Technologies

Apple Should Build Its AR on the Meta Quest

Commentary: Its glasses may be on hold, but the immediate future is already in front of us.

Apple’s first-ever VR-AR or «mixed reality» device is expected this year, and already its follow-up product seems to be on hold. According to Bloomberg’s reliable Mark Gurman, a planned set of AR glasses isn’t coming from Apple anytime soon. That’s OK: AR glasses don’t seem like they’re imminent from anyone.

After a trip to Las Vegas to try out some of the emerging technologies around future VR and AR headsets, one thing is increasingly clear: Everyone’s trying to figure out AR glasses, but everyone’s trying to perfect VR headsets. The difference between those two scenarios is bigger than you think.

All-day AR glasses that are useful, work convincingly, have long enough battery life, work with your phone and function as actually legit prescription glasses haven’t materialized, although the pieces are coming into place. Companies like Meta have promised a decade-long path to these glasses. It turns out, maybe, that’s going to be the case for everyone else, too. I’ve seen smart glasses that look real but don’t do much, or glasses with AR that feel chunky and do some things, but don’t quite work with my vision and can’t figure out how to work with my phone yet. Chipmaker Qualcomm is working on this; Google, Apple and Samsung need to solve it someday, too.

In the meantime, VR already has a very real and reasonably popular product that most families I know in the everyday world are familiar with: the Meta (formerly Oculus) Quest 2.

That recognition is no small thing. I think of the Quest’s place in everyday life like the Amazon Echo was years ago: something odd that over time became familiar, normalized. Something reasonably priced, and good enough to do a few things actually well. The Quest 2 is basically a game console. Where Meta has struggled is figuring out how to expand that base beyond gamers.

Following Meta’s playbook is something I expected Apple would do. Heck, I expect most companies are going to do it. The Quest 2 works just like most people imagine it will, or better. It’s a bit of instant magic that’s totally wire-free.

The Quest 2 does have downsides. In fact, those problems emerge the more you use it. I find connecting with friends and social spaces gets weird and buggy, prone to lag, disconnects and way-too-basic avatars. The battery life is bad. For fitness apps, which the Quest 2 can do surprisingly well, it’s still not good at really managing sweat or keeping my glasses from fogging.

Even though Meta wants the Quest 2 and higher-end, work-focused Quest Pro to open up new ways to work by creating virtual monitors around my laptop, the connections and display quality aren’t good enough to be more than a clever experiment most of the time. I can see my laptop keyboard with the Quest Pro’s passthrough cameras, but typing feels awkward and nowhere near as good as when I’m just on my laptop… and I can’t see my phone screen to check messages, either. The Quest can show me phone notifications like a basic smartwatch from a decade ago, but I can’t interact with them.

These VR headsets can even do some basic AR, using passthrough cameras that «mix reality» to show the real world in fuzzier video, with VR layered on top. The effect is sometimes pretty amazing, and could even approach feelings I’ve had with early AR headsets like the Microsoft HoloLens 2.

So where does that put Apple? Clearly, there’s a headset coming soon. And according to Bloomberg’s Gurman, the next goal after this first expensive headset is to work on a more affordable model. It’s like Meta’s approach to the Quest and Quest Pro, in reverse. And there are plenty of things Apple could focus on to make its entry into VR (and AR) worth the effort.

Better comfort, better fitness

The Quest 2 is already an affordable fitness device, and pairs with watches to show heart rate and fitness stats. Apple clearly has an advantage on time spent developing the Apple Watch, fitness and health tracking, and its Fitness Plus subscription video workouts, which also have overlaid fitness stats.

Apple could emphasize workouts and fitness on its headset, with comfortable, breathable straps and face pieces that could feel better for exercise. Meta is starting to realize it needs to improve comfort for VR: A recent Razer partnership using head straps made by CPAP-maker ResMed shows a need for better materials. I’d expect Apple to make this aspect a key part of the headset’s advantages. There are other advantages, too. Apps like Beat Saber and Supernatural use music for fitness, and Apple already has all of Apple Music at its disposal.

Connect better with laptops, iPads, phones, watches

VR headsets right now have an extremely hard time working well with all the other things we have lying around us. I can’t get a Quest to connect nicely with my phone all the time. To work with my laptop, I need a specialized third-party app with its own thing I have to install on my laptop and turn on.

