'Apple Glasses' reportedly launching in 2026 or 2027 at the earliest

AppleInsider

Supply chain analyst and leaker Ming-Chi Kuo shared a report about Apple's adoption of metalens technology, citing their eventual use in "Apple Glasses" around 2026 or 2027.

'Apple Glasses' could arrive in 2026

Apple is reportedly developing metalens technology to replace plastic lens covers in future devices. It would start as replacement covers for Face ID, then eventually camera lenses and AR glasses.

According to a report from supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, the first appearance of metalens will enter mass production in 2024 for use as the Face ID cover in iPad Pro. If successful, the iPhone will adopt metalens for Face ID in 2025 or 2026, though Kuo says the latter is more likely.

Ultimately, the technology would be used for Apple Glasses, the augmented reality glasses expected to display content over the real world. Kuo says Apple's glasses would go into production in 2026 or 2027 at the earliest.

Metalens technology is expected to go more mainstream by 2028 to 2030, acting as replacements for plastic lenses on low-end cameras or LiDAR systems.

A Harvard University paper describes metalens as a flat surface that uses nanostructures to focus light. The technology appears to be in the early stages, but Kuo is confident that it will be ready for the tiny lens covers for Face ID by 2024.

Ming-Chi Kuo hasn't mentioned a launch window for Apple's AR glasses project in years, previously sharing that they were due in 2025. That report also mentioned contact lenses were due by 2030, but Wednesday's report makes no mention of the contacts.

This report is rated a "Possible" in our rumor scale due to the length of time involved between now and confirming the leak. Kuo has a strong history of reporting future product release windows, even if those windows slip. Time will tell if this is accurate or not.

The Apple VR headset is rumored to be announced during WWDC in June, maybe. It is the first step to Apple developing the Apple AR glasses Kuo expects could be ready no earlier than 2026.

Read on AppleInsider

lolliver

I find the rumour rating helpful but I still have my doubts about Kuo. Ming-Chi Kuo seems to start with rumours that are forecast far into the future and then just adjust them over time or advise that a new decision was made that negates the earlier rumour but implies the rumour was still true when the claim was first made. 

I don't think there are any analysists or leakers that could ever maintain a high level of accuracy as they are stuck in a cat and mouse game with Apple who changes approaches to try and throw them off. 

thedba

Wasn’t it as recently as a year ago that “Apple car” rumors were hitting these pages with headlines like “to be released in 2023 or 2024”?

This rumor sounds a bit like this. Predict something far off into the future and if it doesn’t pan out, then hopefully everyone has forgotten about it by then.

ravnorodom

Good move, Apple. Buy some more time until the technology is ready. The big bulky VR headset just looks silly today.

9secondkox2

As I e been saying ever since the scuba gear lookalike prototypes have been making the rounds. 

No one will buy the headset. The only way it will work is if it’s an unobtrusive part of everyday life - like a pair of glasses or sunglasses. 

That will sell in mass market numbers. Woolen spend a bundle on glasses and sunglasses as it is, especially for a premium pair. Apple Glasses will cut right in. 

danox

9secondkox2 said:

As I e been saying ever since the scuba gear lookalike prototypes have been making the rounds. 

No one will buy the headset. The only way it will work is if it’s an unobtrusive part of everyday life - like a pair of glasses or sunglasses. 

That will sell in mass market numbers. Woolen spend a bundle on glasses and sunglasses as it is, especially for a premium pair. Apple Glasses will cut right in. 

Absolutely…..

applezulu

lolliver said:

I find the rumour rating helpful but I still have my doubts about Kuo. Ming-Chi Kuo seems to start with rumours that are forecast far into the future and then just adjust them over time or advise that a new decision was made that negates the earlier rumour but implies the rumour was still true when the claim was first made. 

I don't think there are any analysists or leakers that could ever maintain a high level of accuracy as they are stuck in a cat and mouse game with Apple who changes approaches to try and throw them off. 

Kuo is notorious for modifying predictions over time. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with modifying one's conclusions based on the availability of new information. 

The hitch has always been that Kuo's reputation is quite regularly boosted through laudatory rhetoric like "better than most" or "oft correct" included in reporting (here and in other places) based on his predictions. Even in today's case, "Kuo has a strong history of reporting future product release windows, even if those windows slip," his "strong history" is celebrated, while seemingly discounting his repeated inaccuracies with a shrug: "even if those windows slip." Essentially, 'he's usually right, even when he's wrong.' 

This is of course the problem. The idea of rumor ratings is good, but there doesn't seem to be any quantitative assessment of the prognosticators used, only subjective assessments. When being eventually right just lands in the subjective plus-column, Kuo's rumor rating is off-kilter, based on spin. If I were to come on here once a week, every week and post that the next iPhone is coming out next week, I will eventually be correct, but what's the value in that? If I repeat that process every year, should I be considered right, five years in a row, or wrong, 98% of the time? If Kuo predicts these glasses will come out in '26 or '27, but revises his prediction seven more times before they actually come out in '29, what's the actual value in that? He might eventually be right, but in this scenario, 87.5% of his predictions are wrong. If that's the statistical track record, how does he get a "possible" rumor score with a graphic that suggests it's 75% likely to be correct? Given the regularity with which Kuo updates and changes dates and details of his predictions, he's actually wrong most of the time.

