Die Meta-Pressemitteilung ist ein großer Fiasko geworden. Wir haben mit einigen Silicon-Valley-Experten gesprochen und drei vernachlässigte Wahrheiten entdeckt.

During the just - ended Meta Connect conference, a "live - stream accident" occurred in what was supposed to be a glorious moment, keeping the global audience on the edge of their seats.

When the demonstrator put on the new Meta AI glasses and tried to show off the powerful real - time AI question - answering function, an embarrassing situation arose. Faced with a not - overly - complicated instruction - "How do you make South Korean steak sauce?" - the AI assistant integrated into the glasses got into an infinite loop after a vague answer. No matter how many times the demonstrator asked, "What's next?", all he got back from the AI were repetitions and silence. Eventually, the demonstration had to be quietly aborted.

For the general public, this might just be a joke at the tech Olympics and a topic for after - dinner chatter. But for decision - makers in the capital markets and industrial strategy, this scene represents the central contradictions and difficulties in the entire AI wearable sector.

There arise a series of deeper and crucial questions: Why can't the AI glasses, hailed as the "next - generation computers", experience their "iPhone moment" despite the enthusiasm of investors and the "all - in" approach of large corporations? Is Meta's "stumbling block" an isolated technical accident or does it point to systemic bottlenecks that the entire industry faces together in terms of the technological route, the maturity of the supply chain, and the definition of user value?

In this in - depth article, Silicon Rabbit Jun, together with his Silicon Valley expert team, will try to look beyond the hype of the press conference with you and find the real answers behind these questions.

01

Under the spotlight of the masses, Meta has presented its latest answer in the field of AI glasses. At first glance, the "hardware evaluation" of this answer seems quite good:

The camera has increased the resolution from the barely - usable 12 - megapixel of the previous models to the mainstream level of 3K video recording;

The battery life has been greatly optimized. When combined with the charging case, it can last up to 30 hours, essentially eliminating users' "energy anxiety";

Last but not least, the flagship model, Meta Ray - Ban Display, targeting the AR market, has finally brought the core function of "information display" into Meta's product portfolio.

However, when looking beyond the parameter hype, investors actually need to examine the strategic intent behind these upgrades.

To be honest, this is more of a "linear optimization" than the "disruptive innovation" expected by the market. It solves some obvious weaknesses of the old products but does not point the industry in a new future direction.

The most important proof lies in its core - the chip. The new glasses are still equipped with the Qualcomm Snapdragon AR1 platform, which has been on the market for over a year. This means that the computing power ceiling is already set and it cannot support more complex AI applications and revolutionary interaction experiences.

As for the seemingly advanced "Neural Armband", it is more of an experimental attempt at a future interaction form than a mature solution.

It tries to bypass the limitations of voice input and touch, but the multiple failures in the live demonstration have just revealed the huge gap between the stability and practicality of this advanced technology. Whether users are willing to wear an additional accessory for the glasses is still a question to be tested by the market.

Therefore, we can draw a preliminary conclusion: The new product presented by Meta this time is essentially an iterative product created for "positioning". It shows the "helplessness" and "compromise" of a technology giant when faced with current technological bottlenecks - when no revolutionary breakthrough is possible, it tries to recombine and optimize existing technologies to maintain market share and user attention.

And this compromise reveals the deeper problems in the entire AI wearable sector, which are far more significant than a "failure" at a press conference.

02

Meta's "failure" is not an isolated case but a reflection of the AI glasses sector, which is characterized by "big dreams and harsh reality". When looking beyond the market - share hype, one will find that all players, regardless of whether they are from China or the United States, are trapped by three structural "truths".

I. Who will pay for semi - finished products with "unclear benefits"?

The plans outlined by the capital markets and industry reports are undoubtedly exciting. According to IDC's forecast, the global sales of AR/VR devices will experience high growth in the next few years. The AI glasses, as the lightweight pioneers, are full of great hopes. However, behind the impressive sales figures lies the "high return rate" that retailers don't like to mention.

The fundamental reason for this is the "strong ambiguity of value propositions" of current AI glasses.

It tries to combine "headset + camera + information assistant" in one, but can't offer a better experience than mature devices in any single function.

The sound quality can't keep up with professional TWS headphones; the photo image quality lags far behind the computational photography of smartphones; and the provided AI assistant is even slower and less accurate than if we just pick up our smartphones and search due to network latency and model - performance limitations.

