Apple reported to have killed the project to create Mac-connected AR glasses

If this really existed - not an assured thing in this rumor driven world - then it's the dumbest idea ever.  Thanks god it was canceled!  I could understand AR glasses tethered than iPhone - at least you could still experience AR's promise of augmenting the world with useful information as you moved through it.  But what's the use of augmenting anything while you're sitting somewhere with your MacBook???  Add a virtual calculator or calendar to your office walls?  Who'd walk around with a laptop in hand?  Makes no sense at all.

twolf2919 said:

If this really existed - not an assured thing in this rumor driven world - then it's the dumbest idea ever.  Thanks god it was canceled!  I could understand AR glasses tethered than iPhone - at least you could still experience AR's promise of augmenting the world with useful information as you moved through it.  But what's the use of augmenting anything while you're sitting somewhere with your MacBook???  Add a virtual calculator or calendar to your office walls?  Who'd walk around with a laptop in hand?  Makes no sense at all.

Are you kidding me? As the article rightly notes, Mac Virtual Display is considered by many to be the most compelling feature of the Vision Pro. This would be like that, but with normal glasses that are comfortable and not too weird looking (well, one hopes). The very large number of VIsion Pro customers who use it primarily for Virtual Display would ditch their clunky, heavy goggles in a second if something like this was available. I don't own a VP, but glasses with that feature would be a day one purchase for me.

To be clear, it's not so you can have a floating calculator. It's so you can extend your Mac's display without needing an external monitor - extremely useful while traveling or in confined spaces, when the tiny laptop display just isn't enough for your workflow. I currently use the XReal Air USB-C glasses for this purpose, and they're... ok. But it's a 1080p display with no spatial awareness (it moves as your head moves). Apple could make something much, much slicker. 

Anyway, very disappointed to hear they cancelled it. I tend to agree it would require iPhone tethering for mass appeal, so I get that if they couldn't make that work, it wasn't worth it to make something just for Mac users. Still, huge bummer.

twolf2919 said:

If this really existed - not an assured thing in this rumor driven world - then it's the dumbest idea ever.  Thanks god it was canceled!  I could understand AR glasses tethered than iPhone - at least you could still experience AR's promise of augmenting the world with useful information as you moved through it.  But what's the use of augmenting anything while you're sitting somewhere with your MacBook???  Add a virtual calculator or calendar to your office walls?  Who'd walk around with a laptop in hand?  Makes no sense at all.

The current darlings of the mediarati are the Meta Ray Bans camera glasses and the Xreal AR glasses. Various people want Apple to develop one or both of those form factors.

The Meta Ray Bans are shades with camera, microphone, and speakers, plus the chips needed for them, and battery, USB, wireless. Theoretically, something like visual intelligence can be used to help the wearer identify things they see, audio chatbot interface to the cloud service for things.

I assume audio-only interfaces will fail as mass market devices unless proven otherwise. 

The Xreal AR glasses are see-through AR glasses with about 50 to 57° FOV. Includes camera, microphone, speakers, wireless, chips and batteries. A lot of people use this as an external monitor. Connect through DP/HDMI through USBC something to the other. So, they use it with portable game consoles, laptops, desktops etc. Mostly for games and video. They are not good enough for text work yet.

The renders that AI shows are just glasses. Unrealistic. See-through AR glasses will have a display with a prism/wave guide layer to show AR objects. They will make the glasses look fat and cumbersome compared to the made up renders. For people that need prescriptions, that would be another layer in front of the prisms. The prism can just look like the lens as seen in the Meta prototype, but I’m not what happens in bright lighting situations with it. 

Can this be mass market successful? Not so sure.

For Vision Pro, if it can sell 1m units a quarter, I think that means huge success. Apple needs to rev it. It won’t reach 4m to 5m units unless ASPs are like $1200 to $1500. Apple knows it, they just don’t have the component costs yet. 

tht said:

twolf2919 said:

If this really existed - not an assured thing in this rumor driven world - then it's the dumbest idea ever.  Thanks god it was canceled!  I could understand AR glasses tethered than iPhone - at least you could still experience AR's promise of augmenting the world with useful information as you moved through it.  But what's the use of augmenting anything while you're sitting somewhere with your MacBook???  Add a virtual calculator or calendar to your office walls?  Who'd walk around with a laptop in hand?  Makes no sense at all.

The current darlings of the mediarati are the Meta Ray Bans camera glasses and the Xreal AR glasses. Various people want Apple to develop one or both of those form factors.

The Meta Ray Bans are shades with camera, microphone, and speakers, plus the chips needed for them, and battery, USB, wireless. Theoretically, something like visual intelligence can be used to help the wearer identify things they see, audio chatbot interface to the cloud service for things.