Consider that a prediction made once, then later modified once, with the second try turning out to be accurate, comes out as a 50/50 track record. If Kuo modifies something a second time before it's right, then he's only right a third of the time. To be considered 'mostly accurate' or 'right most of the time,' there have to be a lot of predictions, made only once, and right on the first try. Even without combing through the record, knowing that he frequently updates predictions means Kuo is almost surely wrong most of the time. Maybe that's still better than everybody else, but without keeping a comprehensive tally sheet, how can you know? 

radarthekat

AppleZulu said:

lolliver said:

I find the rumour rating helpful but I still have my doubts about Kuo. Ming-Chi Kuo seems to start with rumours that are forecast far into the future and then just adjust them over time or advise that a new decision was made that negates the earlier rumour but implies the rumour was still true when the claim was first made. 

I don't think there are any analysists or leakers that could ever maintain a high level of accuracy as they are stuck in a cat and mouse game with Apple who changes approaches to try and throw them off. 

Kuo is notorious for modifying predictions over time. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with modifying one's conclusions based on the availability of new information. 

The hitch has always been that Kuo's reputation is quite regularly boosted through laudatory rhetoric like "better than most" or "oft correct" included in reporting (here and in other places) based on his predictions. Even in today's case, "Kuo has a strong history of reporting future product release windows, even if those windows slip," his "strong history" is celebrated, while seemingly discounting his repeated inaccuracies with a shrug: "even if those windows slip." Essentially, 'he's usually right, even when he's wrong.' 

This is of course the problem. The idea of rumor ratings is good, but there doesn't seem to be any quantitative assessment of the prognosticators used, only subjective assessments. When being eventually right just lands in the subjective plus-column, Kuo's rumor rating is off-kilter, based on spin. If I were to come on here once a week, every week and post that the next iPhone is coming out next week, I will eventually be correct, but what's the value in that? If I repeat that process every year, should I be considered right, five years in a row, or wrong, 98% of the time? If Kuo predicts these glasses will come out in '26 or '27, but revises his prediction seven more times before they actually come out in '29, what's the actual value in that? He might eventually be right, but in this scenario, 87.5% of his predictions are wrong. If that's the statistical track record, how does he get a "possible" rumor score with a graphic that suggests it's 75% likely to be correct? Given the regularity with which Kuo updates and changes dates and details of his predictions, he's actually wrong most of the time.

Consider that a prediction made once, then later modified once, with the second try turning out to be accurate, comes out as a 50/50 track record. If Kuo modifies something a second time before it's right, then he's only right a third of the time. To be considered 'mostly accurate' or 'right most of the time,' there have to be a lot of predictions, made only once, and right on the first try. Even without combing through the record, knowing that he frequently updates predictions means Kuo is almost surely wrong most of the time. Maybe that's still better than everybody else, but without keeping a comprehensive tally sheet, how can you know? 

I agree with this comment and here’s why…

You and I, and even someone not paying attention, can make the easy prediction that Apple will at some point make a wearable product that plays in the AR space, with the obvious prediction being glasses and eventually contact lenses. There’s not much predictive value in that.

The value comes from accurately predicting when, and maybe even some of the less obvious capabilities. If I predict that the contact lenses will do everything the glasses do, plus transmit to my other Apple devices my blood glucose levels, pulse, heart rate, etc, then that’s an interesting prediction, if it comes true and happens in the timeframe I originally predicted.  But predicting nine out of the next two hurricanes, as Kuo’s strategy seems to be, is not so noteworthy. 

edited April 2023

22july2013

AppleZulu said:

lolliver said:

I find the rumour rating helpful but I still have my doubts about Kuo. Ming-Chi Kuo seems to start with rumours that are forecast far into the future and then just adjust them over time or advise that a new decision was made that negates the earlier rumour but implies the rumour was still true when the claim was first made. 

I don't think there are any analysists or leakers that could ever maintain a high level of accuracy as they are stuck in a cat and mouse game with Apple who changes approaches to try and throw them off. 

Kuo is notorious for modifying predictions over time. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with modifying one's conclusions based on the availability of new information. 

The hitch has always been that Kuo's reputation is quite regularly boosted through laudatory rhetoric like "better than most" or "oft correct" included in reporting (here and in other places) based on his predictions. Even in today's case, "Kuo has a strong history of reporting future product release windows, even if those windows slip," his "strong history" is celebrated, while seemingly discounting his repeated inaccuracies with a shrug: "even if those windows slip." Essentially, 'he's usually right, even when he's wrong.' 

