Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Meta Unveils 'Orion' Augmented Reality Glasses
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Haha, where's Apple Intelligence?
These glasses have problems, but IMO they are directionally correct for a future where AR is useful.
Wrap a bit of white tape around one of the side arms and you got the full nerd look
But seriously, I think they can eventually get these to look normal and stylish in maybe 5+ years.
If there is a full Vision product lineup within Apple internally, I hope something like this exists rather than two headsets. This could be a great companion product like the Apple Watch. Call it… Apple Vision Air…? Apple Vision Shades…?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
It apparently costs them $10,000 to make each pair of glasses
Pretty thiccc. But not as thiccccc as AVP.
The problem with Meta product might be that the software/ecosystem/usability is crap, as cool as this concept is.
But man the concept is much cooler than AVP.
The problem with Meta product might be that the software/ecosystem/usability is crap, as cool as this concept is.
But man the concept is much cooler than AVP.
Yes, these glasses have problems, like: they can barely be manufactured, they aren't even close to being an actual product, each pair costs $10,000+ to make, and won't be able to be shipped in volume for at least several years. Just a few little problems...Haha, where's Apple Intelligence?
These glasses have problems, but IMO they are directionally correct for a future where AR is useful.
Apple Intelligence is a real feature that you can* start using right now if you want.Haha, where's Apple Intelligence?
These glasses have problems, but IMO they are directionally correct for a future where AR is useful.
This type of wearable is the future. Impressive what Meta was able to do here, and it will only get better. Still would never purchase simply because it is Meta, but this is where wearables are going. The difference is clear watching Apple Vision Pro - with people sitting alone and by themselves, versus the smart glasses are much more social.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
So many people have this "like a normal pair of glasses" concept as THE target, but I question several things:
What I see here is beyond Apples & Oranges. Many of "us" like the form factor better than the Vpro one, but we seem to be imagining that this is going to display about as good as Vpro. If "regular glasses" could display as good as Vpro, I'm confident Apple would have launched "regular glasses" instead of Vpro.
What I've seen on the market already that is shaped like regular glasses offers black out covers so you can't look through them to try to address light pollution behind the projected video. To get the better images, you fully lose the "see through" them ability. In short, you would be more blind when using them than when using Vpro.
To deal with light pollution from the sides, you would need to block out light getting into the area between them and your eyes. The image shown of the girl doesn't show any of that. I'd like to see her using AR "regular glasses" out and about and even tech marketers daring to show that the projected image she could see would be as sharp looking as the one in the picture. Best case is probably what are sometimes called post-cataract (removal) solar shield glasses... like these...
...which do NOT look like regular glasses and are- in fact- something that is worn over "regular glasses" to let less light into the area between eyes and glasses (so bigger and bulkier than "normal").
Are those "normal glasses" enough? Because- my best guess- some kind of glasses-based AR/VR is probably going to have to look like those unless thoroughly washed-out projected images in bright light or mixed light is acceptable. Or user is going to have to take that old song "I wear my sunglasses at night" quite literally.
Here's a glasses style typically considered cool/sharp...
If you think so, where's the circuitry going in them? Where's the power supply?
As one "blocks" up the frame to make room for such stuff, is the "cool" and/or even "normal" being lost? And if so, do the gripes about Vpro just transfer to the gripes about the blocky/"bulky" glasses, now with washed-out imagery due to light pollution?
- what's normal? One persons style just about always differs from the next persons (we can't even agree on one best phone size or even phone color, from only a handful of choices). Someone should offer up their example of "normal" and see if they can get consensus. Note that as you choose cooler and cooler frames, you are going to need to leave room somewhere for the circuitry, battery, etc.
- if "four eyes" is still a thing, do non-glasses wearers decide to wear glasses? Else, is the wait for "invisible" contacts... or brain implants?
What I see here is beyond Apples & Oranges. Many of "us" like the form factor better than the Vpro one, but we seem to be imagining that this is going to display about as good as Vpro. If "regular glasses" could display as good as Vpro, I'm confident Apple would have launched "regular glasses" instead of Vpro.
