Will Apple Ever Make AR Smart Glasses?

Price is an obvious issue but comfort is solvable. If you add an Annapro head strap then it’s far more comfortable, you can wear it without the light seal for a wider field of view without sweat or face pressure, and it’s a really good experience. 3D movies can be amazing, and watching 2D content is better in most ways than on an OLED.

It’s not perfect but the biggest problem is how hard it can be to share that experience with people who wear glasses or have a different shape head to you. :)

(My 88 year old mother-in-law absolutely loves it, though.)

This product isn’t for everyone and will never be popular online at its current price. But it can be amazingly compelling for some, and as the wider screen sharing support and Spatial video editing in Final Cut Pro are both due this year, there’s still plenty of new stuff to come.
 
Cloudyskies22 said:
You’re an electrical engineer and AGI exists. You are wearing AR Glasses that send the camera data to your phone and the phone sends the data to the AGI cloud and you get it back almost instantly. The phone sends the response to your glasses as the AGI literally draws into your vision where it thinks you should set the 480V 3-phase panel, and how it think you should wire for maximum efficiency. It talks to you as well, through AirPods or tiny speakers on the arms right by your ears.

It increases your productivity massively as it paints the picture of what to optimally do in any given situation on your vision.

This goes for any job in existence and anything else one might imagine.

You’re playing a video game with the glasses on and the AGI is watching as you play. You ask, wait what do I do now? And of course it knows because it’s far more intelligent than you. It could give you hints or just bluntly tell you.

You’re playing Call of Duty and it watches and analyzes your play over hundreds of games and determines your strategy and tells you what might be useful to work on.

I mean the possibilities are so beyond my imagination in 1 instance trying to come up with, it’s insane.

At the end of the day what you need to remember is this:

It’s not about the glasses. It’s about AGI in harmony with the glasses. It’s your vision being sent to a virtual god-like intelligence that then talks to you and augments your vision in the displays on the lens in realtime.

It’s so far beyond the smartphone it’s not even funny. See you can’t just hold a smartphone camera up constantly. You need these passive glasses so it’s always seeing in a comfortable manor and you have both hands free to do anything.
Click to expand...
Sure, enterprise uses. Technical uses. But I'm talking about for the every day person who wears it. I can think of a few uses, but I wouldn't do them so often that I'd want to carry it with me, wear it every day. Like even with the RayBan glasses...it's what, 2 hours of charge? It takes pictures? It queries an AI? Photos are better on the phone than they will be on the ray ban glasses. All those uses are a few times a day at most. Why would I wear glasses for this?
 
blocsapp said:
Simple, everything you do with a smart phone.
Click to expand...
Your phone will do everything better. If we're just talking about notifications and reading mail, taking photos, etc...where's the need for AR in any of that?

I use my phone and put it away. Why would I want to wear glasses for the things my phone is great at?
 
It will be viable when processing chips for something like an iPhone is 10 times efficient or something like that.
 
The Verge's Nilay Patel found the Vision Pro to be uncomfortably isolating, and The Wall Street Journal's Joanna Stern got nauseous every time she watched the limited amount of Apple Immersive Video content available. Reviewers agreed that watching TV and movies was one of the best use cases, but that makes for an expensive TV that can't be watched with anyone else.
Click to expand...

…Nilay’s review regarding the isolation and the last point is fundamentally foolish —if not borderline asinine—for the spatial computing headsets and glasses whose form factors fundamentally are not optimized for other people by design, such intrinsic traits of the form factor is a pro enabling private and intimate computing/consumption.

You COULD mirror what you’re looking at on another device via the Vision Pro, but if you want to share what you’re doing more optimal options for that will always superiorly be something connected to a TV, projectors, or a monitor mounted on a VESA mount optimized for pivoting and positioning monitors for such use cases.

The Vision Pro isn’t an either-or option compared to those devices—unless you live alone and want that environment for wherever reason.

No one who is an incumbent prosumer is planning Netflix and Chill nights with a Vision Pro.

Many prosumers use and want to use their computing devices privately—especially on-the-go and working on confidential stuff in the office that is common in high-paying jobs.

Private computing is how most use their computers after all… Apple’s Prosumer Hardware are all very much personal computing devices.

Many consumer premium
home content privately all the time with the Vision Pro enabling them to do so ergonomically more conveniently in more places with less hassles not even needing controllers.
 
FreakinEurekan said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was never meant for the masses. It’s a prosumer product.

