MR and AR aren't convergent devices—much like how earbuds and over-ear headphones both exist. Apple will make AR glasses some day, but that product can not and will not replace Vision.
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.
Will Apple Ever Make AR Smart Glasses?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am an AVP owner, and also own a Meta Quest 3. I have to say that Apple achievement in the AVP is astounding in image clarity as it blows away everything else in the market in that area (except some truly massive and more costly PC VR rigs).
However, Apple's doubling down on low precision inputs using hand tracking (at only 30 FPS) and eye tracking pushes it very far into a niche corner that renders it incapable of running well over 90% of compelling VR/AR content that runs on other platforms like Quest.
Gaming in VR can be truly remarkable, giving us a kind of early prototype holodeck experience. And it is arguably more heathy as it engages full body movement rather than just how fast you can twitch your fingers. However, gaming is still a precision activity, and you heed hand controllers to effectively have any meaningful experience in that space. Being able to track controllers to act as stand-ins for swords, pistols, or even golf clubs is critical to the experience, along with the kind of haptic feedback they allow.
Disney's "What If.." app is noteworthy for being by far the most amazing experience available yet on AVP, but it also highlights how laughably bad a game is that uses only eye and hand tracking. Once you've played similar experiences on Quest it just makes you want to cry over how much better "What If..." would be on that platform with controls that made you feel like you actually had agency in the world. And yet it looks so damn good on AVP, but the interaction is just abysmally limited.
Creation apps are also now amazingly good on Quest, including things like Gravity Sketch, which is a very powerful 3D model making tool. It's literally changing the game in product design in collaborative spaces. This is a top tier professional use for VR, but you can't run it on AVP because it requires precision input tools, and buttons/joysticks to efficiently access a rich palette of creation tools.
And while people initially mocked Meta over the cartoony floating torso avatars, I honestly wish Apple would let me represent myself with a Memoji avatar rather than the deeply creepy, dead-looking persona.
So Apple has positioned themselves in a weird place, coming in at a professional user price point, but eschewing the "nerdy" well-established industry-standard input devices that would MAKE it a professional tool in favor of frustratingly imprecise hand/eye tracking.
I do give them credit, however, for how it excels as a virtual home theater, and especially how good it is at 3D movies and immersive experiences. But sadly that's mostly what I use it for now, while I spend most of my time playing and doing real work on my Quest.
However, Apple's doubling down on low precision inputs using hand tracking (at only 30 FPS) and eye tracking pushes it very far into a niche corner that renders it incapable of running well over 90% of compelling VR/AR content that runs on other platforms like Quest.
Gaming in VR can be truly remarkable, giving us a kind of early prototype holodeck experience. And it is arguably more heathy as it engages full body movement rather than just how fast you can twitch your fingers. However, gaming is still a precision activity, and you heed hand controllers to effectively have any meaningful experience in that space. Being able to track controllers to act as stand-ins for swords, pistols, or even golf clubs is critical to the experience, along with the kind of haptic feedback they allow.
Disney's "What If.." app is noteworthy for being by far the most amazing experience available yet on AVP, but it also highlights how laughably bad a game is that uses only eye and hand tracking. Once you've played similar experiences on Quest it just makes you want to cry over how much better "What If..." would be on that platform with controls that made you feel like you actually had agency in the world. And yet it looks so damn good on AVP, but the interaction is just abysmally limited.
Creation apps are also now amazingly good on Quest, including things like Gravity Sketch, which is a very powerful 3D model making tool. It's literally changing the game in product design in collaborative spaces. This is a top tier professional use for VR, but you can't run it on AVP because it requires precision input tools, and buttons/joysticks to efficiently access a rich palette of creation tools.
And while people initially mocked Meta over the cartoony floating torso avatars, I honestly wish Apple would let me represent myself with a Memoji avatar rather than the deeply creepy, dead-looking persona.
So Apple has positioned themselves in a weird place, coming in at a professional user price point, but eschewing the "nerdy" well-established industry-standard input devices that would MAKE it a professional tool in favor of frustratingly imprecise hand/eye tracking.