What I've seen on the market already that is shaped like regular glasses offers black out covers so you can't look through them to try to address light pollution behind the projected video. To get the better images, you fully lose the "see through" them ability. In short, you would be more blind when using them than when using Vpro.
To deal with light pollution from the sides, you would need to block out light getting into the area between them and your eyes. The image shown of the girl doesn't show any of that. I'd like to see her using AR "regular glasses" out and about and even tech marketers daring to show that the projected image she could see would be as sharp looking as the one in the picture. Best case is probably what are sometimes called post-cataract (removal) solar shield glasses... like these...
...which do NOT look like regular glasses and are- in fact- something that is worn over "regular glasses" to let less light into the area between eyes and glasses (so bigger and bulkier than "normal").
Are those "normal glasses" enough? Because- my best guess- some kind of glasses-based AR/VR is probably going to have to look like those unless thoroughly washed-out projected images in bright light or mixed light is acceptable. Or user is going to have to take that old song "I wear my sunglasses at night" quite literally.
Here's a glasses style typically considered cool/sharp...
If you think so, where's the circuitry going in them? Where's the power supply?
As one "blocks" up the frame to make room for such stuff, is the "cool" and/or even "normal" being lost? And if so, do the gripes about Vpro just transfer to the gripes about the blocky/"bulky" glasses, now with washed-out imagery due to light pollution?
Last edited:
When Meta says "proactively address the wearer's needs" in the real world this means "what Meta wants you to need/think instead of what the user actually wants. I'm sorry, I just do not trust Zuck.
Kudos to Meta for innovating. Competition makes consumer choices better. I have a quest 2 and love it for what it does well.
I owned Google Glass ten years ago. To this day it is still the most impressive piece of tech I've ever owned (and that was back in 2014 and it was a beta), and I've owned a ******** of tech gadgets in my life. Most people don't realize how awesome it is to have a voice controlled HUD that you can wear comfortably throughout the day, because they've never experienced it...add AR to that and you've got a winner. That is nearly the exact implementation I want to see for AR and I would purchase it immediately regardless of price, as long as it had 2024 hardware and software throughout. I don't want AR glasses, I want AR that runs from a prism, packaged like Google Glass. I still don't know how they engineered the prism on GG to completely vanish from your view unless you looked right at it, but they made it happen!
Like laptops vs desktops, AR glasses has more appeal to mainstream customers and those with spatial computing needs that need to be more versatile, portable, and moment-to-moment simpler or more immediate than what headset form factor can provide.
They will always co-exist with headset form factor the best for specific spatial computing needs to complex and advanced than what XR glasses can provide.
Also if you hate the Vision Pro’s price, an XR glass equivalent (prosumer XR glasses) would be more expensive.
I mean, you can do that with the Vision Pro?
Apple Vision pro, Meta quest etc.
absolutely niche and will remain so.
Most of the devices are lying around in people's drawers
after initial enthusiasm.
I wouldn't buy one even for 499.
Back then, people also "believed" (= tech journalists) that everyone would have a 3D printer.
That didn't happen
Now they want to tell you that these glasses will be the next hit.
They won't be. 🥳
absolutely niche and will remain so.
Most of the devices are lying around in people's drawers
after initial enthusiasm.
I wouldn't buy one even for 499.
Back then, people also "believed" (= tech journalists) that everyone would have a 3D printer.
That didn't happen
Now they want to tell you that these glasses will be the next hit.
They won't be. 🥳
...and all over Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace
Not even sure who buys this kind of product preowned (gross)
Not officially. We heard ~200k sold on launch in the US. We also heard Apple was limited to ~500k devices total based on manufacturing capacity on the OLED panels. A well respected analyst reported Apple had "slashed" its forecast from 800k to 400k products this year, but that doesn't match the 500k device limit he had previously reported.
TLDR: no official numbers, but probably somewhere between 200-400k units.