It’s like saying a LG GX OLED TV, PS5 Pro, 4090, Porsche Taycan, Pro Display XDR, Macbook Pro, Mac Studio, and Cintiq Pro are for most people: They’re not, and that’s OK.

Well known brands can make prosumer/high-end stuff alongside stuff for most people
 
The Orion stole Apple's thunder. Though the Vision Pro is available for sale now and Meta's Orion won't be for some years, if you're a developer you probably have little interest in making apps for the Vision Pro given it seems the Orion form factor is a lot more compelling so why waste investing in a dead end platform. Apple should pivot hard to true AR glasses, the trade offs they made to get the AVP where it is are probably a dead end. Apple however does have the chops to pull off their own version of Orion, I'm sure it'll be better than Meta's in every possible way.
 
lilkwarrior said:
It was never meant for the masses. It’s a prosumer product.

It’s like saying a LG GX OLED TV, PS5 Pro, 4090, Porsche Taycan, Pro Display XDR, Macbook Pro, Mac Studio, and Cintiq Pro are for most people: They’re not, and that’s OK.

Well known brands can make prosumer/high-end stuff alongside stuff for most people
Click to expand...
True but without a critical mass of users, you won't get developers building a compelling software ecosystem for the product.
 
Gewurtz66 said:
The Orion stole Apple's thunder. Though the Vision Pro is available for sale now and Meta's Orion won't be for some years, if you're a developer you probably have little interest in making apps for the Vision Pro given it seems the Orion form factor is a lot more compelling so why waste investing in a dead end platform. Apple should pivot hard to true AR glasses, the trade offs they made to get the AVP where it is are probably a dead end. Apple however does have the chops to pull off their own version of Orion, I'm sure it'll be better than Meta's in every possible way.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you are right about this. Orion is much more compelling, and no doubt Apple do have something in development but they will never tell us [unlike Meta have].
What Meta have done, is provided more confidence in developing for Meta devices, where as currently there is little incentive at all to develop for AVP. Meta also provides some great development tools to create for the Quest 3, Apple on the other hand.....

No doubt though Apple will make better glasses and I have faith long term, but for now Meta are winning in the near term.
 
Gewurtz66 said:
True but without a critical mass of users, you won't get developers building a compelling software ecosystem for the product.
Click to expand...
I wholly concur to an extent. Prosumer devices aren’t usually a primary audience of mainstream developers until consistent roll-out of them alongside mainstream variants.

The Vision Pro main appeal for early adopters won’t be existing apps; prosumer devs at such stages aren’t buying the product for apps of others other than compatibility with the apps/software/content they need.

Early adopter stage devs are maximizing first mover advantages or making explorations/prototypes/MVPs being familiar with the APIs and high quality production before inferior mainstream options become available.

For consumption, the Vision Pro is already the best prosumer standalone headset by default being actually compatible with premium HDR formats prosumer hardware by design also use, and Apple’s relationship with premium home video content providers providing premium content.

Sole major exception is what all Apple Prosumer devices don’t primarily focus on: AAA gaming.

Apple is only beginning to explore that with M3 Macs and recent two iPhones capable of ray-tracing
 
SpectatorHere said:
I don't really understand why they launched AVP really. I suppose they felt compelled to deliver something after years of work? I'm guessing. It's clear that a spatial OS needs some time to bake, so maybe it's just for that?

AR glasses are the next smartphones, and once they arrive will be a bigger revolution even (which is saying a lot since smartphones are a much bigger deal in the developing world than many give credit). But, as many are saying, they need to be actual comfortable glasses, and provide heads up info about the world. The challenges are many:

1. I still haven't seen a transparent display that can really provide the vivid colors and high def images on a wearable.
2. They'll need to make that super efficient so battery power can be contained in the frames (this is essentially scifi level at this point, literally requiring a breakthrough). I could see this taking 30 years...until then a tether.
3. They need all sorts of tiny sensors and cameras....seems like this we're close to achieving this, don't know about a power budget though.
4. We need powerful AI to do instantaneous image analysis of the real world. We're getting close here, but not on any sort of economical power budget. Good thing AI is making amazing progress.
5. We need ridiculous amounts of storage for all that double 4k video being shot (yes, we'll want it all saved indefinitely, then cataloged by AI (I'm sure remotely and after it's recorded) to be able to search and learn from it).

Then, the OS needs to be ironed out. Here, AVP is a great help. How will we instruct our AI glasses to provide more info about something? Will we be tapping in the air, fingers together, blinking, voice command, using our iPhones to gesture upon? Dunno.

