Why making Face computers cool isn't easy

After years of anticipation, Apple's first major new product in almost a decade has arrived. The $3,500 Vision Pro, a vision computer that resembles ski goggles, will be released next week.

What can we expect?

The device, which features high-resolution displays and sensors that track eye movements and hand gestures, is one of Apple's most ambitious products. It bills the headset as ushering in an era of “spatial computing,” combining data with the physical world to improve our lives. Imagine giving a presentation with digital notes in the corner of your eye, for example.

I was among the first group of journalists to try the Vision Pro last year and walked away impressed with the quality of the photo, but ultimately wasn't sure people would want to wear it. My skepticism was colored by my experience wearing more than a dozen headsets over the past dozen years from companies like Google, Meta, Snap, Samsung, and Sony, including virtual reality glasses that plugged into large desktop computers and smart glasses that took pictures. The devices were intended to create immersive experiences to get things done by moving the body instead of typing on keyboards.

Broadly speaking, the problem with headsets has less to do with technology and more to do with behavior: people quickly get tired of wearing a computer on their face, the devices end up in cupboardsand software developers are losing interest in creating apps. Sales of mixed reality and virtual reality headsets fell by 8.3 percent last year, according to research firm IDC, although they may pick up again this year as Apple enters the market.

While Apple has a reputation for arriving late to the party with superior products, as was the case with music players and smartphones, the Vision Pro isn't guaranteed to be a breakout hit, especially given its breathtaking price.

“Does this Apple enter the market late, but does it come with the best product and will therefore be successful?” asked Michael Gartenberg, technology analyst and former Apple marketing director. “Or is there no existing market because there are no $3,500 headsets aimed at the mass market?”

To better understand how an Apple facial computer might fit into our lives in the future (or maybe not), it's worth taking this moment to look back at the many facial computers I've worn that have set the scene formed for the Vision Pro.

Smart glasses

In 2012, Google unveiled a mixed reality headset, Google Glass. It was essentially a headband with a camera and a monocle, placed above your right eye, with a transparent display showing calendar and mapping software. To demonstrate its exciting potential, Google produced a video of people wearing the facial computer jumping out of a plane.

When I tried an early prototype of Google Glass that year, the only working feature was a maps app that showed directions as I walked along a path. This could theoretically be useful for keeping my eyes on the road while driving or cycling, but at a significant cost: I looked like a “Star Trek” character.

Sure enough, after Google Glass made its public debut, pandemonium ensued. A blogger in San Francisco was attacked for wearing one. Memes emerged, including the term “Glass hole” for anyone who could potentially record videos of people without their consent. Google eventually marketed the monocle as a business device, but ultimately discontinued the product in 2023.

After Google Glass flopped, the tech industry regrouped and tried to address the design and privacy issues. In 2016 and 2021, Snap and Meta released stylish glasses with cameras and small lights that indicated when a user was recording. Both products were unpopular. I recently tested the second-generation Meta glasses and concluded that while they looked satisfyingly hip, the privacy issues persisted because no one noticed when I took photos of them.

Smartphone-powered virtual reality

The tech industry was also eager to sell people a different type of headset for virtual reality. The headsets, which resembled plastic glasses, blocked your view of the outside world so you could immerse yourself in a digital 3D environment and experience something as if you were actually there – by moving your head around to look at the Grand Canyon, for example to watch. example.

To make it easier to sell virtual reality headsets, tech companies like Google and Samsung tried to rely on smartphones for their screens and computing power. In 2015, Samsung teamed up with virtual reality company Oculus to design Gear VR, a headset into which the user could insert a smartphone to watch virtual reality content. In 2016, Google released Daydream VR, a similar product for Android phones.

While the products lowered the cost for people to try VR, I ran into issues with them. The smartphones with VR software became very hot, the batteries drained quickly and the applications were gimmicky. One simulation I tried involved staring at a virtual dinosaur. Google killed Daydream VR in 2019 and Samsung announced the end of its VR content services in 2020.

Connected VR

In 2016, Oculus, which Meta had bought two years earlier for $2 billion, released the Oculus Rift, an advanced VR system that could be connected to a powerful desktop computer. The entire bundle, which included the headset, a game controller, and a computer, cost $1,500. With 30 games at launch, the product was marketed as a next-generation gaming device.

Virtual reality games are designed to let you move as if you were in the game. A shooting game involves searching for weapons, bending over and using motion controllers to pick them up and fire them at opponents.

Other similar products followed, including Sony's $400 PlayStation VR, a headset that plugged into PlayStation consoles. For years, the PlayStation headset dominated the high-performance virtual reality space because it lowered costs by eliminating the need to buy a separate computer. The second-generation PlayStation headset was released last year.

Nevertheless, a Sony executive recently called virtual reality a 'challenging category' because VR hadn't changed much for the games industry. Most people still prefer to play video games on a television.

In my experience testing all of these products over the years, they had the same shortcomings: the headsets felt heavy, the hardware and wires cluttered the living room, and there weren't many compelling games to play.

Standalone headsets and mixed reality

Standalone headsets, which cram computing, display, and sensor technologies into one product, have become the most useful VR products to date. Since 2019, Meta's Quest headsets, which range from $250 to $1,000, have used this approach, but the products still aren't mainstream hits.

Last year, Meta released the $500 Quest 3, the first consumer headset with a focus on mixed reality, which uses cameras to see into the real world while you use the headset. For example, if you're firing a gun in a shooting game, you might take cover behind the couch in your living room. During my testing, I found that while the graphics were vastly improved, the headset felt too heavy on my neck after about 15 minutes. I also wasn't impressed with the games and the device's short battery life of two hours.

This all brings us to the product in question: the Vision Pro, which Apple is marketing as a productivity tool to replace your laptop with a virtual screen and digital keyboard, a 3D movie player, and a gaming device.

At 21 ounces, the Vision Pro is just as heavy as Meta's products, and my eyes and neck felt similarly tired after wearing it for half an hour.

The Apple headset's battery, a separate brick that connects to the glasses via a wire, delivers a two-hour lifespan like Meta's — not enough to finish most feature films, let alone do much work to get done.

As far as games go, no major game studio has yet announced a game specifically for the Vision Pro. However, the headset does contain an app that allows you to look at a 3D dinosaur.