Got a comment from DZ
I’m kinda disgusted by the hucksters pushing these as “AR Glasses”. Anyone buying these simple video glasses expecting AR capabilities is going to be pretty angry at the company and the social media accounts pushing them. I can only assume that this company is trying to grab as much money as possible before the bottom drops out and they disappear with the cash.
Hey DZ,
It’s dicey right?
I try to default to calling them “Face Displays”, as I think presently that’s the most practical use case for most people. Slap it on your face, and see a projected display in front of you.
However, the sensors are in there for “baby’s first AR”.
A heads up display or a military style targeting system is a simple and practical example of augmented reality. It’s technology that augments your reality.
A heads up display in a car is another accessible and practical example of augmenting someone’s reality.
The movement sensors built into these glasses have the potential to deliver some fun “body anchored” or “body relative” AR. The main challenge is educating consumers properly on what that really looks like, and undoing a decade of tech media hype and science fiction.
Techies have been showing concepts and mock ups of potential Apple Glasses since Google Glass was announced eleven years ago. Apple fans hyping $499 headsets, sleeker than most people’s real frames, and with full 6DoF and object recognition capabilities.
Techies still seem to think THAT’S right around the corner. Vision Pro should prove that the movie version of AR is NOT right around the corner.
We have to help people learn what’s actually possible with optics, sensors, movement processing, AND THEN the content that can be displayed.
It’s sad to think that when these displays started shipping out, a higher percentage of premium priced phones were able to use them. Years later, we still face a SHOCKINGLY small percentage of mobile devices that are compatible. That percentage is actually shrinking.
The glasses have the sensors, but then we need compute power to process movement, and compute power to produce the content. Hopefully in the future, that can all be one streamlined product experience at a reasonable price, but at present, we have to carve it up into separate pieces.
Considering the size of brands like XReal and Rokid, I don’t believe they’re trying to “rug pull” this emerging market. They’re the boutique brands that are demonstrating the concept, and we’ll probably see some bigger players jump on board as the tech matures.
Lenovo for example, doubling down on their Glasses T1, now adding them to the Legion line of gaming hardware.
These concepts won’t stay this way forever. The tech evolves with each iteration. That’s another trap I think techies often fall into, only imaging the tech of tomorrow by the popular trends of today.
I think TCL, XReal, and Rokid deserve a LOT of credit for getting the ball rolling on practical Face Displays. We will learn a LOT more about how to build face computers for the masses by working with more affordable solutions first, than we ever will selling the most expensive hardware to a small group of wealthy enthusiasts.
For the rather modest claims being made, I feel now is a safe time to give these glasses a try. I wish more consumers would. Many will run into issues like fit, accessibility, and compatibility, but then these companies would learn more about the market they’re trying to create.
Face display “AR” glasses provide some practical solutions at competitive prices, especially compared against the cost and the space required to pack things like portable monitors. There’s also potential here which might be realized in the future, or may go unused. The “risk” is small if you purchase understanding what they do well today, and we can hope we get more from them later.
Sufficed to say, for more sophisticated AR, we have a LONG way to go…
The hunt for watermelons must go on. Glasses or not.
I for one welcome our watermelon detecting AI overlords!
This second coming of AR/VR is still a joke, and a long way away from something useful for consumers. I like the idea of having AR glasses, but I don’t see many potential upsides to them. It’s still a product looking for a market, at a price point that is unrealistic for most.
I’m more positive on these face displays as practical second monitors. A nice portable OLED can still cost between $200 and $350 depending on features and resolution. They still largely top out at 60Hz, and you have to carry another slate almost as large as a laptop along with you. Then you can only use it in an area where you have the desk space for a computer and a display.
These glasses can deliver almost the same optical fidelity, but will fit in a shirt pocket or a glasses case, can ramp up to 120Hz, include hardware for basic relative head tracking, use less power, can be used in much more space constrained locations, and can now be purchased for around $100 more than the portable OLED.
Sure, solutions in search of problems, but so are every portable display or lapdock. I think a portable screen of some kind is one of the single best accessories someone can invest in to get more use out of every other computer they might own. The face display is the most exotic idea of this accessory, but it’s already a price competitive option against more traditional screens.
This is continuing to improve as larger companies get into the mix like Lenovo.