I agree with some above that tethering seems the obvious first step, and I imagine Apple could deliver on such a version in the next 5-10 years, but think people will demand to have their iPhones cordless. So, maybe a first step is a battery, processing brick in a form factor like the AVP battery could work. Of course, they need to get the heads up display glass working first, and I've yet to see it.

Exciting that we have all techno know-how at this point, but we're not at the stage where it can all be integrated well. Reminds me of year 2000 PDAs and cellphones. We could all envision a product that did it all, but didn't seem feasible at the time...and we were right, it took 7 years. The capacitive LCD touchscreen and iOS were the big innovations.
Click to expand...
My feeling is they launched it because they’re running out of ideas (at least ideas that they can implement using current technology). I love Apple products and I love Apple as a company. I was the first person that I know to own an original iPod, as well as the first iPhone,but I can’t justify spending that kind of much money for something that I have to use by myself and would give me headaches after about 30 minutes, based on the demo that I did. When our glasses are out and they look like regular glasses, I am all in. I don’t think that’s gonna be for another 10 or 15 years, but it’ll be interesting to see where the technology goes.
 
All I can say is Meta got my money for Quest 3 and Ray Ban Meta. I wish I could give that money to Apple.

Even at 30% Apple tax.
 
danmoch said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have the first Apple Cinema Display - (not the HD one). Bought it along with my Power Mac G4 computer in 2000. It was advertised as the largest LCD screen available - 22" and 1600x1024 resolution. $3,999 (hi end CRT computer monitors at that time were $2500 - $3500).
It's visual performance was so far above what was used for computer monitors at the time, it took a little time for me to get used to it.
That was 25 years ago - just imagine what technology we will have in another 25 years.
 
Timo_Existencia said:
Your phone will do everything better. If we're just talking about notifications and reading mail, taking photos, etc...where's the need for AR in any of that?

I use my phone and put it away. Why would I want to wear glasses for the things my phone is great at?
Click to expand...
AR Glasses will improve the experience of maps and directions, translation (realtime subtitles), finding information about objects and places, listening to music, watching video, playing games, browser the web and viewing photos to name a few.

But it will also allow you to do more than you can with your phone.

When you wear a watch, you don’t constantly look at it, just because you’re wearing it. You occasionally look at it when you need to know the time.

I’d imagine AR glasses will become this type of wearable product. It’ll be like a cool pair of shades (eventually) that has more capabilities when you need them.
 
Richard700 said:
I have the first Apple Cinema Display - (not the HD one). Bought it along with my Power Mac G4 computer in 2000. It was advertised as the largest LCD screen available - 22" and 1600x1024 resolution. $3,999 (hi end CRT computer monitors at that time were $2500 - $3500).
It's visual performance was so far above what was used for computer monitors at the time, it took a little time for me to get used to it.
That was 25 years ago - just imagine what technology we will have in another 25 years.
Click to expand...
I remember those and always wanted one.
But yes 25 years time from now the technology for AR will be astounding. Those who rubbish the tech now dont seem to have an imagination. what is now is not forever.
 
lilkwarrior said:
…Nilay’s review regarding the isolation and the last point is fundamentally foolish —if not borderline asinine—for the spatial computing headsets and glasses whose form factors fundamentally are not optimized for other people by design, such intrinsic traits of the form factor is a pro enabling private and intimate computing/consumption.
Click to expand...
imagine if someone seriously said this about a pair of headphones compared to speakers. it's such a stupid point from Nilay.
 
"When we publish a story about the Vision Pro, people don't read it. I wrote a Vision Pro story about the first short film on the headset just yesterday, for example, and it was our lowest traffic article for the day. It probably wasn't worth my time to even do, and that's not an isolated incident."

Strange that nobody is interested in reading Vision Pro articles yet they attract more comments than any other article posted on the same day. The article about the short film had nearly double the comments of "The MacRumours Show".

I click on stories and get bored within the first couple of sentences and decide "nothing here for me - move on". I don't read the article but it must then show to MacRumours as a successful read and user interest in the article.

Love or hate the VP, it generates comments and comments are a user measure of interaction. Measuring clicks on a link doesn't mean anyone read the article. I click on the stories and usually do a headline scan and move on and MacRumours assumes the click is a successful article read.
 
The awesome thing about Apple Glasses is that you can wear them while you drive your Apple CAR! Way cool!
mathews_cool.gif


(please don't shatter my dream by telling me that there isn't going to be an Apple Car!)
 
I think it's given the Vision Pro will become smaller & lighter over time, and hopefully..... Less expensive. I never owned a VR set or anything like that, but the idea of 360 degree videos & the like seems promising.
 
