Development of Apple's smart glasses continues despite massive hurdles

"

This is why Vision Pro is such an important product for Apple and one of the best uses for the Everest-sized mountain of cash on which Apple is sitting. It may take a while, but it's a certainty that technology will evolve to give us some future "Vision Pro" in a smart glasses form factor. But that only solves the hardware part of the equation. You still need an OS that's capable of leveraging a vision driven computer and the smart glasses form factor in the most useful, creative and intelligent ways. You need an OS that will have worked out a lot of the potential problems. Or you just end up with another Google Glass. Or you end up like Meta, with over a decade and countless billions of dollars invested in headsets, without a single penny of profit ever to show for it. And I have no doubt that the smart glasses it drops in 2027 (or 2037, considering the Zuck's usual over optimism about delivery) will continue Meta's history of manufacturing loss leader hardware. The Vision Pro product will continue to be the ever-evolving real-time laboratory in which Apple works out its smart glasses. A mass market hit product was never the point of Vision Pro, nor does Apple need it to be that. With a user base of a half million and counting, Apple has the benefit of feedback and innovations from actual users that it never would have had without releasing VP 1.0. 

Is there anything else from Gurman? Seems like a nothing burger of an article. 

twolf2919 said:

I suspect lack of vision at Apple is to blame - by not having a strong and visionary leader, some committee probably decided that a standalone VR device was the answer.  

Steve's death was widely believed to be the end of Apple. Oh, sure, it might hang around a while, squeezing whatever remaining juice it could out of "Steve's" products, but the company itself was now on death watch with its singular and visionary leader gone. Tim Cook? Oh, please. So where is Apple now, 13 years later? Is it dead yet? Or is it just a sad, barely profitable shell of its former self, surviving on Steve's work? NO. It is exponentially far more successful than it ever was under Steve's leadership, as measured by any of the metrics used to determine a company's level of success. Oh, but then surely Tim has done nothing but run the photo copier on Steve's products. NO, again. Apple Watch. CarPlay, Airpods. Apple Silicon, And, most importantly, Services, which is already generating 50% of iPhone revenues, growing exponentially faster and has a profit margin that's more than double that of iPhone. All of that happened under Tim, years after Steve was gone. Between its rapid growth and huge margins, Services is poised to be more profitable within the next few years than ALL of Apple's hardware products combined. That's right--all of them. Don't believe me? In a recent quarter last year, hardware profit was $22 billion... and services profit was $18 billion. 

But out here in the technosphere echo chamber, the incredible growth that Apple has achieved under Tim, a level of success that was unimaginable while Steve reigned. doesn't count because Tim has failed to deliver some undefined, unnamed, imaginary new piece of hardware that the technosphere demands as proof of his "vision," even though they can't articulate what the product might be. His vision doesn't count because it doesn't suit their perception of vision. Most successful watch in the 200 year history of watches? Doesn't count. Most successful audio product in the history audio products? Doesn't count. A game-changing transition to Apple's blazingly fast processors that occurred with barely a hiccup? Doesn't count. It doesn't count because Tim didn't fulfill some hidden desire you have for some product you can't even describe. But Tim should have made it by now! Fortunately, Tim isn't distracted by all this ridiculousness coming from the tech peanut gallery and he continues his 13 year streak and counting of making Apple more and more successful. As someone who puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to Apple by investing in the company, Tim's strong and visionary leadership has been incredibly rewarding: it was a $14 stock when Steve died. It just closed on Friday at $223. 

tht said:

Is there anything else from Gurman? Seems like a nothing burger of an article. 

Why yes, Apple is toiling away at an AR glasses product that they know will take years, 2030s, to become a product. Also true for metalens cameras, M7 SoCs, folding displays, satellite communication functionality, 7000 PPI microOLEDs, LLM functionality, etc. 

See-through AR, the putative eyeglass product that everyone is trying to get to, will have its positives and negatives. There are features and functionality that won’t be as good as the existing Vision Pro, let alone what a Vision Pro could be in 2030. 

A pass-through AR product line (Vision Pro or goggles) and a see-through AR product line (eye glasses) probably will co-exist. 

This is one of the few thoughtful comments I have read about the whole AR effort. Most people seem to think it's all or nothing, one or the other, rather than co-existing (and hopefully complementary) product lines.

My guess is that Apple had been prototyping a variety of AR devices in their labs and the Vision Pro googles were the first that management deemed as "commercially viable" which is a stretch with the $3500 price tag. My guess is that see-through AR products will eventually come but it's nearly impossible to say when it will happen. My guess is that some AR-related API will show hints of a product before Apple actually announces it.

Let's remember that this is not a SoC upgrade to an existing product like iPhones or Macs. This would be a new product line and they have consider software work to do to get something like this off the ground.

One thing that is clear is that AR glasses will need to do 1, 2, maybe 3 things way better than an iPhone by itself. This was the case with Apple Watch which ends up being even better as A.) a health monitor, B.) an activity tracker, and C.) as an NFC contactless payment device (think public transit fare gates, not the POS terminal at McDonalds).

It's up to Apple to figure out 2-3 killer features that make AR glasses a better experience than raising your phone to your face.

Note that weight, fit, and comfort (and for some fashion) are all critically important for eyewear. I have several pairs of eyeglasses that weigh between 25-30 grams and I still take them off periodically for a break. I know a lot of people ignore the comfort factor but it's actually important to many people.

Trust me, I am a longtime owner of an Oculus Rift S (weight 500 g or 1.1 lbs.) and I find it unbearable to wear for more than 45 minutes. If AR glasses are going have any widespread consumer uptake, they need to come in below 100 g, the less the better. They also need to be washable and survive a modest drop, stuff that the AR pundits always seem to avoid mentioning.