As expected, Snap Specs are total garbage

Evan Spiegel in need of medical attention due to the permanent damage being done to his ear

The reporters over at 404Media are on a roll, as usual, this week. I'll have more thoughts on their AI piece later, but for now, let's talk about those Snaptacles.

I'll give Snap this: they make a compelling demo reel. When I watched the mostly obnoxious presentation where Evan Spiegel pretended to be Steve Jobs presenting the future of humanity, I was impressed by some of the visuals.

Some aspects looked toy-like and pixelated, but other portions looked opaque and useful. Like, no, no one is going to sit in a circle of friends to play some terrible looking AR game. But that floating video window looked compelling.

Of course, everything looks good in a canned demo. Never forget the excitement nerds felt when we saw Google Glass AR view for the first time before we knew better.

404's Jason Koebler got a chance to wear these glasses during a press event at a museum. Needless to say, the whole thing sounds awful.

The glasses weigh nearly 10x what normal glasses do, and before you say anything about Apple Vision Pro, think about where the weight is resting. Apple Vision Pro may be dense, but that dual strap distributes the weight in a way I don't even notice anymore. These glasses are all on your nose bridge and ears.

Those ear folds on everyone wearing them? Ouch.

Even worse was the software. I'll admit that I was watching the video thinking "damn, did they really do this? Are we seeing true AR glasses this early when Apple Vision Pro is still this nascent as a category?

Turns out, no. Not even close. That 51 degree field of view means AR objects just cease to exist halfway through the display within your field of vision. Turning your head at all loses all sense that there was ever anything there in the first place.

Presence and object permanence are key in these kinds of products. No one has nailed that down yet besides Apple Vision Pro. And it accomplished that by encasing your eyes in fabric near some very expensive displays.

The gimmick in use was awful too. The exhibit apparently swapped your face with other portraits, but often did a terrible job by simply stapling your lifelike image over a painting.

If this was the best press event they could cobble together, this thing is dead on arrival. Especially at that $2,200 price point.

So, in case you were wondering why Apple hasn't stepped into AR glasses yet, this is why. The technology just isn't there yet, even at $2,200. Meta's offering with a display isn't even AR, it's just Xreal with an OS – a flat display mounted to one eye. Monocular computing.

Yeah, let's let this category mature a bit more before we get too excited.