logistics involved would be one additional advantage for Apple over the competition, because few companies are going to have the resources to offer such a wide lineup of options for every permutation of customer.

The prescription lenses carry the important implication of Apple Glasses following Apple Watch in potentially qualifying as an item covered by insurance plans. In addition, prescription glasses can be bought using flexible spending or health spending account dollars, indirectly subsidising said product.

As for VR, I suspect the reason why it remains so niche is because it currently requires costly, specialised hardware in order to get the full experience (strapping your phone to your head doesn’t count). Its exclusive nature also means that you are limited by how much time you can set aside for it (ie: every minute you spend in VR is a minute you aren’t doing something else, and vice versa).

AR complements your daily routine, so barring battery life constraints, there really isn’t any reason why you could not wear a pair of Apple Glasses for the entire day.

Moving on, there are numerous reasons why I believe Apple is uniquely positioned to succeed in AR glasses.

1) Apple controls both the hardware and software. We have seen how the Apple Watch has taken off (and how Android Wear has floundered). In terms of technology, Apple also has their own custom processors, will probably fork iOS into GlassOS, W1 chip, Face ID (for gesture control), owns Siri, and has been investing heavily in miniaturisation (basically making their products thinner and lighter).

2) Apple has experience manufacturing wearables thanks to the Apple Watch and airpods. These lessons will prove invaluable when it comes to smart glasses.

3) Apple is seeding the ground for AR by baking support for it right into iOS. An engaged base of iOS developers experimenting with ARKit will give Apple Glasses a hospitable app environment.

4) Apple gets fashion and luxury, moreso than any other tech company out there.

5) Apple stores give Apple prime space for product demos and maybe even opportunity for customers to get their glasses customised.

Apple has spent years seeding the battlefield and manoeuvring into place just for moments like this. This is why I don’t think Apple will (or should) release a foldable phone. Apple Glasses is going to eventually make the need for a larger phone display moot, by offering a display as large as your entire field of view.

Apple glasses are inevitable, IMO.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Me too.

But I wouldn’t wear a watch that only told time either - for thirty years I hadn’t worn a watch until Apple Watch.

Make the glasses useful enough and attractive and people will wear them. And those of us who already wear glasses may be greatful that they can do even more (how great would it be if they could zoom in

I’ve always worn a watch, even when I was in Jr. High. I bought my wife a Series 3 watch and she loves it. And a new band is always an easy gift that is appreciated. An Apple Watch would get destroyed if I wore it daily.

If the glasses can be had with prescription lenses, I’d definitely check them out. I’d gues with prescription lenses you’d be talking $1200+.
[doublepost=1552150090][/doublepost]

I agree. I wear glasses too.

However, think about how many people wear fitness trackers on their wrists more for the health tracking benefits rather than telling time.

Could we not see a similar paradigm with smart glasses? If they can offer sufficient benefits, I can see people being willing to wear them, even if they have otherwise perfect vision.

I’m curious to see what they come up with. With prescription lenses, I may be interested.

 

[cmaier]

I’ve always worn a watch, even when I was in Jr. High. I bought my wife a Series 3 watch and she loves it. And a new band is always an easy gift that is appreciated. An Apple Watch would get destroyed if I wore it daily.

If the glasses can be had with prescription lenses, I’d definitely check them out. I’d gues with prescription lenses you’d be talking $1200+.
[doublepost=1552150090][/doublepost]

I’m curious to see what they come up with. With prescription lenses, I may be interested.

My glasses cost $700 (trifocal, etc.). Much of that paid by insurance. Insurance would likely cover at least the lenses of these, too.

 

[ipponrg]

That’s precisely what I expect Apple to do - sell an entire line of Apple Glasses including various lenses (prescription, light-responsive, polarized, and clear). There would also be different sizes for men and women.

The sheer logistics involved would be one additional advantage for Apple over the competition, because few companies are going to have the resources to offer such a wide lineup of options for every permutation of customer.

The prescription lenses carry the important implication of Apple Glasses following Apple Watch in potentially qualifying as an item covered by insurance plans. In addition, prescription glasses can be bought using flexible spending or health spending account dollars, indirectly subsidising said product.

As for VR, I suspect the reason why it remains so niche is because it currently requires costly, specialised hardware in order to get the full experience (strapping your phone to your head doesn’t count). Its exclusive nature also means that you are limited by how much time you can set aside for it (ie: every minute you spend in VR is a minute you aren’t doing something else, and vice versa).

AR complements your daily routine, so barring battery life constraints, there really isn’t any reason why you could not wear a pair of Apple Glasses for the entire day.

Moving on, there are numerous reasons why I believe Apple is uniquely positioned to succeed in AR glasses.

1) Apple controls both the hardware and software. We have seen how the Apple Watch has taken off (and how Android Wear has floundered). In terms of technology, Apple also has their own custom processors, will probably fork iOS into GlassOS, W1 chip, Face ID (for gesture control), owns Siri, and has been investing heavily in miniaturisation (basically making their products thinner and lighter).

2) Apple has experience manufacturing wearables thanks to the Apple Watch and airpods. These lessons will prove invaluable when it comes to smart glasses.