I do give them credit, however, for how it excels as a virtual home theater, and especially how good it is at 3D movies and immersive experiences. But sadly that's mostly what I use it for now, while I spend most of my time playing and doing real work on my Quest.
If it it were 75% cheaper I would have bought one by now
handtracking was only at 30fps in visionOS 1. visionOS 2 matches handtracking to the system refresh rate, which is variable but generally remains at 90hz.
My concern is that Apple relegates this to hobby status and doesn’t push the technology forward. They are ruthless about not updating underperforming products (AirPods Max, displays, etc). This could be one of those products.
Vision Pro isn't augmenting your life, it's interfering.
The more non-intrusive they can make it, the more of a chance it has at being a viable product. Until then, it's just a expensive Cinco product.
The more non-intrusive they can make it, the more of a chance it has at being a viable product. Until then, it's just a expensive Cinco product.
And that's only part of why Tim Cook needs to go.Didn't Tim Cook years ago used to say that he finds AR more interesting than VR? And then we end up getting Apple Vision Pro.
Tim Cook: Not Too Long From Now, You'll Wonder How You Led Your Life Without AR
Speaking at Università Degli Studi di Napoli Federico II in Naples, Italy, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that not too long from today, people will wonder...www.macrumors.com
AR is, for the vast majority of things, worse than useless. It's a tracking and ad delivery platform.
Literally the only use case I can think of for it would be reading stuff while traveling where you don't understand the language. Otherwise it's just intrusive at best.
VR has the possibility to be fun. AR does not.
How os that i just spent 10 hours on a long haul flight watching movies omn my AVP when one gets “ nauseus” or it is too heavy. Its a luxury item. So What.
I wear Ray-Ban Meta glasses every day, and wish that Apple would make a product like that. They’re an accessory to my iPhone, just like a pair of AirPods - but I find the Ray-Bans far more comfortable to wear and the ease of taking photos has made them incredibly useful.
I think the point is there is no compelling use case for VR, not killer app. We got a Meta Quest, and after a month it was just collecting dust in the closet. Even the kids, who like to play games, quickly lost interest. Probably Apple hopes that by releasing Vision Pro, some developer will find a killer app.
I will point it it was the same with the watch. The success came after Apple found the killer app: fitness. But it may never come with Vision Pro.
I will point it it was the same with the watch. The success came after Apple found the killer app: fitness. But it may never come with Vision Pro.
At this point I have my doubts not only for VR, but even for Ray-ban type sunglasses with Vision Pro capabilities which may be the next Apple Watch or iPad. Not the next iPhone. I get the feeling that both Apple and Meta are wasting a huge amount of money and time with VR and AR tech.
While I love using the Quest 3 for things like watching movies on the equivalent of a cinema size screen, smart VR glasses I bet is what would sell a lot better if it's done right and close to indistinguishable between smart glasses and regular ones.
For a device like these in order to keep them very small, keeping the majority of the processing on the phone would be fine. Being able to put on prescription wireless smart glasses that are very close in shape and size to normal glasses that someone would barley be to tell would be amazing, all while having anything I want displayed overlaid onto the real world.
For a device like these in order to keep them very small, keeping the majority of the processing on the phone would be fine. Being able to put on prescription wireless smart glasses that are very close in shape and size to normal glasses that someone would barley be to tell would be amazing, all while having anything I want displayed overlaid onto the real world.
yep. AR are for most of the time when you want/need to be present in the real world and VR goggles for immersion whether for entertainment or something more serious.
AVP looks… neat, I guess. Some corporate uses but otherwise, a rich person’s toy. $3,500 visor to watch a movie, alone 🧐
I don’t doubt that AR is the future, and that this is the ground floor. But it’s WAY too pricey and inconvenient for the masses.
I don’t doubt that AR is the future, and that this is the ground floor. But it’s WAY too pricey and inconvenient for the masses.
Sadly, the biggest use 99% of the public has for computers is simple "media consumption". They watch stuff that other people made. That's it. Why should these goggles change this?
I do think there are good use cases for the industrial use of VR/AR goggles. The first thing that comes to mind is pathologists viewing 3D images and then designers and engineers doing 3D design work in CAD. But these uses will require new software and this is slow and expensive to create.
