The Thick vs Thin AR Headset Debate
Exploring alternative paths to consumer AR adoption
The launch of Apple Vision Pro has initiated a flurry of interest in the future of consumer AR. Most predictions about future use cases and increasingly sci-fi capabilities imply that the path towards the "perfect" AR device will arrive over a decade of iterative reductions- smaller devices, lighter batteries, thinner lenses, etc. The platonic ideal of an AR experience seems most likely to emerge by taking today's bulky, uncomfortable hardware and slowly shrinking it into a form factor that is both physically and socially tolerable to the average person. The tech giants creating today's headsets (Apple and Meta, though others will surely follow) have every incentive to continue iterating on the hardware until it reaches that ideal state, at which point we may indeed see widespread consumer adoption.
However, there is an alternative path through which AR could break into the mainstream. While the media has focused almost all of its attention on the heavy-duty devices created by big tech, a parallel branch of AR development has gathered some steam in recent years, driven by startups like XReal, Rokid, and Viture. These products are not bulky headsets but instead lightweight glasses that look like and weigh around the same as a pair of RayBans. Unlike the Vision Pro and Quest series, the devices aren't yet viable "spatial computing platforms" or app ecosystems; a better description might be "AR gadgets". XReal launched its Air 2 Ultra glasses at CES in early 2024, and I've been surprised at how little attention these have garnered relative to the Vision Pro. At $699, they have (admittedly primitive) spatial tracking, can display a 30+ inch screen a foot from the user's eyes, and most importantly, weigh only 80g. Yes, the field of view is a mere 53 degrees to the Vision Pro's ~100. And yes, the spatial tracking leaves much to be desired and the device doesn't have any onboard computing; in many ways, this is an Apple™️ to oranges comparison. But isn't it pretty remarkable that even a limited AR experience like that of the Air 2 Ultra is already possible in the form factor of sunglasses?
I don't think we should be underestimating this less heavy-duty path to widespread AR usage. These startups are also all-in on the race towards the platonic AR experience, albeit with a lot less funding and a lot more to lose. If the consensus bet is correct, and Apple/Meta is the first to build a true consumer AR device, these startups will be dead on arrival. And for what it's worth, that's the outcome probably what I'd bet on. But if the convergent evolution towards widespread AR adoption ends up favoring the "virtual-screen-not-a-spatial-computer" approach favored by the aforementioned startups, this may have some very interesting implications for the strategies that Apple/Meta end up pursuing. They will likely still end up winning the market but may be forced to course correct, and us consumers will end up with different expectations and experiences of AR.
There are a variety of factors that will dictate the outcome of this race. But to understand how some might play out, it's interesting to examine a couple of fundamental questions about what consumers want from the perspective of "Big AR" (Apple/Meta/Big Tech Cos) and "Scrappy Startups" (XReal, Rokid, other AR glasses makers). In some ways, this debate mirrors the thick vs thin client debate in the previous generation of computing technology. Let's begin with some questions where both sides tend to agree, and then delve into the distinct approaches they take.
Question: How valuable is a virtual work station/desk-in-a-headset?
Big AR:
Immensely valuable. The ability to have an arbitrary number of screens powered by the AR device, anywhere in the world, at any time will have huge implications on how we work. One day soon, you'll be able to simply toss on a headset and immerse yourself in productivity on a plane, at a bar, etc. Forgot your computer? No problem, the world has now become your workstation.
Scrappy Startups:
We agree it's valuable, but let's 80-20 rule this thing. Will people want to work in places where they can't even have a computer on their person? Seems pretty rare to me. Most of the value prop here is having multiple screens of multiple sizes in any space. That doesn't require building a modern OS on the device! The virtual screens are just frontends, and we should offload computation to the computers and phones that do them best and don't have to sit on your face for hours. The classic argument about thin clients applies to AR! The glasses are mostly useful as a virtual monitor—let's not overcomplicate it.
Question: Is media consumption the killer AR app?
Big AR:
Yes, this is probably the first significant consumer use case! Imagine sitting back and watching a movie with a 100-foot screen inside the Amazon rain forest- you can do this today in the Vision Pro. Not to mention 3D movies, front-row seats to NBA games, and video games. The more immersive these experiences are, the better, and the more compelling they will be to customers.
Scrappy Startups:
Agree that consuming media is the first killer use case, but 100-foot screens? We've gotten by just fine with 40-inch TVs for decades. Again, is the actual value here the immersion and screen size or just the fact that users can now bring monitor-sized screens onto the Subway or a plane? We'd guess the latter, and so our screens won't be limitlessly gigantic, but they'll be big enough to warrant daily usage. And 3D? C'mon, we tried that in movie theaters 10 years ago, and how many 3D movies are people clamoring to see these days? There's no reason to think it would be any different in a sweaty, bulky headset.