Meanwhile, Apple has been focusing on handoffs and continuity across AirPods, HomePods, iPhones, Apple Watches, MacBooks, Apple TVs… all over the place. That’s what’s needed to make a VR headset seem seamless and integrated into other stuff. I want to check my watch in VR, or use it to control apps. Or use my phone, and also see the phone. Suddenly grab my laptop, and the headset connects. Incoming calls? No problem. Send myself things back and forth from my phone or laptop and get all the files and things I want, and not feel like I’m on a vacation from them. That’s what Apple’s headset could set out to achieve.

That’s a best-case scenario. Much like the first Apple Watch and iPhone, the actual Day 1 functions of this headset might end up disappointing.

Better social

Even though the metaverse is on everyone’s minds, there aren’t many big social spaces in VR that work well. Microsoft’s Altspace is nice, but often feels empty. VRChat is wild, experimental, full of big features and ideas, and feels like a messy explosion that’s hard to jump into. Meta can’t get enough people into Horizon Worlds. Even when these platforms do work, for concerts or events, the limits on people who can attend at once, the lag and drop-off, not to mention the avatar limits, make it a trade-off versus any other way you could connect on a phone or laptop.

Apple may not be able to solve this any better for larger-scale experiences, but for more intimate and several-person FaceTime-like moments, Apple could make shared experiences in VR work a lot better. Meta hasn’t perfected social VR yet, and someone needs to.

Can Apple make a better controller? (Or none?)

The Quest 2 controllers are fine, but all of VR leans on the same game controller-like inputs for headsets. Apple’s headset could lean more on hand tracking, or wearable inputs like the Apple Watch. I’m curious if a more work-oriented controller or accessory can be created that makes the headset feel better for taking on apps beyond games. Meta’s working on a long-term, game-changing shift to neural input wristbands eventually, but it’s unclear whether this approach will end up succeeding.

The Quest platform has continually improved its hand tracking over the years. However, hand tracking’s reliance on particular gestures without any physical feedback is an imperfect solution right now. Maybe Apple tries hand tracking along with using an Apple Watch or the iPhone for tactile haptic feedback, or finds a smaller go-between accessory.

I’ve been trying out experimental haptic technology recently, trying to imagine how VR could think its way to new inputs. This headset feels like the biggest opportunity Apple’s ever faced to create a brand-new type of input device that could make a big impact on the landscape. If it’s done right, maybe it’ll be the input accessory that makes its future AR glasses, whenever they arrive, seem feasible.

Build out more interesting mixed reality

For all the Meta Quest Pro promises to blend AR and VR with its mixed-reality capabilities, not many apps tap into its extras yet. I’ve seen some mind-blowing demos of mixed reality in VR with the ultra-high-end Varjo XR-3 connected to a PC, which at least showed me ways that a VR headset could begin to feel like a portal interconnected to my own home reality. Apple could start experimenting with more engaging AR moments in a high-end VR headset, and at least get the ball rolling on things that work in advance of whenever its AR glasses are ready, years from now.

Smaller sessions in VR may make more sense right now

VR is a thing I don’t use all the time, and that’s true for most people. Maybe that’s exactly where Apple should start. It’s not a given we’ll want to wear AR glasses everywhere, or even what those glasses would be good for. In the meantime, a VR headset at home that’s meant to be worn sometimes, but not all the time, is the place most of us feel safest to start. It’s why the Quest is something people actually use.

It’s also a way to avoid dealing with questions of accommodating true prescription vision needs in everyday glasses, something no one’s succeeded in tackling, either. VR headsets sometimes need prescription inserts, but many just fit right over the glasses we already have. I prefer the easy-fit solution: I don’t need to make VR a thing I spend a whole day in. I’ll settle for a truly useful hour or two, and if Apple can make that hour or two even better than what we have now, that’s a big enough step forward for me.

Editor’s note, Jan. 20: Adds mention of Meta’s hand tracking for the Quest.

Technologies

Apple CarPlay Ultra vs. Google Built-In: How the Next-Gen Auto Software Rivals Compare

Apple and Google are supercharging their car software experiences. Here’s how they differ.

