We have had a lot of discussion on these pages about the issues surrounding display design for AR glasses, the most recent one being on the subject of the hype or reality of MicroLED microsdisplays. However, there needs to be a counterpoint to all of that because AR glasses are not going to go away.
We can argue about the market for AR glasses, and we can take a position or stance on the display technology. We can laud or bemoan the application of AR glasses, but it may be that the display professionals’ expectations of AR glasses are never going to align with those of the consumers.
Consumers do not have the benefit of insights, and test equipment, to objectively evaluate the technology of their AR glasses. They will, for the most part, be casual users because no one likes to wear glasses, even when they are prescribed. So, any real in-depth understanding of the shortcomings of AR glasses is too involved and esoteric to be meaningful if, ultimately, the product is good enough.
What are Good Enough AR Glasses?
First and foremost, any successful AR glasses design should prioritize user comfort. In this regard, a lightweight build is essential; I remember reading somewhere where the suggested optimal weight for a pair of AR glasses was said to be about 35 grams. Well, the average pair of prescription glasses can be anywhere from 20-40 grams, and a lot of the more interesting products on the market today are closer to 125 grams and above. When they are not, the sacrifices in design tend to be overwhelming. It’s hard to see how AR glasses can ever match the weight of non-AR glasses, at least not for a very, very long time. Sure, any new device should be designed for all-day wear without causing discomfort. In addition, any new device should also be fashionable and have the aesthetic qualities that attract users in the same way as ordinary glasses. But, that’s unrealistic. Anyone who has been into a store to buy glasses can attest to the overwhelming range of fashion-forward options.
Which leads nicely into the next requirement: prescription compatibility. AR glasses should easily fit into existing supply chains, and be accessible to a wide range of consumers. So, maybe the idea should be to build lenses and electronics that slot into the user’s frame of choice. Again, totally unrealistic. At best, AR glasses would sit in a presentation unit in a store as an alternative to traditional glasses, one design fits all. Not that any of this is any great insight, Gentle Monster, a Korean sunglasses company, had deals with Nreal and Huawei to sell their smart glasses, try finding the products in any store today.
Long battery life is another essential factor in AR glasses design. And, seamless integration with smartphones. AR glasses have to support text messaging, navigation, as well as having apps that reside in the phone company’s app store. Apple can do that. Maybe Google, too. They have the infrastructure by virtue of having the two dominant smartphone operating systems, and developer bases. For everyone else, that’s a great deal of investment in building an economy around their AR glasses. Or, maybe the glasses themselves are the application, doing a few things really well, and eschewing anything that might mess with the user experience that is carefully crafted by the AR glasses manufacturer.
The reality is that the technology is not the problem when it comes to AR glasses. Consumers will forgive a lot about a display if they are enjoying and benefiting from what is being displayed. Galaxian emulators are my go-to argument here. Low-fi graphics from the 70s and 80s, but still a great experience. Sure, it is retro but the point is that there isn’t any need to worry about the technology behind it. In the same vein, while I understand the issues of eye strain
, and nausea associated with the choice of display in an AR/VR headset, I don’t really think it would matter much if there was a compelling enough reason for someone to say, “I get 30 minutes a day to use this product and I am going to use every minute of it.” Consumers will eat junk food, doom scroll through social media, and generally watch Avatar on a 6″ screen without batting an eyelid. They’ll adapt to bad technology if they are compelled enough by content or applications.
The Dream of Permanent Near-Eye Displays
Logically, AR glasses should be specialized and not expected to be used all of the time or for long periods. They serve a few specific functions, do those well, and have a real cost-benefit attached to them. Understandably, that is not the hype of AR glasses. They are supposed to change the way we see the world and interact with it. The real dream is for a near-eye display that will be available to a user at any time they need it, much like a smartphone display, only without the neck bends and handling part.
But, I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade if they’re convinced about AR glasses. They are not going away any time soon, come rain or shine. No, I don’t want to downplay the significance of AR glasses, because what is really interesting about them is not the products themselves but the possibilities for future uses of microdisplays. The display industry needs AR and VR to enable future use cases of microdisplays, uses that we don’t know anything about today, but that will make total sense when they are not stuck in a headset.
Probably, the most likely winner of microdisplay technology in the short-term is automotive, and that’s okay because a car cabin is about the best headset you can get these days. It’s familiar, it’s comfortable, there are real cost-benefits to using AR in cars (don’t crash into the flashing red icon and see that arrow, follow it on the road to your destination), and it’s about the only time when someone really should have 3D awareness of the space they occupy. We need to look beyond AR glasses, and move towards what it could be if not what it is.