After users spend several thousand yuan, they get a compromise product that is "a little bit of everything but not particularly good at anything". This "try - and - discard" phenomenon clearly shows: The market doesn't just need a combination of functions but a revolutionary product that offers a new and indispensable core value. Until then, most sales are just for the "public beta phase" of the entire industry.

II. The shackles of the supply chain under the "impossible triangle"

All hardware start - ups have to make trade - offs, and in the field of AI glasses, this is manifested in the classic "impossible triangle" of weight, battery life, and computing power.

Stronger computing power requires a high - performance chip to handle real - time AI tasks, but this inevitably leads to higher power consumption.

Longer battery life requires a battery with larger capacity to support the high - performance chip, but this directly increases the weight and volume of the glasses.

A lower weight is a prerequisite for users to want to wear the glasses all day, but it limits the battery capacity and the heat - dissipation space, and thus the computing power.

Currently, all manufacturers are trying to maintain a difficult balance in this triangle, and the key to breakthrough - the upstream supply chain - is not ready.

The central bottleneck lies in the chip. Both Meta and Chinese manufacturers mostly use "general" solutions like the Qualcomm Snapdragon AR series. Essentially, they are variants of smartphone SoCs and not developed for the extreme scenarios of AI glasses, which must be "turned on 24/7 with minimal power consumption".

The entire industry is waiting together for a special chip like the "S - series" that Apple developed for the Apple Watch. It must have an extremely high energy - efficiency ratio and be able to handle complex AI tasks with power consumption in the milliwatt range. Without this "heart", the AI glasses can never get rid of the embarrassing image of a "power - bank accessory".

III. Chinese and American players "suffer from the same problems", and the core technology stacks are similar

Many people tend to think that Meta's technological strength would "outshine" Chinese manufacturers, but at least in the stage of AI glasses, this is not the case. When disassembling the current mainstream products on the market, one will find that the technology stacks of the players are surprisingly similar, and there is a situation of "solidarity in adversity".

Core computing power: The homogeneous chip solutions determine that the computing - power ceilings are similar.

Optical display: Whether it's the Birdbath or Waveguide solution, there are only a few global providers of core optical modules. The bottlenecks in terms of cost, yield, and display effect are common.

Software ecosystem: All players are in the early stage of developing a "killer app". Although Meta has a social platform, how to perfectly combine it with the glasses form is still under testing. Chinese manufacturers are trying to connect with high - frequency scenarios like navigation and office work, but they also haven't found a breakthrough yet.

The current market competition is therefore more of a race for "micro - innovations" in terms of industrial design, product definition, and cost control based on a similar "arsenal" rather than overcoming technological gaps.

This just shows that the entire sector is still on the verge of a technological breakthrough, that the real competitive advantages have not yet been formed, and that all players are on the same starting line, waiting for the "starting gun" from the upstream supply chain.

03

Meta's "failure" and the bottlenecks in the entire industry may be disappointing for ordinary consumers, but for observant investors, this is just the beginning of value discovery.

When the market is dominated by public information and short - term sentiments, the real opportunity lies in the deeper questions that one can't find answers to in press releases and business reports.

When making decisions, we need to ask ourselves the following questions beneath the surface:

Regarding the business model: If all manufacturers are stuck in the hardware quagmire, what will be the "killer app" for AI glasses? Will there be a new super - app for end - consumers, or will the real competitive advantages first emerge in vertical B2B areas such as medicine, industry, and logistics and form small but lucrative markets?

Regarding the end - stage of the industry: Apple shows extraordinary strategic patience with the Vision Pro. What is the final definition of "spatial computing" for Apple? How will it be deeply linked with Apple's AI large - model strategy to build an unassailable "spatial operating system" ecosystem? What does this mean for Chinese AI glasses manufacturers in the Android camp in the long run?

Regarding technological barriers: It is known that the current AR chips from Qualcomm are essentially "optimized" smartphone chips, and the problems of power consumption and computing power still exist. What real - time rendering and low - latency problems that general chips can't solve must a real "AR - native AI chip" solve at the lowest architectural level? Is the next technological breakthrough advanced packaging (e.g., chiplet) or a new computing architecture?

These questions point to the core value - creating parts of the supply chain and investment opportunities in the billions or even trillions range.

However, public reports alone are not enough to answer them. The real investment alpha comes from the first - hand experiences and in - depth thinking of core personnel in the