I’d spent an hour driving a $250,000-plus Aston Martin up the Los Angeles coast when my hunger pangs became impossible to ignore, and as I’ve done many times before, I asked Siri (through Apple CarPlay) to find me a taco place. But then I did something no other car on the planet allows: I asked Siri to blast the AC and make the air colder. That’s because the 2025 Aston Martin DBX I drove was the first vehicle to come with Apple CarPlay Ultra, the upgraded version of the company’s car software.

Apple debuted CarPlay Ultra at WWDC 2025 last month, and this year’s version of the Aston Martin DBX is the first vehicle to launch with it (pairing with an iPhone running iOS 18.5 or later). As I drove the luxury crossover around, I fiddled with other features that aren’t available in regular CarPlay, from climate control to radio to checking the pressure on the car’s tires. Ultimately, Ultra gives deeper access to more car systems, which is a good thing.

That reminded me a lot of a new feature announced at Google I/O back in May: Google Built-In, which similarly lets users control more of a car’s systems straight from the software interface (in that case, Android Auto). When I got a demonstration of Google Built-In, sitting in a new Volvo EX90 electric SUV, I saw what this new integration of Google software offered: climate controls, Gemini AI assistance and even warnings about car maintenance issues.

But the name is telling: Google Built-In requires automakers to incorporate Android deeper into their cars’ inner workings. Comparatively, Apple CarPlay Ultra support seems like it won’t require car manufacturers to do nearly as much work to prepare their vehicles, just adding a reasonably advanced multicore processor onboard that can handle an increased task load. (Aston Martin will be able to add CarPlay Ultra support to its 2023 and 2024 lineups through firmware updates because they already contain sufficiently advanced CPUs.)

Both solutions reflect Apple’s and Google’s different approaches to their next versions of car software. Apple’s is lighter weight, seemingly requiring less commitment from the automaker to integrate CarPlay Ultra into their vehicles (so long as it has adequate processing power onboard), which will run through a paired iPhone. Google Built-In does require much more integration, but it’s so self-sufficient that you can leave your Android phone at home and still get much of its functionality (aside from getting and sending messages and calls).

Driving with Apple CarPlay Ultra: Controlling climate, radio and more

As I drove around Los Angeles in the Aston Martin with Apple CarPlay Ultra, I could tell what new features I would be missing once I stepped back into my far more humble daily driver.

At long last, I could summon Siri and ask it to play a specific song (or just a band) and have it pulled up on Spotify. Since Apple’s assistant now has access to climate controls, I asked to turn up the AC, and it went full blast. I asked to find tacos and it suggested several fast food restaurants — well, it’s not perfect, but at least it’s listening.

To my relief, Aston Martin retained the physical knobs by the gearshift to control fan speed, temperature, stereo volume and the car’s myriad roadway options (like driving assistance) in case the driver likes traditional controls, but almost all of them could also be altered in the interface. Now, things like radio controls (AM/FM and satellite) and car settings are nestled in their own recognizable apps in CarPlay’s interface.

Ultimately, that’ll be one of CarPlay Ultra’s greatest advantages: If you enter an unfamiliar vehicle (like a rental), you still know exactly where everything is. No wrestling with a carmaker’s proprietary software or trying to figure out where some setting or other is located. It’s not a complete replacement — in the Aston Martin’s case, there were still a handful of settings (like for ambient light projected when the doors open) that the luxury automaker controlled, but they were weaved into CarPlay so you could pop open those windows and go back to Apple’s interface without visibly changing apps.

The dependable ubiquity of Apple’s CarPlay software will likely become even more essential as cars swap out their analog instrument clusters for screens, as Aston Martin did. There’s still a touch of the high-end automaker’s signature style as the default screen behind the wheel shows two traditional dials (one for the speedometer, one for RPMs) with Aston Martin’s livery. But that can be swapped out for other styles, from other dials with customizable colors to a full-screen Maps option.

Each of the half-dozen or so dashboard options was swapped out via square touchpads smaller than a dime on the wheel next to the other touch controls. On the dual-dial display types, I swiped vertically to rotate between a central square (with Maps directions, current music or other app information) or swiped horizontally to switch to another dashboard option. No matter which one you choose, the bottom bar contains all the warning lights drivers will recognize from analog cars — even with digital displays, you’re not safe from the check engine light (which is a good thing).