Question: Is a wide field of view essential to mainstream consumer adoption?
Big AR:
Duh. We are in the business of augmenting reality, and the human eye has a very wide FOV. Suppose we don't prioritize expanding FOV as much as possible. In that case, users will constantly be bothered by the dark edges around their screen, won't ever truly feel immersed in the AR world, and will have to constantly turn their heads to see things that should be easily visible in their periphery. Those flaws are non-starters for a breakout consumer product- the 100-degree VP is a first-generation device for a reason. Any FOV much below this has no chance of appealing to the average consumer.
Scrappy Startups:
A wider FOV is nice, but are we sure this is the right goal to be chasing? We won't ever fully replicate the FOV of human eyes, so maybe best to give up on that dream in favor of other pursuits. And unlike your passthrough screens, which leave a black ring around the user's vision, our glasses don't obscure their actual periphery, so the "binoculars effect" is less of a problem. Besides, 90% of the value of an AR experience comes from the content directly in front of the user's eyes. Having a dozen AR screens around you and catching glimpses of them out of the corner of your eye helps preserve visual continuity. But you're going to need to turn your head to engage with any of those screens anyway. Besides, humans aren't going to forget about their other monitor because they can't see it without moving their neck a little bit- we develop object-permanence as infants! Large FOV at the expense of device weight is the wrong tradeoff when the actual utility of an AR experience is considered.
Question: Is powerful on-device compute essential?
Big AR:
To consider an alternative to on-device computing is completely ridiculous. Would the mobile phone have become ubiquitous if it had to be plugged into a computer? Even if we use a wireless connection for some use cases (i.e. mirroring a Macbook), complete reliance on physical proximity to some other source of computation is a non-starter. Without a powerful on-device computer, these headsets won't ever be true standalone tools, won't empower a native app ecosystem, and won't be the 10x improvement on the status quo needed to take them mainstream.
Scrappy Startups:
You haven't thought through what AR is really useful for. Almost nobody will be in a situation where they don't have their computer or phone but want to use their headset to get some work done. Are you seriously betting that humans will have their phones in their pockets less often in the future? On this app ecosystem point—do we anticipate any apps that truly need crazy amounts of native compute besides gaming? Granted, that's a huge market, but that's more of a VR concern. A miniature computer in a pocket (XReal takes this approach with their Beam device) or a phone/laptop connection should be sufficient to power most of the useful apps. Note that computer monitors are not "standalone" products, which doesn't stop them from being immensely useful. Remember, on-device compute == on-your-head-metal-thing, and there is no escaping this fact in the near to medium term. Necks will always be worse at carrying computers than pockets or desks.
Question: Do consumers need futuristic immersive experiences to adopt AR en masse?
Big AR:
We've had AR devices that do many of these "useful" things for over a decade, and none of them have gone mainstream. The reason is obvious: they weren't immersive enough. They didn't blend the real and the virtual well enough. They didn't enable experiences that were mind-blowing enough. AR is already useful- it needs to be much more than just that to trigger an "aha moment" for most consumers. Sure, bulky headsets look weird, but so did the first phones or earbuds. The weirdness and over-the-top factor will make it easier for early adopters to evangelize to the rest of the market.
Scrappy Startups:
Or maybe the reason was that they were too physically uncomfortable? Occam's Razor here: a heavy, sweaty thing stuck to a person's face didn't become a ubiquitous tech product because... it was a heavy, sweaty thing. Sure, devices need to have some level of technical capabilities and wow factor, but if we agree that 80% of the value here is bigger monitors on the plane and NBA games on the subway, maybe we should solve the comfort/social acceptability thing before we build the Holodeck. It may not make for splashy press releases, but utility and ease of use are what drive all consumer hardware trends in the long run. Let's keep the glasses minimalist and light, get the software just good enough to provide a seamless workstation/media consumption tool, and market the hell out of it. And no, looking like a freak with a computer strapped to your head is not how we convince the world to try out a new technology. Wearing a pair of slightly oversized RayBans is so much less of a social faux pas, and guess what? That matters.
Big AR has orders of magnitude more money, and therefore room for error, than the Scrappy Startups. For that reason alone, most of these gadgets will likely never transcend the realm of niche enthusiast markets. However, there are some important lessons to learn when considering what tradeoffs these smaller players are making. In the dialogue above, I find myself agreeing with many of the arguments against the Big AR vision; maybe what the market needs is a back-to-basics approach. We may one day experience AR as a completely immersive world of holograms, where entire new worlds are generated on the fly for our infinite enjoyment. But perhaps the first step towards that world will look less like the V1 Vision Pro and more like an unassuming pair of sunglasses that project a big (but not huge!) computer monitor into our eyeballs.