[DigitalToday reporter Hyunwoo Choo (추현우)] Smart glasses products are growing quickly, but it remains unclear why users should wear them all day, a critique said. On April 30 local time, IT outlet The Verge said recent limits of smart glasses lie less in the technology itself than in clear everyday uses.

Recent products such as Meta Ray-Ban Display, Evn Reality G2, Rokid, Xreal, RayNeo and Lucyd have similar looks and functions. They can handle basic tasks such as playing music, checking messages and providing directions, but there have not been many distinctive usage scenarios. After using several products for 1 year, the assessment said smart glasses need a more convincing answer to why they must be worn on the face all day to succeed.

The industry is pushing smart glasses as AI wearables, but the actual experience fell short of expectations. Meta AI repeatedly failed to identify car models, and Rokid products repeatedly showed problems with permission settings and Bluetooth connections. Evn Reality's conversation assistance feature also went no further than displaying basic definitions such as "artificial intelligence" and "wearable technology" in the field of view during a product briefing.

Privacy concerns were also cited as an obstacle. The less noticeable a device is, the easier it is to wear in daily life, but products with cameras can increase anxiety among people nearby. The writer mentioned an experience of unintentionally filming a flower shop employee and noted that use of such devices is already banned on cruises and in courts.

Vision correction and repair issues also remain. Meta only recently released a version that supports all prescriptions, and Evn Reality said it can support up to plus or minus 12. Options remain limited for users who need bifocal lenses. With electronic components inside the frame, it is also difficult to replace nose pads or screws directly, as with regular glasses.

Limits in real-world use were also clear. Real-time translation and caption features worked properly only in quiet environments, and navigation was useful only in some situations. It was relatively usable in situations with lots of movement, such as travel, but the assessment said that for ordinary users it ultimately feels close to glasses with open-ear headphones attached.

That does not mean there is no potential. The writer said today’s smart glasses are cheaper, more comfortable and perform better than in the past. The most satisfying product was Oakley Meta Vanguard, which had a clear purpose such as running training and logging. Utility was higher when the device had a defined goal rather than trying to do everything.

The case shows the focus of competition in smart glasses shifting from adding performance to explaining the reason to use them. Simply adding more AI is not enough, it said, and product value emerges only when the time, place and purpose of wearing the device are clear.