Apple CarPlay Ultra doesn’t yet do everything I want. I wish I could also ask Siri to roll down the windows (as Google Built-In can — more on that later) and lock or unlock specific doors. If Apple is connected to the car enough to be able to read the pressure in each tire, I wish it could link up with the engine readout and be able to tell me in plain language what kind of maintenance issue has sprung up. Heck, I wish it could connect to the car remotely and blast the AC before I get in (or fire up the seat warmer), as some proprietary car apps can do. And while Apple Maps and Waze will be included at launch, Google Maps support is not, but it’s coming later.

These aren’t huge deficiencies, and they do show where CarPlay Ultra could better meet driver needs in future updates, notwithstanding the potentially dicey security concerns for using CarPlay Ultra for remote climate or unlocking capabilities. But it shows where the limits are today compared to Google’s more in-depth approach.

Google Built-In: Deeper car integrations — and, of course, Gemini AI

The day after Google I/O’s keynote was quieter back in May, as attendees flitted between focused sessions and demos of upcoming software. It was the ideal time to check out Google Built-In, which was appropriately shown off in a higher-end Volvo EX90 electric SUV (though not nearly as pricey as an Aston Martin).

As mentioned above, Google Built-In has deeper integrations with vehicles than what I saw in Apple CarPlay Ultra, allowing users to change the climate through its interface or access other systems, including through voice requests. For instance, it can go beyond AC control to switch on the defroster, and even raise and lower specific windows relative to the speaker’s position: cameras within the car (in the rearview mirror, if I remember right) meant that when my demonstrator asked to «roll down this window» pointing over his left shoulder, the correct window rolled down.

Google Built-In is also connected to Gemini, Google’s AI assistant, for what the company is calling «Google Live,» a separate and more capable version of the Android Auto assistant experience in cars right now. With a Live session, I could request music or directions much like I could with Siri — but my demo went further, as the demonstrator tasked Gemini with requests better suited for generative AI, such as asking, «Give me suggestions for a family outing» and telling it to send a specific text to a contact.

The demonstrator then asked Gemini for recipe advice — «I have chicken, rice and broccoli in the fridge, what can I make?» — as an example of a query someone might ask on the drive home.

Since you’re signed into your Google account, Gemini can consult anything connected to it, like emails and messages. It’s also trained on the user manuals from each car-maker, so if a warning light comes on, the driver can ask the voice assistant what it means — no more flipping through a dense manual trying to figure out what each alert means.

There are other benefits to Google Built-In, like not needing your phone for some features. But there are also drawbacks, like the need to keep car software updated, requiring more work on Google’s end to make sure cars are protected from issues or exploits. They can’t just fix it in the most current version of Android — they’ll need to backport that fix to older versions that vehicles might still be on.

This deeper integration with Google Built-In has a lot of the benefits of Apple CarPlay Ultra (a familiar interface, easier to access features), just cranked up to a greater degree. It surely benefits fans of hands-off controls, and interweaving Gemini naturally dovetails with Google’s investments, so it’s easy to see that functionality improving. But a greater reliance on Android within the car’s systems could be concerning as the vehicle ages: Will the software stop being supported? Will it slow down or be exposed to security exploits? A lot of questions remain regarding making cars open to phone software interfaces.

Technologies

A Samsung Tri-Fold Phone Could Be in Your Future, if This Leak Is to Be Believed

UI animations might have revealed the imminent release of a so-called «Galaxy G Fold» device with three screens.

Samsung has been showing off mobile display concepts with three screens at trade events such as CES for several years, but it might finally bring one to market soon if a leaked UI animation is any indicator.

As reported by Android Authority, an animated image from a software build of One UI 8 appears to show what some are dubbing a «Galaxy G Fold» device with three display panels. The screens would be capable of displaying different information or working in unison as one large display. The new phone model could debut as early as next week at Samsung’s Unpacked event on July 9 in Brooklyn.

Huawei released a tri-folding phone in February, the Mate XT Ultimate Design.

Some websites have gone into overdrive trying to uncover details on what Samsung’s new device might include and how much it may cost, with Phone Arena reporting that according to a Korean media report, it could be priced at about $3,000.

Samsung didn’t immediately respond to request for comment.