I assume audio-only interfaces will fail as mass market devices unless proven otherwise. 

The Xreal AR glasses are see-through AR glasses with about 50 to 57° FOV. Includes camera, microphone, speakers, wireless, chips and batteries. A lot of people use this as an external monitor. Connect through DP/HDMI through USBC something to the other. So, they use it with portable game consoles, laptops, desktops etc. Mostly for games and video. They are not good enough for text work yet.

The renders that AI shows are just glasses. Unrealistic. See-through AR glasses will have a display with a prism/wave guide layer to show AR objects. They will make the glasses look fat and cumbersome compared to the made up renders. For people that need prescriptions, that would be another layer in front of the prisms. The prism can just look like the lens as seen in the Meta prototype, but I’m not what happens in bright lighting situations with it. 

Can this be mass market successful? Not so sure.

For Vision Pro, if it can sell 1m units a quarter, I think that means huge success. Apple needs to rev it. It won’t reach 4m to 5m units unless ASPs are like $1200 to $1500. Apple knows it, they just don’t have the component costs yet. 

"

It won’t reach 4m to 5m units unless ASPs are like $1200 to $1500. Apple knows it, they just don’t have the component costs yet. "

Question is, does Apple have the patience, perseverance and commitment to continue with VP until component costs come down? 

Also, what' s the potential market like for head-worn "goggles"?  The closest competitor is Meta and they've only been able to get a user base of around 10 million after 4 to 4 years, and that's for a device that costs a few hundred dollars, not $3,500.

canukstorm said:

tht said:

twolf2919 said:

If this really existed - not an assured thing in this rumor driven world - then it's the dumbest idea ever.  Thanks god it was canceled!  I could understand AR glasses tethered than iPhone - at least you could still experience AR's promise of augmenting the world with useful information as you moved through it.  But what's the use of augmenting anything while you're sitting somewhere with your MacBook???  Add a virtual calculator or calendar to your office walls?  Who'd walk around with a laptop in hand?  Makes no sense at all.

The current darlings of the mediarati are the Meta Ray Bans camera glasses and the Xreal AR glasses. Various people want Apple to develop one or both of those form factors.

The Meta Ray Bans are shades with camera, microphone, and speakers, plus the chips needed for them, and battery, USB, wireless. Theoretically, something like visual intelligence can be used to help the wearer identify things they see, audio chatbot interface to the cloud service for things.

I assume audio-only interfaces will fail as mass market devices unless proven otherwise. 

The Xreal AR glasses are see-through AR glasses with about 50 to 57° FOV. Includes camera, microphone, speakers, wireless, chips and batteries. A lot of people use this as an external monitor. Connect through DP/HDMI through USBC something to the other. So, they use it with portable game consoles, laptops, desktops etc. Mostly for games and video. They are not good enough for text work yet.

The renders that AI shows are just glasses. Unrealistic. See-through AR glasses will have a display with a prism/wave guide layer to show AR objects. They will make the glasses look fat and cumbersome compared to the made up renders. For people that need prescriptions, that would be another layer in front of the prisms. The prism can just look like the lens as seen in the Meta prototype, but I’m not what happens in bright lighting situations with it. 

Can this be mass market successful? Not so sure.

For Vision Pro, if it can sell 1m units a quarter, I think that means huge success. Apple needs to rev it. It won’t reach 4m to 5m units unless ASPs are like $1200 to $1500. Apple knows it, they just don’t have the component costs yet. 

"It won’t reach 4m to 5m units unless ASPs are like $1200 to $1500. Apple knows it, they just don’t have the component costs yet. "

Question is, does Apple have the patience, perseverance and commitment to continue with VP until component costs come down? 

Also, what' s the potential market like for head-worn "goggles"?  The closest competitor is Meta and they've only been able to get a user base of around 10 million after 4 to 4 years, and that's for a device that costs a few hundred dollars, not $3,500.

I think there are niches out there for Apple to sell 1m units per quarter. Specialty applications in medical, architectural, etc. Then, as a specialty productivity machine for people who need a lot of screen space, but it needs to be revved, especially the OS. 

So, 6K microOLEDs (50% more pixels), 12MP cameras with better low light performance, specialty sensors, lower lag on the hand and eye tracking, M4 SoC, 32 GB, and half the weight. 

Really wish they updated it with M4, 32 GB RAM, and 12MP cameras this year.

I don’t think the is much to talk about for consumer usage (games and media) until their is a $1500 product. The virtual presence features has potential, but the cost and weight have to come down.

The teardown of the AVP really screams 1st gen product to me. It’s not designed to be manufactured easily. The location of components could be improved.