The smart glasses market is heating up, with tech giants investing billions in what they believe will be the next major computing platform. The breakthrough success of Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses, Meta's new partnership with Oakley, Google's XR glasses development, Samsung's XR partnerships, and emerging players like XREAL, Snap Spectacles, and Brilliant Labs all point to one inevitable conclusion: smart glasses are on the verge of reaching mainstream consumers.

But here's what the flashy product announcements don't tell you: the company that solves input first will win the entire smart glasses market.

While manufacturers compete on camera quality, AI capabilities, and battery life, the real battle is being fought on a much more fundamental level. How do you control a computer that lives in your field of vision? The answer to this question will separate the market leaders from the companies left behind.

Table of Contents

1. The Smartphone Moment: When Input Changed Everything
2. The Current Input Arms Race: Four Competing Visions
3. Why Haptic Input Could Win the Smart Glasses Wars
4. The Interface Integration Challenge
5. Market Implications: The $100 Billion Question
6. The Hidden Battleground

The Smartphone Moment: When Input Changed Everything 

History offers a clear precedent. Before the iPhone, smartphones existed—they just weren't very smart to use. BlackBerry dominated with tiny keyboards, Windows Mobile used styluses, and Palm Pilots required special handwriting recognition. These devices had powerful processors, color displays, and internet connectivity, but they remained niche business tools.

Apple didn't win by building the most powerful phone. They won by solving input. Multi-touch transformed a complex device into something intuitive enough for anyone to use. Within five years, every manufacturer had copied the approach or disappeared from the market.

The same dynamic is playing out in smart glasses, but the stakes are even higher. Unlike smartphones, where users can look down at their device, smart glasses demand invisible interaction—controlling interfaces you literally cannot see.

The Current Input Arms Race: Four Competing Visions

1. Hand Tracking: Meta's Computer Vision Bet 

Meta has invested heavily in computer vision and hand tracking, showcasing impressive demos where users pinch, grab, and gesture to control virtual objects. The technology works well in controlled environments, but faces significant challenges:

• "Gorilla arm" fatigue: Extending the arm higher and in front of the body towards virtual interfaces causes about 3.77 times more net torque on the shoulder joint and 2.00 times more on the elbow joint compared to relaxed positions. Arm fatigue – the so-called "gorilla arm syndrome" – negatively impacts user experience and hampers prolonged use of mid-air interfaces
• High power consumption: Hand tracking requires continuous computer vision processing and machine learning inference, significantly draining battery life in devices that need to operate all day
• Environmental limitations: Poor performance in low light or crowded spaces
• Lack of feedback: Mid-air gestures provide no tactile confirmation, leaving users uncertain whether their inputs were registered

While visually impressive, hand tracking may be too computationally expensive and physically demanding for continuous use of all-day smart glasses.

2. Eye Tracking: The Precision Challenge 

Eye tracking technology promises precision control by detecting where users are looking, combined with simple gestures for selection. This approach appears in various smart glasses prototypes and research projects, but faces significant technical limitations:

• High latency and precision issues: Most eye tracking devices integrated in VR HMDs have high latency, lack precision and do not have simple calibration procedures
• Calibration complexity: The time-consuming and repetitive nature of the calibration procedure could be an obstacle to the broad adoption of eye tracking
• Limited input vocabulary: Eye movements excel at pointing but offer fewer interaction possibilities for complex controls
• Motion sickness concerns: Studies found that 12 out of 31 subjects reported mild discomfort due to motion sickness during eye tracking sessions

Eye tracking excels at pointing but struggles with the full range of inputs modern interfaces require.

3. Voice Commands: The Privacy and Social Challenge

Voice control seems natural for hands-free interaction, but faces practical adoption barriers in real-world usage:

• Privacy concerns in public: Smart glasses with voice activation raise significant privacy concerns that intensify as these devices gain popularity. Users hesitate to speak commands in offices, public transport, or quiet environments
• Social acceptance barriers: Voice activation requires users to speak aloud, which has privacy implications in many public settings and draws unwanted attention in social situations
• Environmental reliability: Voice recognition struggles with background noise and varying acoustic environments
• Limited precision: Voice works well for major actions but poorly for fine adjustments like precise menu navigation or volume control

While voice will certainly play a role in smart glasses interfaces, it cannot serve as the primary input method for nuanced control.

4. Haptic Feedback: The Invisible Touch Revolution 

The dark horse in this race is haptic feedback technology. Unlike other approaches that try to replace traditional input methods, haptic systems enhance them by solving the core problem of invisible interfaces: confirmation.

When users can't see what they're touching, tactile feedback becomes their primary confirmation system. However, not all haptic technologies are created equal, and the type of haptic feedback matters significantly for smart glasses applications.

