2024-09-30
The outlandish proclamations of the tech press
What is it with the common practice of the tech press publishing stories that are more breathless opinion than actual substantive analysis? The coverage of the Orion glasses already has many of them excited about the replacement of smart phones with these devices that do not exist in a sellable form. Where is the critical thinking in this coverage? And why is it alway that one device has to replace another or even that a device has to be the "next big thing"?
Today's example is Mark Gurman in his weekly newsletter with the headline: Apple's Vision Problem.
Oh, it's a problem is it? I'll admit, I'm not all that interested in the AR and VR category but maybe that's kind of the point: this is a category that's far from mainstream and isn't likely to be anytime soon. Meta's prototype Orion glasses will not be available for at least 3-5 years. The current cost of the prototype is $10,000 with a battery life of 2-3 hours.
It’s perhaps unfair to compare it with whatever Apple has in development... But Meta proved that it is well on its way to executing on this compelling vision. Based on all available evidence, the company is further along with AR glasses than Apple is in its labs.
It seems very likely that anything resembling mainstream adoption of this kind of tech will require something much closer to standard glasses than Apple's current offering. And while it seems like the Orion glasses are a step in the right direction for the category, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
Specific to Gurman's quote above I'll only say that while he apparently has sources I'm very doubtful that he knows all the details of what Apple has in its labs or the details of its plans for the next 5 years. Framing it as "Apple's Vision problem" is just hyperbole.
To the suggestion by the tech press in general that these might be a replacement for smart phones? Really? Do they think anything through before writing it? We all know that iPhones and other similar devices are not just phones. They're incredibly small and powerful pocket computers and cameras capable capturing fantastic still photos and video. Why would smart glasses need to be a replacement?
It seems far more likely that smart AR glasses will only ever be an extension of other devices and that's fine. That makes sense especially with expectations that the frames should be thinner and battery life extended. If these are to be used daily and many hours a day they'll need the battery life extended to 8+ hours a day but with smaller batteries. That won't be easy even if the device is just an extension rather than a stand-alone device.
It's a category that, today, is still in the realm of science fiction. There are short and long-term limits because this is all constrained by the reality of physicis, our limits in engineering and manufacturing. At the end of the day, though it may seem like magic, it's not. The tech press seem willing to ignore these details. And it's something they do with other areas of science and tech reporting, for example, witness the poor quality coverage of carbon capture technology these past 20+ years.
I don't have comments but I love email or you can find me on Mastodon.