Apple Knew Where the Puck Was Going, But Meta Skated There

Amidst the flurry of buzz and hype around Mark Zuckerberg showing off Meta's "Orion" AR glasses at their Connect conference last week, he seemingly tried to slide something past the goalie. "And the small puck that goes with it," he mentioned as a total aside on stage and moved on.

Wait, what? These glasses require a puck?!

It wasn't exactly new news. Other reports about Meta's AR work had noted that a separate puck outside of headsets was likely needed. And while I at first assumed this was similar to the way the Vision Pro needs its tethered battery pack or perhaps closer, the way the Magic Leap also had a tethered "Lightpack" puck, this news is seemingly a bit better as it's a wireless device, no less than Meta CTO Andrew Bostworth noted in response on Threads. That's because it's not a battery – though presumably it has its own battery – it's a computing device that transmits to the glasses.

And that got me thinking – why the hell didn't Apple do this with the Vision Pro?

This also isn't a new thought. I've written about it before. Others have as well. It's fairly obvious to anyone who has used a Vision Pro – Apple already makes you connect an annoying and rather bulky battery, why not offload at least some compute to that brick? I mean hell, you could undoubtedly fit a whole Mac SoC in there. Instead, it's just a battery and all the compute is done in the headset.

Meta's move here brings up the question again. Undoubtedly this was done more out of necessity for this product – because they're trying to make these "Orion" glasses truly wearable, they need to be far lighter than the Vision Pro. That means offloading as much hardware as possible. But again, why on Earth didn't Apple do this? Perhaps the single biggest complaint about the Vision Pro is its weight. At least in part that must have led to the battery pack moving external. So why not do the rest?

And then, listening to Bosworth talk about Orion in an interview with Ben Thompson for Stratechery, another logical thought popped up: the puck, as he notes, is a way for Meta to offload compute without having to tether to a phone. They care about this because they don't own the iPhone or Android. In fact, it might be the thing Mark Zuckerberg cares about the most. So the puck is a solution for not tethering to a phone.

But wait. What if you owned the iPhone? What if you were Apple?!

It's not just that it's strange that Apple isn't offloading compute to their big brick battery, it's arguably stranger that they're not offloading it to the insanely great computer any Vision Pro owner likely has in their pocket. The iPhone.

I mean, could you imagine a Vision Pro that was not only significantly lighter, but also significantly cheaper? Because assuming you owned an iPhone, you were already effectively BYOC – bringing your own compute.

As I wrote back in June:

The most compelling idea would be allowing/forcing the 'Vision' to tether to an iPhone or Mac to run the computing of the device. Frankly, I think they should do this. I know they view it as a stand-alone computing device, one that could potentially do it all one day, but that day is far, far away. You already have to use the ridiculous (and ridiculously inconvenient) external battery to power the device. They should either put a Mac SoC in that brick or use their software screen-casting smarts to offload much of the work to an iPhone, iPad, or Mac.

Obviously Apple must have thought about this – it's essentially how the Apple Watch launched, after all. And presumably there were a range of good reasons why they didn't go this route. Then again, it seems like they're thinking about going down this route with future versions. Per Mark Gurman's newsletter today:

Apple seems aware that it needs to rethink its approach to headsets, but there isn’t consensus on how to do that, I’m told. As of now, the company’s Vision Products Group is evaluating a few different options, including:

The smart display route: In this scenario, Apple would remove the on-board computer and external battery from the Vision Pro and shift many of the internal functions over to the iPhone. This would make the iPhone more valuable, reduce the weight and heat of the headset, and — most importantly — eliminate several hundred dollars worth of components to bring down the price.

Now, it's not the only route Apple is thinking about going down here. But again, this feels like such an obvious one – especially in light of Meta's "Orion" showcase. But also their $399 Quest 3S announcement. How much could a Vision Pro cost if you were bringing your own iPhone to the party? The screens are still the most expensive part of that device, but presumably you could shave off quite a bit. But perhaps more importantly, you could shave off quite a bit of weight.¹

Maybe this makes sense to do in a 'Vision' device, versus a 'Vision Pro'. The naming would work too. It would make the device almost like the Apple Visor.

¹ Side benefit: running all iOS apps – not just iPad ones?