Traditional Phone Haptics vs. Smart Glasses Requirements

Most smartphone manufacturers are familiar with Linear Resonant Actuators (LRAs) - the haptic motors that create vibrations in phones. While LRAs work well for full-device notifications, they're poorly suited for smart glasses:

• Whole-frame vibration: LRAs shake the entire device, which would create uncomfortable facial vibrations in glasses
• Limited precision: Phone haptics provide general feedback rather than localized, button-specific sensations
• Higher power consumption: LRAs require more energy, which is problematic for all-day smart glasses usage
• Single-point feedback: Cannot create complex, multi-zone haptic experiences on temple surfaces

Piezoelectric Haptic Technology: The Smart Glasses Solution

Advanced piezoelectric haptic technology represents a fundamentally different approach explicitly designed for precise, localized feedback:

• Localized precision: Delivers haptic feedback precisely where users touch, without vibrating the entire frame
• Ultra-low power: Piezoelectric actuators consume minimal energy compared to traditional motors
• Instant response: Near-zero latency provides immediate tactile confirmation
• Complex feedback patterns: Can create sophisticated haptic "textures" and multi-modal sensations

This piezoelectric technology can transform simple temple-mounted touch surfaces into sophisticated, multi-functional controls that users can operate confidently without looking - something impossible with traditional smartphone haptics.

Why Haptic Input Could Win the Smart Glasses Wars

The winning smart glasses input method must satisfy five critical criteria:

1. Power efficiency: All-day battery life demands low-power solutions
2. Social acceptability: Interactions must feel natural in public and professional settings
3. Precision and reliability: Users need confident control over complex interfaces
4. Learning curve: Adoption requires leveraging existing user mental models
5. Manufacturing scalability: Solutions must work across various form factors and price points

Haptic feedback uniquely addresses all five requirements:

• Efficient: Boreas Technologies' advanced piezoelectric drivers like the BOS1921 consume minimal power compared to continuous computer vision processing, making them uniquely suited for all-day smart glasses usage
• Private: Tactile feedback is completely silent and invisible to others
• Precise: Force sensors eliminate accidental touches by distinguishing intentional inputs from casual contact, while providing reliable tactile confirmation for every interaction
• Intuitive: Users already understand buttons, sliders, and pressure-sensitive controls. These same haptic interfaces can be implemented across phones, cars, and other devices, creating a seamless experience as users move between different technologies.
• Scalable: Haptic components can be integrated into various frame designs and materials
  
  

The Interface Integration Challenge

The ultimate winner likely won't rely on a single input method but will combine approaches strategically. Voice for high-level commands, eye tracking for cursor control, and haptic feedback for precise selection and adjustment. However, one technology must serve as the primary interaction backbone that users depend on most frequently.

Haptic feedback has a unique advantage in this integration scenario: it enhances other input methods rather than competing with them. Voice commands confirmed by haptic feedback feel more reliable. Eye tracking combined with haptic selection provides precision with confirmation.

Market Implications: The $100 Billion Question

The smart glasses market is projected to reach $209 billion by 2030, according to Grand View Research. But these projections assume successful mainstream adoption—something that requires solving the input challenge.

Companies that get input right will capture disproportionate market share, similar to how Apple's touchscreen advantage led to sustained iPhone dominance. Conversely, manufacturers that fail to deliver intuitive control will find their impressive hardware capabilities irrelevant to mainstream consumers.

This creates massive opportunities for component suppliers who solve input challenges. Just as Corning's Gorilla Glass became essential for smartphone manufacturers, haptic technology providers could become indispensable partners for smart glasses makers.

The Hidden Battleground

While tech media focuses on processing power, display technology, and AI capabilities, the real smart glasses battle is being fought on a more fundamental level. The company that creates the most intuitive, reliable, and socially acceptable input method will define how billions of people interact with augmented reality.

History shows that revolutionary computing platforms succeed not because they're the most technically impressive, but because they're the most human to use. The mouse made PCs accessible. Touchscreens made smartphones universal.

The question isn't whether smart glasses will eventually succeed—it's which input method will unlock their mainstream potential. Smart money is watching the companies solving this invisible interface challenge, because they're building the foundation for computing's next chapter.

The smart glasses wars won't be won by the brightest displays or the smallest form factors. They'll be won by whoever makes smart glasses feel natural, confident, and effortlessly human. The race is on, and the finish line isn't about technology specs—it's about solving the fundamental question of how humans should talk to computers they can't see.

The winner will be determined not by what users can see, but by what they can feel.

References

1. Palmeira, E. G. Q., et al. (2024). "Quantifying the 'Gorilla Arm' Effect in a Virtual Reality Text Entry Task via Ray-Casting." Proceedings of the 25th Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality.

2. Jang, S., et al. (2017). "Modeling Cumulative Arm Fatigue in Mid-Air Interaction Based on Perceived Exertion and Kinetics of Arm Motion." CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

3. Amilien, T. (2021). "3 KPIs you need to look at to improve hand tracking and gesture controls user experience in AR and VR." Medium.

4. Clay, A., et al. (2023). "Eye Tracking in Virtual Reality: a Broad Review of Applications and Challenges." Virtual Reality.

5. Purdue University C Design Lab. (2017). "Study researches 'gorilla arm' fatigue in mid-air computer usage." Purdue University News.

6. VPN Overview. (2024). "Smart Glasses Privacy Concerns: Apple Vision Pro and More." Privacy Research.

7. Hincapié-Ramos, J. D. (2014). "Consumed Endurance (CE) – Measuring Arm Fatigue during Mid-Air Interactions." CHI 2014 Conference.