Can a Pair of Glasses Replace Your Phone?

Eleven years ago, Apple initiated a new era of media consumption when they released the first iPhone.  Now it seems they are gearing up for an attempt to reinvent the way we interact with the world again. Reuters reports that Apple has recently acquired the augmented reality lens maker, Akonia Holographics, based in Colorado.  Insider adds that this is only the newest in a long list of actions that indicate that the tech giant intends to work on a pair of AR glasses. This relatively minor acquisition has unleashed a

landslide of speculation about Apple’s specific plans and how a pair of Apple glasses would change the way we interface with the world.  This is no surprise, since Apple tends to lead the tech industry. For example, they were the first mainstream phone manufacturer to introduce the fingerprint scanner, implement face unlock, remove the headphone jack, or accept a large central notch in exchange for a high screen-to-body ratio (the Essential PH-1 deserves a nod for that as well). All of these things are virtually industry standard at this point.

What’s interesting about AR, though, is that the technology is not new.  In fact, I’m sure most of you can remember the monumental failure that was Google Glass.  Google revealed and marketed it as a smartphone killer back in April of 2012. Why, if Glass failed so horribly, would Apple give AR a try?  Well, to answer that, we must first ask why Glass failed in the first place. Forbes argues that Glass failed not because the technology was too immature, but because Google was unsuccessful in showing consumers why they needed it.  I would say it was a bit of both. What was missing in the case of Google Glass was the ancillary technology needed to make it useful. For example, there was little to no app and social media integration that would make people feel like they had a need for it.  So, in fact, it was the immaturity of the technology that prevented Glass from convincing people to buy it. Tech maturity also plays into another big problem with mainstream AR, fashion.

A central problem with making AR glasses viable is convincing people that wearing glasses covered in cameras and lenses doesn’t make you look like a loser.  Most people who wear glasses hate wearing them, hence the contacts industry. Why are glasses suddenly so much better to wear just because they have a computer taped to them?  The technology aspect here is that, to date, most such devices have been made bulky and unwieldy (like the HoloLens from Microsoft) by current battery, camera, and projection technology.  However, the Microsoft HoloLens aims at a different market than Google did with Glass. I think Microsoft is more in line with where the market actually sits because as you can see in their website, they aren’t meant for walking down the street and reading texts, instead they are meant for productivity and optimization in industry and workplaces.  This also makes more sense in terms of pricing. Google Glass was going for over $1000 and HoloLens sells for $3000 or $5000. I think that AR goggles should be targeting the professional market rather than trying to become a commercial media consumption staple like the smartphone. In fact, Google’s, or rather their subsidiary X’s, website for Glass (no they didn’t give up) now seems to market them like the HoloLens.  Other market offerings such as Snapchat’s Spectacles (which doesn’t use AR), seem to be pushing for the latter.  Apple usually doesn’t deal in specialized or professional markets (yes, their products are used professionally but the same devices are used by legions of students and stay-at-home parents), so I would be surprised if they took the direction I think is more appropriate.

If any company can overcome the significant hurdles to AR technology (and many are trying), it is definitely Apple.  However, to me, the technology and the market are no better now then they were in 2012. Sure, there has definitely been progress made in projection and holographic technology and it is doubtless now much easier to integrate the glasses with social media.  Snapchat’s Spectacles are a good example.  However, the reason the smartphone became what it is today is its versatility.  You can switch from checking up on your friends to checking your email to routing yourself home with a couple of gestures from your thumb. Glasses cannot possibly be as versatile. Insider also reported that Apple previously bought a company that works with eye tracking, but using your eyes to navigate will never be as easy or seamless as literally touching the buttons you want.  Google added a touchpad on the side of Glass, but holding your hand up to your head to navigate is entirely impractical, I might as well just use my phone. So, if I can’t easily navigate the functionality of the glasses, what use do they have for me? I just don’t see reasonable solutions to the glaring problems which need to be solved to make AR practical. Perhaps, though, that’s why I’m writing a blog about AR and not currently working as a Silicon Valley engineer.  I hate to say this because it’s the kind of statement that invites your foot into your mouth, but I don’t think commercial AR glasses will ever become mainstream or even come close to effecting the same change to everyday life that the smartphone has. Go ahead Apple, prove me wrong. I do, however, think that certain specialized AR technologies or glasses-like wearables can become viable. For example, I love Google’s contact lens idea.  It could theoretically monitor glucose levels non-intrusively for diabetics.  Also, I can see some sort of AR goggles made for excersice that show some information about the workout to you while you run, bike, or do whatever it is you do. It could show you your heart rate, speed, steps, whatever your typical fitness tracker can show you, but it would always be there in your field of vision.  And, as I said above, I think Microsoft and now Google’s more industrial application is also viable.

Finally, if Apple does prove me wrong (they won’t), there are serious conversations we must have as a society.  If you think texting and driving is bad, what about driving with the screen literally against your face? And how much do we want people to be consuming media anyway?  When your reality is constantly augmented by videos and headlines and anything else they enable it to do, how does that affect your ability to interact with literal reality?  Personally, I think a society where everyone walks around with AR on is a deeply unhealthy society indeed.

I want to leave you with this clip from Futurama (from the makers of the Simpsons), which hilariously satirizes AR devices.  I would highly recommend watching the whole episode too, Attack of the Killer App.