iGlasses: Apple granted patent for head-mounted augmented reality displays

“The United States Patent and Trademark Office on Tuesday granted Apple’s application for a patent describing head-mounted display technology that is tangentially related to see-through, or augmented reality, units like Google’s Project Glass,” AppleInsider reports.

“While U.S. Patent No. 8,212,859 for ‘Peripheral treatment for head-mounted displays’ does not directly describe a device like the head-mounted display (HMD) augmented reality glasses currently under development by Google, the filing mentions that the technology can be used in similar see-through solutions,” AppleInsider reports. “The patent background cites AR directly, saying that ‘some HMDs can be used to view a see-through image imposed upon a real world view, thereby creating what is typically referred to as an augmented reality.'”

Read more in the full article here.


  1. Google’s dog and pony show of broken glass was just a slu attempt to pre-emt(y) Apple’s future iGlasses just like Msoft’s courier joke.

    Apple applied for the patent long ago and probably is way ahead of anyone on this a,ready…

      1. Google had nothing to show at its recent IO conference and had to use gimmicks such as using skydivers to jump out of the Zepellin to capture eyeballs. Just like the rest of the Android gang that did not demonstrate how their products would be commonly useful, they use diversionary or misleading techniques such as Motorola Droid phones and tablets that magically dropped from outer space into Earth’s orbit.

        The Google’s Project Glass is still a vaporware because Google did not allow anyone to touch it and it was reported that it would only come out in 2014. The Google’s Nexus Q and the Nexus tablet are copycats of Apple’s products. If Apple had not shown the way to do things in a sensible way, Google would still be groping in the dark.

        If there is anyone who could demonstrate the practicality of its products, it’s Apple. But then Apple does not make a habit of showing its cards until it is 99.99% ready. Microsoft and Google are the opposites of Apple. They want to kill other’s products by announcing vaporwares 5–10 years before they could successfully monopolize the market.

        1. Except… now google is groping apple’s intellectual property :/

          *sigh* you’re right though. I want to see apple release functional, useful, and affordable iGlasses before google can bring the actual product to market. 😛

          They are allowing developers to get their hands on $1400 versions of the Google Glasses… but I haven’t heard anything yet.

        1. You’re right. It won’t matter whether apple is the first in the market (like it was with the iPad) or came a little late to the party (like the iPod)

          I know they will be successful. I’m just annoyed that the rabid fandroids (especially on Cnet) will not let this one go 0.o

  2. I just can’t figure out who would want to wear computer glasses besides the uber-geeks. I don’t want a computer screen in my face all day! What about people that actually need real glasses to see? Will they get prescription iGlasses?
    I don’t see this as the future of computing IMHO.

      1. I actually agree with Michael S – this is a form factor that I have no interest in.

        I think this is one of those things that geeks and sci-fi fans think is cool in theory, but in actual use, I don’t see this as a consumer device.

        Now, I certainly CAN think of many business uses for this form factor (warehousing, etc), but I can’t imagine walking around wearing these on a daily basis. I just think that having things “pop” into my field of vision (think of a new text message coming in) is going a bit too far.

          1. I don’t know if you are being fascetious, but I NEVER felt that way about an iPod. Just having the ability to easily carry my music library with me wherever I go has always been very appealing to me. But wearing these annoying glasses, meh.

          2. I definitely didn’t feel like that about the iPod. The iPod was a great way for me to have more music with me at all times. Cassettes and CDs were always a pain. I LOVE music, so I understood the purpose of the iPod immediately.

            And I don’t walk around with my headphones in my ears all day either, but when I want to listen to music on the go, I can’t think of a better way to do so.

            These Google glasses simply move my smartphone to my head, and throw images up in front of my eye.

            What does this really bring me above and beyond my smartphone experience? I look at my smartphone whenever I want to do any of the tasks I want to do. Otherwise, it is in my pocket. I don’t understand the need to wear it on my head at all times.

            And if I don’t wear these things all the time, then taking them off and putting them on seems less intuitive and less efficient than taking a phone out of my pocket, so sorry, I personally just don’t get it.

            And almost anyone I’ve talked to about it also thinks that it is a “geek” thing, and they aren’t interested.

    1. If Google’s Glass were to become a reality, I would envisage accidents waiting to happen. Google is not known to think out about potential problems; it only want to capture eyeballs to feed its advertising monster. A person wearing Google’s Glass would become so distracted that I could predict accidents such as these to happen:

      a) the person is oblivious of what is happening around him and would be knocked down by a car, or he would drop into an exposed manhole in the street

      b) as if the smartphone and MP player has not done enough to divorce the user from the world around him, Google’s Glass would be 10 times worse. It would make young people into robots and antisocial.

      c) the Google’s Glass would be potentially dangerous to the eyes.

      d) deviant characters would use the Google’s Glass to stalk young girls or commit crimes of breaking into homes.

  3. I’d like to wear glasses that display peoples names if I forgot them: a little camera, a little bluetooth, a little facial recognition software. Just think of the schmoozing one could do!

  4. a few years ago Apple hired Richard DeVaul wearable computing guru who was well known for his heads up display work. He was rumored to have worked at Apple’s wearable computing initiative directly under Ive.

    Later Google poached DeVaul and is now working on Google Glasses.

    so apple was well aware of wearable computing before Google Glasses was announced.

    (When Goog Glasses came out I wrote about this in various comment sections on blogs like android crazed Zdnet that were swooning and gushing saying Google’s ‘Leap Frogged’ Apple and “caught Apple flatfooted with surprise” etc . I’ve since been banned from Zdnet, Fandroids don’t like the uncomfortable truth. Don’t tell them iPhone is taking 80% of the profits on their regular ‘Android exploding marketshare’ articles either… lol )

  5. I hate Google as much as anybody here but their maps are still better than the iOS 6 Apple maps. The new maps are slightly more impressive than Google from above but you cannot do a Street view. I put iOS 6 beta-2 on my iPhone 4 S and the maps needs some more work before release. There is no geotag fence functionality at all other that what was already there. Hopefully they will add a lot between now and launch. The best feature available so far is the ability to FaceTime over 3G on the 4S and it works pretty well. The worst part is that apparently there is no way to add google maps anymore. Unless it shows up between now and launch there won’t be a street view on iOS 6.

  6. +10 Street view is extremely handy
    This ability will be greatly missed. To familiarize with a location before going there; example, what store is on the North West corner – perfect.

    1. However, considering navigation handled by Siri.
      Say, I am walking down a street and my device is in my pocket announces where to turn and how many metres I am to my destination, ‘Starbuckets’ – lol, well, I wouldn’t need a street view now would I.

      1. Then, consider this in comparison to some iGoogles, my eyes will be so tired clicking on menus as I am trying to just read other signs on the street. It has the Cool-aid factor but not seemingly inappropriate.

        Looking forward to a ‘Dick Tracys’ computer watch, Apple.

        1. … and as a result a new type of disease called Googleititis would develop where the eyes of the person afflicted would always be strolling up and down or left to right like the fruit machines in casinos. Google being Google, it never considers that the brain of the wearer would be microwaved since the glasses are always near the brain. Google engineers would never consider the social or medical costs as long it generate oodles of advertising cash and stolen data from wearers.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.