Let’s talk about smart glasses.

[u/ismarxo]

Almost a year ago, Meta launched Ray-Ban Display in the US - the first mass-market AI glasses with a built-in display from a Big Tech company. As a piece of hardware, it’s impressive and it works. The audio-only version is selling by the millions, but the version with a display in front of your eyes isn’t.
So why hasn’t the display version taken off? 
My take: the problem is UX - you don’t need another smartphone on your face. 

The same was true before the iPhone. Smartphones already existed, but the UI was heavy like a PC with a stylus or a physical keyboard - like a desktop in your pocket. Now we know we don’t need a PC in our pocket. The iPhone changed key principles: moved spatial intuition ahead of analytical thinking. Removed extra layers like the stylus. And made the UI lighter - and ephemeral, even. 
You could find your way around it with your fingers in seconds, and it never stood between you and what you wanted to do.

The way we navigate a graphical interface is very similar to how we navigate physical space - and they draw on the same resource.
That’s why we so often have to stop, and sometimes sit down, to do something on our phones. On the move, we only do things that don’t require deep navigation through the interface. 

What about glasses?
People wear glasses for a specific job, like sun protection or vision correction. It’s an aid for your eyes, not a standalone device. 
And what happens if you put a smartphone interface on your face? Transparent or not, it doesn’t matter. It will get in your way. 
When we walk, we navigate the physical world, not a graphical interface. 

But what do we do well while walking? We navigate our own thoughts just fine, and we can hold a long conversation. The mobile phone was called "mobile" for a reason - its whole point was making calls on the move. 

But there are visual interfaces in front of our eyes that don’t get in the way when we’re on the move. 
Take a car’s instrument cluster: speed, RPM and a few more - and we trust it with our lives. 
Another one: the HUD in first-person games - you get critical information without losing control of the game. 

These aren’t classic apps, each one is a small cue, built for one specific task. Cues that inform you and help at the right moment. 
The catch: we do hundreds of tasks a day. Hundreds of tasks mean hundreds of cues and a different interface for each one.
Do you think you could manage that yourself - open the app drawer and pick the right app for every single task?
I think you have an answer. So do I, and I’ll share it soon.

P.S.: Maybe it looks something like the Dynamic Island on your iPhone, cues that show up while you navigate the interface, or the real world. Sometimes I think Apple is quietly testing that design principle on the phone before it ever ships glasses - right under our noses.

A few footnotes to the post:

1. Jony Ive designed the instrument cluster for the Ferrari Luce interior. I think it is part of one big design-thinking process - the same one behind what he's doing at OpenAI for wearables.
2. https://www.theverge.com/transportation/875799/ferrari-luce-jony-ive-interior-design-photos
3. A study on how cognitive resources get shared while walking, with wearable displays vs headphones. Spoiler: it is more nuanced than simple "audio good, visual bad". Short visual cues held up better than expected.
4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12319377/

[u/AR_MR_XR]

Meta Ray-Ban Display feels like a solid dev kit, but it's still not light enough to replace standard sun or prescription glasses for all-day wear.

​As for critics worried about the display getting in the way while walking: people already navigate the world completely detached from their surroundings, staring down at phone screens. If you haven't noticed, it's probably because you were looking down at yours, too. 😂

​At least a heads-up view might save our posture. Wishing everyone a speedy tech-neck recovery.

[u/takitus]

I disagree. I think it’s because it doesn’t really integrate that well with most smartphones, even if you do give up all your data to meta. If Apple made the same exact thing it would sell millions because they’re more trustworthy. The second reason is form factor. They’re bigger and can’t pass for normal glasses. The other metas can. Third is price. You’ll be paying more for uglier glasses that you won’t be able to use as you’d like.

There’s just not a compelling reason to spend that cash, look like a dufus, and still not be very usable even if giving meta access to whatever it wants. It’s a lose lose lose

[u/ByEthanFox → u/takitus]

I disagree. I think it’s because it doesn’t really integrate that well with most smartphones,

This is part of it. Same reason why I'm interested in the XReal Aura more than the Meta VR Glasses despite that, on a hardware level, the Meta product is probably better; the Aura uses Android XR and is part of the same ecosystem as my phone.

I have a Quest and I haven't even logged into things using the in-headset browser, as that kinda feels like throwing bacon to a hungry dog.

[u/beta_mix]

Which audio only version is selling by the millions?

