Image by Jon Prosser at Front Page Tech.
Some five years ago, the Apple Watch came out. I bought the first model, started wearing it, got excited about possibilities to make games for it (I was working at a mobile games studio back then). Soon, I realised the device was not mature enough for game development, in part because it was so dependent on the phone. I took some comfort in how the watch let me check my phone less often. Yet, after two months or so, one day I did not pick it up, and pretty much forgot the whole thing.
Well, not exactly. In 2018, I had a bit of a health scare (turned out to be nothing serious) and afterwards was visiting the US just as the 4th generation watch had come out. Taking advantage of the cheap dollar, I got the watch I am wearing now. It stuck, partially because I had become more conscious of my health; partially because the device capabilities had evolved considerably. No phone needed anymore, better display, more apps with more functionality, seamless fit with the AirPods, and so on.
Why am I telling you this? Because I expect Apple Glass, their wearable AR device evolve along a similar path. The springboard for this post is a set of articles that appeared a couple of weeks ago documenting a possible leak about the device. The device(s) have been rumoured already before.
Fiction or holography?
First, Jon Prosser, a blogger who reportedly has a solid track record on future Apple releases, posted a video where he claims to have seen a glasses prototype. He says in the video from 07:01 onwards:
“I know a lot of people are like expecting some sort of crazy holograph like Hololens type experience some life-changing device. So I want to sort of temper your expectations here especially for the first generation product”.
Nevertheless, Prosser’s video triggered other posts delving deeper into the technological fundamentals of AR glasses and how Apple might be executing towards them. On the tech side, Karl Guttag’s three-parter is an especially insightful deep dive and I’m basing most of my learnings about the tech on Guttag’s analyses and his readers’ comments. (Any misunderstandings here are mine, not his.)
However, Bloomberg tech journalist Mark Gurman also discounted Prosser’s leak as “complete fiction”.
Let’s entertain the rumours - the truth will play out probably somewhere in between.
Whatever the timeframe or set of devices in development, there is no doubt Apple has been focussing on AR for some time.
Building AR glasses is a series of trade-offs: There is no one optimal technology
From a tech perspective, the key takeaway is to understand that there is no one way to implement lenses that display AR content, but many competing solutions out there, all of which have different trade-offs: One enables better resolution but consumes more power, one solution is lighter in weight and therefore enables glasses that look like regular eyeglasses but means that each device needs to customised to an individual and therefore cannot be shared, and so on. A smartglass company like Vuzix has chosen a different set of trade-offs compared to Microsoft with the Hololens, Magic Leap with their headset, and so on. Apple Glass will be another combination of trade-offs.
Bottom line: in 2020, AR glasses are very hard to make.
Apple’s journey into AR wearables has been characterised by them masking some of the work by filing patents under companies they have acquired. Karl Guttag specifically picks out Akonia, a company working on display tech that Apple acquired but has let file patents.
For satisfying user experience, it seems the current solution is to make LCOS displays (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) work. Guttag surmises that it is Akonia’s LCOS tech that might be solving key display-related issues for Apple. First, LCOS is better for battery duration. Second, Akonia’s tech also helps in solving the IPD issue software-wise, i.e. the fact that the distance between your pupils is likely to be different to mine.
Apple Glass product strategy: Lower margins and secondary revenue streams
All the trade-offs tie into the production costs and the traditionally high margins Apple has made its fortunes from. Prosser’s leak says the price would be $499 without prescription, and for Guttag this spells lower margin expectations with higher expectations from secondary revenue streams from using the device.
The company North, who makes the Focals glasses, (recently acquired by Google) is building their product strategy on all-day wearability. As both Prosser and Guttag conclude, affordability and all-day wearability are crucial for viable secondary revenue through actual usage. For example, this opens up potential revenue streams as a continuation of Apple Pay - as Guttag writes, “But what if everyone with Apple Glass could buy anything anyplace by just looking at it?”
That brings us to the user experience part: what are AR glasses good for and how might we design experiences for them?
I’ll focus on that in the next post, in a few days.
Stay safe,
Aki