I do think there are good use cases for the industrial use of VR/AR goggles. The first thing that comes to mind is pathologists viewing 3D images and then designers and engineers doing 3D design work in CAD. But these uses will require new software and this is slow and expensive to create.
I doubt very much that Apple expected wide use of the vision pro. But they needed to start somewhere. They needed something to get real world use so they can learn better what applications there are, what software works and what changes to the hardware are needed. By making it high end (and so expensive) they made it so that applications can get creative and be compelling. Then later as they learn what works, reduce the cost of key components and make the device even more wearable (lightweight, etc.) then someday it may spawn something compelling for a much wider audience.
This sounds good in some contexts, but remember the recent story of the college kids who made smart glasses that did what everyone has always talked about and instantly looks up whomever you're looking at.
Also they debated whether to have computation in glasses or phone and it was decided that it's not possible to have the low latency it needs if the phone is doing the processing, which is probably correct with current technology. They could probably use a cable though, and do for the battery, so I'm not sure if they really came to the correct conclusion to that one in the end. It's probably still a power issue, it was either battery or phone but not both.
I don't know if the world/current technology is ready for any of this, but they will probably slowly but surely keep at it, just like the iPod became the iPhone.
AR glasses is what Apple SHOULD have developed. That is what would have sold like crazy. Not virtual reality glasses.
Limited use for the general consumer, especially with the high price-today that is. I have no doubt that this is just another early "toe dip" into the pool of what we will be the norm in the future. Eventually we will be wearing some form of augmented reality headset (maybe in the form of sleek glasses), which will provide a super version of what we now do all day with our phones. Not only that, it will be constant eye protection, possibly hearing protection, etc. I remember seeing an 23 inch Apple Cinema HD Display at the Apple Store in 2002 which cost $3500. The Vision Pro is a much more promising future technology for less money (adjusted). All it has to do is mature.
The only sort of hypothetical glasses device I would like to own is Ray-ban type sunglasses that allow me to watch movies or play games(with a traditional controller) in a huge canvas. I have it with me along with my other iPhone and Mac accessories like Earpods and Apple Pencil. It functions like a portable huge screen and that's it.
Why need a constant display of information as AR when you can simply have a floating monitor to the side of your view or top of your view and some soft of array of cameras and sensors that scan everything you see and be able to do all sorts of things with the data it sees. It can tell you how to interact with something using graphics like a tutorial video. You have a flat tire, it will show you a video on how to change it specific to that car model. If I am looking at a document, it can tell you if you are writing it properly and make suggestions that will be copied to my Macs clipboard. Or have a two way communication with your Mac in that case where the Macs graphics will change to highlight were the problems are. If you are looking at a Mac with these glasses the info you need will be displayed on a Mac, if a Mac is not present it will show it on the glasses. Same with a phone or tablet. If it knows I am in the bathroom, it will present me with my usual bathroom browsing content or videos. Basically an assistant that sees what you see but is smarter than you and can enhance what you are doing. THAT replaces the need for AR for most things. AR can wait till the technology catches up. But what I am talking about can be worked on and enhanced over time. It is completely Orwellian but doable now at a lower cost and actually useful for daily life if you wish to use it. The point of these things is to track everything you do anyway, why beat around the bush and just go for it all the way.
AR isn't the future, it's a silly detour. There's no interesting or compelling use case.
I have double astigmatisms in both eyes and have to wear trifocal lenses with prisms. Optometrist tried progressive lenses on me but I wound up with severe vertigo. So my eyes are not compatible with Vision Pro.
Having played around with the various Oculus / Meta headsets over the years, I'd agree with him. They're quite impressive at VR, which is cool for games and recreational uses, but they're TOO immersive to be practical to wear as a an actual display to get work done. You feel really shut off and detached from the real world when you're wearing them. But AR means that you have all the capabilities of VR while still being present in your environment, much more acceptable in an office or workplace.
Haven't had a chance to try the Vision Pro yet, but from what I understand it's much better at AR than Meta's headsets. AR is definitely a focus for Apple.
Perhaps Apple should offer laser eye surgery as an optional extra when purchasing a Vision Pro.