This is of course the problem. The idea of rumor ratings is good, but there doesn't seem to be any quantitative assessment of the prognosticators used, only subjective assessments. When being eventually right just lands in the subjective plus-column, Kuo's rumor rating is off-kilter, based on spin. If I were to come on here once a week, every week and post that the next iPhone is coming out next week, I will eventually be correct, but what's the value in that? If I repeat that process every year, should I be considered right, five years in a row, or wrong, 98% of the time? If Kuo predicts these glasses will come out in '26 or '27, but revises his prediction seven more times before they actually come out in '29, what's the actual value in that? He might eventually be right, but in this scenario, 87.5% of his predictions are wrong. If that's the statistical track record, how does he get a "possible" rumor score with a graphic that suggests it's 75% likely to be correct? Given the regularity with which Kuo updates and changes dates and details of his predictions, he's actually wrong most of the time.

Consider that a prediction made once, then later modified once, with the second try turning out to be accurate, comes out as a 50/50 track record. If Kuo modifies something a second time before it's right, then he's only right a third of the time. To be considered 'mostly accurate' or 'right most of the time,' there have to be a lot of predictions, made only once, and right on the first try. Even without combing through the record, knowing that he frequently updates predictions means Kuo is almost surely wrong most of the time. Maybe that's still better than everybody else, but without keeping a comprehensive tally sheet, how can you know? 

Your points are all good, but I would go one step further and say that a prediction about a product that comes out in the last few days before its official announcement is also not a valid leak, because it also provides no useful information that I can use to plan purchases, since I won't purchase anything just before an Apple event. So I wouldn't count a prediction made a week before a product is announced to count as any sort of rumour credibility. That's just too late. Furthermore, I like to watch Apple's announcements live, and so it would simply spoil the fun if I discovered one day earlier what they were going to announce.

Nothing would stop people like you or me from creating a website that takes these factors into account and rating the prognosticators based on factors like these. There are websites which rate prognosticators, but they don't seem to take your concerns or mine into their weighting calculations. I think Ross Young would come out on top using our system, but one problem with his predictions is that they are focussed on a particular technology that Apple uses, so it seems unlikely that he would ever make a prediction about Apple TV, for example, which doesn't have a display.

bushman4

Too many variables to predict a date. Variables like Tim Cook retiring etc (hopefully not for a while)

dutchlord

The best sunglasses ever. Starting at $3000…:) no thanks.

rmusikantow

Not seeing much excitement on this forum for these VR and AR devices.

eightzero

AAPL stock jumped after this report today.

daalseth

Not to be overly cynical about this, but I feel that any report about a tech product that says a delivery three or more years away is just an I Don’t Know. They know Apple, or whomever, is working on something, but it’s still in the ‘someday’ category. 

jamescude

I've noticed Ming is getting much weaker in his predictions. Is it possible the shift in production to Vietnam and India has given him fewer local leakers to work with?

williamlondon

dutchlord said:

The best sunglasses ever. Starting at $3000…:) no thanks.

Cool, you got access to an early set, you know the price, the functionality and you've already concluded they're shit.

Your negativity is so fucking puerile, but typical of your posts, over and over again.

dutchlord

williamlondon said:

dutchlord said:

The best sunglasses ever. Starting at $3000…:) no thanks.

Cool, you got access to an early set, you know the price, the functionality and you've already concluded they're shit.

Your negativity is so fucking puerile, but typical of your posts, over and over again.

You must be British….no humor

darkvader

Should have added "if ever" - because this may be like the car, somebody's pet project that will never ship.

(There is no Apple car.  There will be no Apple car.)

tangey

This is starting to feel like the whole Apple Car thing. Scores and scores of articles of it definitely coming, who is working on it, where they are working on it, when it might launch, what it might have and then it never really was going to happen at all.

Or go back several years earlier, and it was the same thing with the Apple TV.

One wonders sometimes where these stories come from, or are they just total fabrications that the entire industry is in on to fill column inches and provide clickbait.

Be honest, is it really now journalistic worth posting ANYTHING on this subject, when the most recent "leak" is saying its not happening for 3-4 years, and actually no one knows for sure if there is actually a project at all ?

I hear Apple are going to fabricate their own ram chips, won't be in devices until 2028...proceed with conjecture for 3-4 years about size, R&D partner, key personnel, cost savings, novel IP that might be deployed based on some tenuous patents being applied/granted, power requirements, location of plant, first product to use them etc...and then ummm, the project has been dropped.

edited April 2023

larryjw

The Harvard paper is a worthwhile read for background but I gagged when it mentioned focusing “white” light — which doesn’t exist — white is not a light frequency. 

It does emphasize the research being done with materials to make such things as the Apple Glass feasible. 

But there is no reason to think that the Harvard approach to the only approach being researched, or that Apple is pursuing. 

rogue01

Maybe someone should tell Apple about Google Glass.  No one wants to wear them, ever.  These rumors are as bad as 3DTV.  That was a major flop because no one wants to deal with glasses, and it was just a big gimmick anyway.  That is why they stopped making 3DTVs because even the manufacturers knew it was a big fail.

Dutchlord is right.  If they are a reality, they will be grossly expensive.  The ridiculous AR goggles are estimated at $3K, priced so high, no one will buy them.  Apple is trying to re-invent stuff that already failed big time.