by Fred Fuld III

Here is a tight, practical breakdown of Google Glass, Snapchat Spectacles, Apple Vision Pro, and Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses: what each does well, where each struggles, and a short list of genuinely useful features none of them reliably offer today.

Quick summary

• Google Glass (Enterprise Edition 2) — ultra-light, workplace tool for heads-up info and hands-free workflows; limited consumer features and modest display power.
• Snapchat Spectacles (recent AR models) — focused on AR visuals and social/creative experiences; promising optics but immature battery/software and developer-targeted releases.
• Apple Vision Pro — highest-end mixed-reality platform: great displays, sensors, and interaction model; very expensive, heavy, and not pocketable.
• Meta Ray-Ban (Stories / Meta Ray-Ban Smart Glasses) — stylish, socially oriented capture + audio (calls), reasonably discreet; limited AR, short capture use cases, privacy concerns.

---

Detailed pros & cons

Google Glass (Enterprise Edition 2)

Advantages

• Extremely lightweight and unobtrusive, suitable for long wear in industrial or medical workflows.
• Built around enterprise integrations (Android management, video for remote assist, purpose-built apps).

Disadvantages

• Not intended as a consumer AR/entertainment device — small display resolution and limited FOV compared to modern AR headsets.
• App ecosystem and polish are oriented to niche enterprise cases, so general consumer value is low.

Best use case: warehouse, manufacturing, remote assistance, hands-free checklists.

---

Snapchat Spectacles (latest AR Spectacles)

Advantages

• Designed specifically for rich AR overlays (hand-tracked interactions, virtual objects in space) and social/creative features — strong ambitions for AR experiences.
• Snap focuses on developer tools and content creation workflows that link to Snapchat’s social platform.

Disadvantages

• Early developer/preview product status — short battery life, narrow FOV complaints, and immature software reported by press and ex-employees.
• Monthly developer fees / limited availability in early rollouts make them less useful for casual buyers.

Best use case: AR developers, creators experimenting with spatial filters and social AR content.

---

Apple Vision Pro

Advantages

• State-of-the-art mixed reality: very high-resolution micro-OLED displays, many cameras/sensors, excellent eye- and hand-driven UI, strong app and media ecosystem potential.
• Powerful silicon (M2 + R1 variants), strong spatial audio, and platform features (OpticID, immersive video) for productivity and entertainment.

Disadvantages

• Very expensive and relatively heavy — not something you wear out in public all day; comfort over long sessions can be an issue for some users.
• Because it’s individualized (eye calibration/OpticID), casual “share the view” experiences are awkward. Battery life / portability tradeoffs vs. glasses form-factor remain.

Best use case: immersive productivity, cinema/3D media, pros experimenting with spatial apps — when cost/portability are less important.

---

Meta Ray-Ban (Ray-Ban Stories / later Smart Glasses)

Advantages

• Fashionable, familiar sunglasses/eyewear look — socially acceptable form factor for short capture and hands-free audio/calling.
• Easy POV photo/video capture and decent microphone/phone integration for calls; improvements (newer models) raise camera and audio specs.

Disadvantages

• Not a true AR display (mostly capture + audio) — minimal spatial overlays or immersive apps.
• Use cases often feel novelty-focused (short social clips) rather than utility-driven; raises privacy concerns when people around you don’t know they’re being recorded.

Best use case: casual POV capture, hands-free calls, social sharing where style matters.

---

Features users want that none of these deliver well (or at all)

Below are practical, high-value features that are either missing or poorly implemented across current smart glasses:

1. All-day battery in a real glasses form factor
   • Current AR and camera glasses compromise between battery, weight, and heat. A lightweight pair that reliably lasts a full waking day with mixed use (notifications, low-power AR, occasional video/photo) would be a major win.
2. High FOV, high-brightness transparent AR with low power
   • Narrow “mail-slot” FOVs limit compelling AR. A wider, true see-through holographic display that stays viewable outdoors without huge power draw is missing.
3. Robust privacy & social signaling built in
   • A hardware indicator that clearly communicates recording/AR use, plus standard privacy modes (auto-blur faces, soft-recording) would reduce social friction.
4. Interoperable spatial AR standards & cross-device sharing
   • Seamless handoff/visibility of AR objects between different vendors’ glasses (and phones) — e.g., a shared persistent AR note anchors that anyone with supported glasses can see.
5. Passive contextual sensing (low-power) for useful ambient assistance
   • Glasses that quietly recognize objects/labels/menus and show unobtrusive contextual help (translations, recipes, safety warnings) without needing a full AR app session.
6. Modular optical inserts & prescription support that preserve AR alignment
   • Practical AR for eyeglass wearers is still awkward; prescription inserts that keep display calibration accurate would broaden the audience.
7. True social/comfort design: instant “look up” interactions
   • Lightweight designs that let people glance at minimal info (notifications, direction prompts) without breaking social norms — current devices either overdo or underdeliver.
8. On-device generative AI assistants with privacy controls
   • Localized, low-latency language & vision models that can summarize what you see, translate in real time, or generate contextually relevant suggestions — but run with privacy safeguards and user control.

---

Short recommendation by user goal

• If you want enterprise hands-free tools: Google Glass (Enterprise) is the pragmatic, proven pick.
• If you want social AR creation / developer experimentation: Snap’s Spectacles (current AR lineup) — but expect rough edges.
• If you want the best immersive MR experience (and money is no object): Apple Vision Pro.
• If you want everyday-looking glasses for quick capture + calls: Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses

Looking at the financials of the four companies that make these glasses, Google, actually Alphabet (GOOGL) has a trailing price to earnings ratio of 27.5 and a forward P/E of 25, with a price to earnings growth ratio of 1.85. The dividend yield os 0.2%.

As for Snap (SNAP), the company has been generating negative earnings and does not pay a dividend.

Apple (AAPL) trades at 36 times trailing earnings and 30 times forward earnings. The PEG ratio is 3.59, and the yield is 0.4%.

Meta (META) has a trailing P/E of 27.5, a forward P/E of 21, and a PEG of 2.28. The yield is 0.3%.

There is one much smaller company involved in the production of smart glasses, Vuzix (VUZI). The market cap is only $229 million.

Obviously, the smart glasses business makes up only a very small portion of the revenues of the four major companies involved in this industry. However, if and/or when smart glasses ever takes off, it could add a significant amount to the companies’ bottom line.

Disclosure: Author owns Apple. No recommendations are expressed or implied.