3) Apple is seeding the ground for AR by baking support for it right into iOS. An engaged base of iOS developers experimenting with ARKit will give Apple Glasses a hospitable app environment.

4) Apple gets fashion and luxury, moreso than any other tech company out there.

5) Apple stores give Apple prime space for product demos and maybe even opportunity for customers to get their glasses customised.

Apple has spent years seeding the battlefield and manoeuvring into place just for moments like this. This is why I don’t think Apple will (or should) release a foldable phone. Apple Glasses is going to eventually make the need for a larger phone display moot, by offering a display as large as your entire field of view.

Apple glasses are inevitable, IMO.

Regarding permutation, I’d argue that is actually against Tim Cook’s supply chain strategy. He will not supply a permutation for every type of fit. Just look at AirPods as an example.

The reason VR hasn’t taken off is due to a number of reasons including what you mentioned (dependencies), an accessory, very small needs, screens still not there yet, and what seems to be reduced interest from investors

I disagree with glasses replacing larger phones. You’re more likely to have both coexist because the glasses will unlikely be a primary device in the foreseeable future. There are too many negatives against it at the moment.

Regarding Apple Watches, it’s likely that a lot of Apple audiences are more likely to spend on ancillary devices than the Android population for reasons other than “it’s good”.

Here in NYC, there are a ton of niche usages for AR glasses with 180 degree tradeoffs. I honestly feel Apple could lead the movement for this initially, but another company will eventually have a better understanding and approach of the global use cases if this actually builds traction.

 

[cmaier]

Regarding permutation, I’d argue that is actually against Tim Cook’s supply chain strategy. He will not supply a permutation for every type of fit. Just look at AirPods as an example.

The reason VR hasn’t taken off is due to a number of reasons including what you mentioned (dependencies), an accessory, very small needs, screens still not there yet, and what seems to be reduced interest from investors

I disagree with glasses replacing larger phones. You’re more likely to have both coexist because the glasses will unlikely be a primary device in the foreseeable future. There are too many negatives against it at the moment.

Regarding Apple Watches, it’s likely that a lot of Apple audiences are more likely to spend on ancillary devices than the Android population for reasons other than “it’s good”.

Here in NYC, there are a ton of niche usages for AR glasses with 180 degree tradeoffs. I honestly feel Apple could lead the movement for this initially, but another company will eventually have a better understanding and approach of the global use cases if this actually builds traction.

look at Apple Watch as a counter example. Numerous body types and materials (ceramic, gold, steel, aluminum, glass, sapphire, depending on time period), numerous watch bands. I expect at first they will have just a few frame choices (round, square-ish, oval-ish) in a few colors and a couple of sizes, but that they will rapidly expand the line-up.

 

[satchmo]

If Apple has learned anything from the AW, it’s that it can’t be all things to everyone. It has taken off since they pivoted and focused on health and fitness.

If they do this with eyewear, they might have something. The mainstream is still not ready for the potential kaos. People can’t even walk down the street without their heads buried in their phones. And even heads up displays are distracting.

 

[Roller]

This not ready for primetime boondoggle will be the downfall of Tim Apple.
Finally ....
[doublepost=1552094957][/doublepost]

Nobody's saying it won't be.
MR has always been touted as the next standard for computing: QWERTY/Mouse/Touch/MR.

What we are saying, and what both Magic Leap & Microsoft have clearly shown,
is that the tech is nowhere near what it has to be in order for that "next standard" to happen.
Wait a few more years and then we'll see ....
The "Apple Has Surprises In Store!" wishful thinking can only go so far, you know.

This will prove to be Tim Apple's downfall.

You're predicting that Apple (the company, not a product) will fail based on a rumor about something that's at least a year from release, at minimum. (BTW, your contemptuous use of "Tim Apple" doesn't make your forecast any more valid.)

There are applications for AR that could have a meaningful impact prior to widespread adoption. Medicine is one, and it's an area in which Apple is investing heavily. And, though it might not be done with glasses at first, assistive technology for drivers is another. 2020 is earlier than I'd expect, but I'd like to see what Apple actually does before drawing any conclusions.

 

[Cosmosent]

RE: "Designing the AR glasses to work as an iPhone accessory is also expected to allow Apple to keep the glasses slim and lightweight, rather than trying to pack in all the processing hardware into the one device."

Many of us here in California who develop camera apps refer to it as an "Attachment Camera," for which there are a number of R&D projects underway.

In AAPL's case, the camera simply attaches to the User's AR/VR glasses.

The Essential smartphone had the first "nice" Attachment Camera, including the particular wireless technology used.

I currently know of six "Attachment Camera" R&D projects up & down the state of CA right now, ALL targeting iOS initially.

The intended application is different for ALL six cases.

We refer to ours as "Rocket".

 

[ipponrg]

look at Apple Watch as a counter example. Numerous body types and materials (ceramic, gold, steel, aluminum, glass, sapphire, depending on time period), numerous watch bands. I expect at first they will have just a few frame choices (round, square-ish, oval-ish) in a few colors and a couple of sizes, but that they will rapidly expand the line-up.

I’d be pleasantly surprised if they can or will match something similar to Warby Parker.