AI wearables have had a cruddy year. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Just a few short months ago, the tech world was convinced AI hardware could be the next big thing<\/a>. It was a heady vision, bolstered by futuristic demos and sleek hardware. At the center of the buzz were the Humane AI Pin<\/a> and the Rabbit R1<\/a>. Both promised a grandiose future. Neither delivered the goods.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n It\u2019s an old story in the gadget world. Smart glasses and augmented reality headsets went through a similar hype cycle a decade ago. Google Glass infamously promised a future where reality was overlaid with helpful information. In the years since, Magic Leap, Focals By North, Microsoft\u2019s HoloLens, Apple\u2019s Vision Pro, and most recently, the new Snapchat Spectacles<\/a> have tried to keep the vision alive but to no real commercial success. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n So, all things considered, it\u2019s a bit ironic that the best shot at a workable AI wearable is a pair of smart glasses \u2014 specifically, the Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The funny thing about the Meta smart glasses is nobody expected them to be as successful as they are. Partly because the first iteration, the Ray-Ban Stories<\/a>, categorically flopped<\/a>. Partly because they weren\u2019t smart glasses offering up new ideas. Bose had already made stylish<\/a> audio sunglasses<\/a> and then shuttered the whole operation<\/a>. Snap Spectacles<\/a> already tried recording short videos for social, and that clearly wasn\u2019t good enough, either. On paper, there was no compelling reason why the Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses ought to resonate with people.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n And yet, they have<\/em> succeeded where other AI wearables and smart glasses haven\u2019t. Notably, beyond even Meta\u2019s own expectations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n A lot of that boils down to Meta finally nailing style and<\/em> execution. The Meta glasses come in a ton of different styles and colors compared to the Stories. You\u2019re almost guaranteed to find something that looks snazzy on you. In this respect, Meta was savvy enough to understand that the average person doesn\u2019t<\/em> want to look like they just walked out of a sci-fi film. They want to look cool by today\u2019s<\/em> standards.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n At $299, they\u2019re expensive but are affordable compared to a $3,500 Vision Pro or a $699 Humane pin. Audio quality is good. Call quality is surprisingly<\/em> excellent thanks to a well-positioned mic in the nose bridge. Unlike the Stories or Snap\u2019s earlier Spectacles, video and photo quality is good enough to post to Instagram without feeling embarrassed \u2014 especially in the era of content creators, where POV-style Instagram Reels and TikToks do numbers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n This is a device that can easily slot into people\u2019s lives now<\/em>. There\u2019s no future software update to wait for. It\u2019s not a solution looking for a problem to solve. And this, more than anything else, is exactly why the Ray-Bans have a shot at successfully figuring out AI. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n That\u2019s because AI is already on it \u2014 it\u2019s just a feature, not the whole schtick. You can use it to identify objects you come across or tell you more about a landmark. You can ask Meta AI to write dubious captions for your Instagram post or translate a menu. You can video call a friend, and they\u2019ll be able to see what you see. All of these use cases make sense for the device and how you\u2019d use it. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n In practice, these features are a bit wonky and inelegant. Meta AI has yet to write me a good<\/em> Instagram caption and often it can\u2019t hear me well in loud environments. But unlike the Rabbit R1, it works. Unlike Humane, it doesn\u2019t overheat, and there\u2019s no latency because it uses your phone for processing. Crucially, unlike either of these devices, if the AI shits the bed, it can still do other things very well. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n This is good enough. For now. Going forward, the pressure is on. Meta\u2019s gambit is if people can get on board with simpler smart glasses, they\u2019ll be more comfortable with face computers when AI \u2014 and eventually AR \u2014 is ready for prime time. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n They\u2019ve proved the first part of the equation. But if the latter is going to come true, the AI can\u2019t be okay or serviceable. It has to be genuinely good<\/em>. It has to make the jump from \u201cOh, this is kind of convenient when it works\u201d to \u201cI wear smart glasses all day because my life is so<\/em> much easier with them than without.\u201d Right now, a lot of the Meta glasses\u2019 AI features are neat but essentially party tricks. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n It\u2019s a tall order, but of everyone out there right now, Meta seems to be the best positioned to succeed. Style and wearability aren\u2019t a problem. It just inked a deal with EssilorLuxxotica to extend its smart glasses partnership beyond 2030<\/a>. Now that it has a general blueprint for the hardware, iterative improvements like better battery and lighter fits are achievable. All that\u2019s left to see is whether Meta can make good on the rest of it. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n It\u2019ll get the chance to prove it can next week at its Meta Connect event. It\u2019s a prime time. Humane\u2019s daily returns are outpacing sales<\/a>. Critics accuse Rabbit of being little more than a scam<\/a>. Experts aren\u2019t convinced<\/a> Apple\u2019s big AI-inspired \u201csupercycle\u201d<\/a> with the iPhone 16 will even happen. A win here wouldn\u2019t just solidify Meta\u2019s lead \u2014 it\u2019d help keep the dream of AI hardware alive. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n