IsaacM said:
I am 100% certain that Steve Jobs would skip out on VR completely. He would recognise it for what it is: niche, clunky and geeky. The wired battery hanging from the head would send him into a spiral.

He would have focused on AR glasses that look stylish, sleek and that would want to be worn by the general population. The first editions would probably just have basic functions like mirroring notifications from your iPhone and getting Apple Maps directions, but over the years tech would keep improving and they would become a standard piece of tech that everyone uses.
Click to expand...
Notice he did not say glasses, he said “headphones for video.”
Which… Literally implies immersion, which requires some sort of light blockage. Like… a headset.
Also, Apple began developing and gathering patentsfor a virtual reality headset, all the way back from the 2000s, around the time the iPhone first launched. Of course he wasn’t going to avoid virtual reality.
If anything, Steve would have pushed for this product to be out seven years earlier, around the time Microsoft released their headset.
 
Timo_Existencia said:
Your phone will do everything better. If we're just talking about notifications and reading mail, taking photos, etc...where's the need for AR in any of that?

I use my phone and put it away. Why would I want to wear glasses for the things my phone is great at?
Click to expand...

blocsapp said:
AR Glasses will improve the experience of maps and directions, translation (realtime subtitles), finding information about objects and places, listening to music, watching video, playing games, browser the web and viewing photos to name a few.

But it will also allow you to do more than you can with your phone.

When you wear a watch, you don’t constantly look at it, just because you’re wearing it. You occasionally look at it when you need to know the time.

I’d imagine AR glasses will become this type of wearable product. It’ll be like a cool pair of shades (eventually) that has more capabilities when you need them.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with both pov above.

That is, I understand why people think AR glasses will be useful. Especially for things like maps and directions, if I could see a floating arrow in front of me, pointing the direction I should go, instead of having to look down at my phone or my watch, that'd be a lot easier to navigate.

But reality is, I only go somewhere where I don't know maybe once or twice a year. I keep meaning to test the navigation direction function on my watch, and I never find the opportunity to do so. So I'm not getting AR glasses -- if I ever need directions, I'm going to make do with my phone or watch. The capabilities of the AR glasses may be useful for frequent travelers, but not for stay at home people like me.

Which reminds me, before the iPhone, smartphones were something for business people, to help them stay connected and organize their super-busy lives. The iPhone changed that, and made it into something everyone wanted and used. Will AR glasses ever be as useful as an iPhone? I wouldn't say never, but it seems to me like we are still some ways off from that category of devices -- whether AR or VR/MR -- achieving that.

The thing is, glasses being something we wear is both an advantage and drawback. Advantage because if we are wearing it, it's something that comes everywhere with us, and there is no friction of having to take it out of our bags/pockets to use it. But drawback because we have to wear it -- if it's not so comfortable and durable and have an all-day battery so we can put it on when we get up / walk out the door, and not think about it all day while we are out and about (note the watch has achieved all this), then it's another device to carry, and in order to use it, we have to take it out of our bags/pockets AND put it on, adding an extra step to the process.

No doubt technology will achieve AR glasses that are wearable all-day at some point. Until then, such devices would remain niche, and smartphones will remain the device of choice for most people.
 
blocsapp said:
AR Glasses will improve the experience of maps and directions, translation (realtime subtitles), finding information about objects and places, listening to music, watching video, playing games, browser the web and viewing photos to name a few.
Click to expand...
  • I use my phone for directions perhaps once per week. No need to wear it on my face.
  • I live in a foreign country, where I speak a 2nd language. My translation app is one of the most used on my phone. But even so, I don't need full sentences translated frequently, just the occasional word now and then. Most people would only use this when traveling. So not a daily need.
  • Finding info about objects/places. Again, in my day-to-day life, I would only need this if I were traveling. Not day to day.
  • "listening" to music? I have Airpods. And if I'm walking around, I won't want album art blocking view.
  • I watch video on my AVP all the time; having a light seal makes all the difference. Glasses won't give that.
  • Games aren't that important to me

blocsapp said:
When you wear a watch, you don’t constantly look at it, just because you’re wearing it. You occasionally look at it when you need to know the time.
Click to expand...

Right. Exactly. I don't want to have to look at my watch every time something happens. But if I'm wearing glasses, can't be avoided.

blocsapp said:
It’ll be like a cool pair of shades (eventually) that has more capabilities when you need them.
Click to expand...

Let's revisit that prediction in 10 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top