Snap Specs: The Minimum Viable Product for True AR
I’ve been covering AR glasses since Google Glass was a punchline. I’ve watched Magic Leap burn through billions and deliver a headset that felt like a fever dream. I’ve seen Microsoft’s HoloLens go from marvel to cautionary tale. So when I finally got my hands on Snap’s new Specs, I wasn’t expecting much. Another prototype, another promise, another round of ‘this is the future’ from a company that makes its real money from filters and ads.
But here’s the thing: the Snap Specs are not a disaster. In fact, they’re the first pair of true AR glasses I’ve tried that feel like they might actually be the minimum viable product for a consumer device. Not great. Not polished. But viable.
Let’s get the obvious out of the way: optically, these things are rough. The field of view is narrow, the image is dim, and there’s a persistent blur around the edges that made me feel like I needed glasses for my glasses. If you’re expecting the crisp, full-color holograms you see in sci-fi movies, you’re going to be disappointed. This is not that. Not even close.
But here’s where it gets interesting. The tracking is genuinely impressive. I moved my head, and the virtual objects stayed put. I walked around the room, and they didn’t drift. I even tried covering the cameras with my hand, and the system recovered almost instantly. That’s not nothing. In fact, it’s the kind of foundational tech that makes everything else possible.
What Actually Works (And What Doesn’t)
Let’s break it down. The Snap Specs are lightweight, which is a big deal. I wore them for about 30 minutes without wanting to rip them off my face. That’s more than I can say for most AR headsets. The battery life is reportedly around 30 minutes of active use, which is terrible, but also kind of expected for a first-gen device. You’re not going to watch a movie on these. You’re going to use them for quick interactions, notifications, maybe a little bit of gaming.
The interface is simple: you use hand gestures and voice commands. The hand tracking is decent, though it occasionally lost my fingers when I moved too fast. The voice commands worked about 80% of the time, which is frustrating but not deal-breaking. The biggest issue is the display. It’s just not bright enough for outdoor use, and indoors it’s passable but not comfortable. I found myself squinting more than I’d like.
What struck me here is that Snap isn’t trying to compete with the HoloLens or the Magic Leap. They’re not going after enterprise. They’re going after consumers. And for consumers, the bar is different. You don’t need perfect optics. You need something that works, that’s comfortable, and that doesn’t make you look like a complete idiot. The Snap Specs mostly clear that bar.
But let’s not kid ourselves. This is a developer kit, not a consumer product. Snap is calling it a ‘minimum viable consumer true AR glasses,’ which is a mouthful, but it’s also accurate. It’s the bare minimum. And that’s fine. Somebody has to go first.
The Tracking Is the Star
I want to spend a little more time on the tracking because it’s the most important part of this device. Without good tracking, AR glasses are useless. You can have the best display in the world, but if the virtual objects don’t stay anchored to the real world, it’s all garbage. Snap has clearly invested a lot in this, and it shows.
The Specs use a combination of cameras and sensors to map the environment and track your head. I tested them in a cluttered living room, a dimly lit office, and a brightly lit kitchen. In all three environments, the tracking held up. It wasn’t perfect—I saw some jitter when I moved my head quickly—but it was stable enough to be usable. That’s a big deal.
What’s more, the latency is low. I didn’t feel that lag between moving my head and seeing the virtual object move. That’s crucial for immersion. If you’re constantly fighting the system, you’re never going to forget you’re wearing a computer on your face. With the Specs, I occasionally forgot. That’s the highest compliment I can give.
Of course, tracking is only half the battle. The other half is the display. And that’s where the Specs stumble. The field of view is roughly 30 degrees, which is like looking through a straw. The resolution is low, so text is hard to read. The brightness is mediocre, so colors look washed out. It’s not a pleasant viewing experience.
But again, this is a first-gen device. The question is whether it’s good enough to get developers excited. I think it is. Because once you have solid tracking, you can start building experiences that actually work. And then you can iterate on the optics.
The Competition Is Coming
Snap isn’t the only company working on this. Apple is rumored to be working on AR glasses. Meta is pouring billions into the metaverse and AR. Google is still licking its wounds from Glass but hasn’t given up. And then there are a dozen startups you’ve never heard of, all trying to crack the same nut.
So why should we care about Snap? Because they’re actually shipping something. They’re not just talking about it. They’re putting a device in developers’ hands and saying, ‘Go build.’ That’s more than most companies are doing.
And let’s be honest: Snap has a unique advantage. They understand consumers. They understand social. They understand how to make things fun. If anyone can make AR glasses cool, it’s Snap. They’ve already done it with filters. Now they’re trying to do it with hardware.
But here’s the catch: Snap is not a hardware company. They’ve struggled with hardware before. The Spectacles were a flop. The Pixy drone was discontinued. The company has a habit of launching products and then abandoning them. Will the Specs be different? I don’t know. But I hope so.
What Needs to Happen Next
If Snap wants the Specs to succeed, they need to do a few things. First, they need to improve the display. That’s the biggest weakness. They need to increase the field of view, boost the brightness, and improve the resolution. That’s not easy, but it’s necessary.
Second, they need to get the price down. Snap hasn’t announced pricing yet, but I’m guessing it won’t be cheap. For consumers to adopt this, it needs to be under $500. Ideally under $300. Otherwise, it’s a toy for developers and enthusiasts.
Third, they need to build a killer app. Right now, there’s no reason to wear these glasses. You can get notifications on your phone. You can play games on your console. You can take photos with your camera. What does AR glasses do that’s better? Snap needs to answer that question.
I think the answer is social. Snap is a social company. They should lean into that. Imagine walking around a city and seeing virtual graffiti from your friends. Or playing a multiplayer game in the park. Or having a virtual assistant that actually helps you navigate the world. That’s the promise of AR. Snap is in a unique position to deliver it.
The Verdict
So, are the Snap Specs good? No. Are they interesting? Absolutely. They’re a glimpse of the future, even if that future is blurry and dim. They’re a reminder that true AR is hard, and that we’re still in the early days. But they’re also a sign that we’re getting closer.
I’ve been skeptical of AR for years. I’ve seen too many demos that looked great and products that flopped. But the Snap Specs made me a little more optimistic. Not because they’re great, but because they’re real. They exist. You can put them on your face and use them. And that’s more than I can say for most of the AR hype I’ve covered.
Is this the minimum viable consumer true AR glasses? Yeah, I think it is. And that’s a step forward. A small, blurry, dim step forward. But a step nonetheless.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go rub my eyes. These things are rough on the retinas.
Original source: read the full article