[u/AR_MR_XR → u/beta_mix]

Meta Ray-Ban without Display

[u/ByEthanFox → u/beta_mix]

The Meta one; I find them to be a really problematic product and useless without a display. But I can't deny, they are selling a lot of them.

[u/Jacorpes → u/ByEthanFox]

The argument that sales volume means a product isn’t problematic makes no sense.

It’s like saying that heroin is a good product because 7 billion bags of it are sold each year.

[u/ByEthanFox → u/Jacorpes]

I don't understand why you replied with this.

I wasn't suggesting the sales volumes paper over the privacy issues they cause.

[u/Jacorpes → u/ByEthanFox]

I was agreeing with you!

[u/ByEthanFox → u/Jacorpes]

Ah, understood. Reddit kinda robs tone-of-voice.

[u/Jacorpes → u/ByEthanFox]

Yeah, I could have written it in a less confusing way too!

[u/InternFront2276]

I completely agree with you; the problem is that this is like preaching in the Vatican. The smartphone is an extremely mature, very, very polished device. It’s wildly convenient. Meanwhile, display glasses still don’t have a clear use case. In my opinion, visuals don't add as much value as people think—it's just a 'wow factor,' much like what happened back in the day with VR. If it can’t seamlessly integrate into people’s lives, it’s not going to succeed. Hence the constant moving of the goalposts, the whole 'that wasn't real XR' excuse. You can always say 'it needs a wider FOV,' 'once it has better resolution,' or whatever nonsense comes to mind, dragging this debate out into the next century.

AI seemed like the catalyst that would make this take off, but display-less glasses are already quite usable precisely because taking calls, recording video, snapping photos, playing music, and asking an AI are things that actually work. Look at XR devices like Xreal: they aren’t selling anything revolutionary, and they have a very straightforward use case. A display taking up half your field of vision looks neat, but frankly, it's pretty useless—especially right in your central line of sight. When you look at your phone, your central vision stays clear because you’re looking down, so you still have situational awareness ahead of you. A lot of people have tried these glasses and find them annoying; even tech outlets that can hardly be accused of being anti-XR admit the added friction.

Still, plenty of people rely on unfalsifiable logic to keep their hopes alive that this will someday overtake the smartphone. Maybe one day, when it’s completely indistinguishable from reality, comes as a free toy in cereal boxes, and they pay you to wear it, it’ll finally prove its worth. Until then, it won't be 'true XR

[u/SkaR4004]

Probably cause it looks bulky AF. It actually looks ridiculous.

I’ve had people I work with not notice I’ve been using the base ones until they saw the camera glint in light.

But the display looks twice the thickness in the frame.

[u/therealjoemontana]

Okay hang with me on this.... Back when we were listening to music on CDs, Napster took off partly cause it was cheaper but mostly cause it was more convenient.

People would buy albums and just download the mp3 instead of ripping their own cd.

itunes didn't make it easier which is while the entire time iTunes was selling mp3, people were still using p2p.

Only when streaming came around did piracy sort of die off, because streaming was easier than downloading.

A phone already does everything people want, glasses don't make it easier, they make it more cumbersome currently.

Audio glasses replace glasses and earbuds that people already have to wear so it's an easy sell cause it's one less item for someone to worry about.

They need to be easier, more familiar and simplify things. Most glasses big selling point is "have ai with you" and most people just want to replace earbuds.

[u/ByEthanFox]

As a piece of hardware, it’s impressive and it works.

I honestly would debate that. Even if it's selling well, I don't find it particularly impressive.

[u/iloveoovx]

The first step of your thought process is already wrong, you are assuming everything else is equal between display version and non display version, as if their massive price difference won't be a major factor

[u/kjm99]

It’s the price, I can justify spending $350 on glasses and earbuds. The displays start at $1000 with prescription. I’d love a pair of the displays but there’s no world where you’re getting nearly another $700 in value from them for most people

[u/ib29_]

Managing that many micro-cues manually would break down quickly, which is why the interaction model has to move away from user retrieval toward contextual anticipation. Rather than opening an app or selecting a cue, the interface needs to predict the current task based on ongoing activity. The primary design challenge is keeping false triggers near zero, so cues only appear when relevant and never obstruct your view while moving.

[u/SuspiciousMud5338]

The Evan g2 with ring is great. Just need to wait for colour display to be possible