The newly launched Inmo Air 3 augmented reality (AR) glasses have drawn criticism for their comfort and performance, leaving early users disappointed. Priced at $900, these glasses aim to offer innovative features but struggle with basic usability, raising questions about their practicality in everyday use.
Inmo, a Chinese tech company, introduced the Inmo Air 3 through a Kickstarter campaign, showcasing a range of features, including a 1080p full-color display and a smart ring for navigation. However, users have reported significant issues, including difficulties wearing the glasses comfortably and problems with the smart ring’s functionality.
Initial Impressions and Usability Issues
Upon unboxing, the Inmo Air 3 presents an impressive array of accessories, including a touch-sensitive ring, a secondary controller, and magnetic shades for enhanced contrast. Despite this initial positivity, the experience quickly soured when users struggled to see the display clearly.
One reviewer noted that due to the fit of the glasses, particularly for those with unique nose shapes, a significant portion of the screen was obscured unless the glasses were positioned uncomfortably low. This design flaw highlights a critical oversight in user ergonomics, as several individuals reported similar struggles with visibility.
The discomfort extended beyond just positioning. The glasses are heavier than expected, leading to a cumbersome experience that detracted from their intended use. As noted by a senior editor from Gizmodo, the initial wear of the glasses was met with complaints about eye strain, indicating a lack of ergonomic design that could make prolonged use a challenge.
Performance and Technical Shortcomings
One of the standout features of the Inmo Air 3 is the smart ring, designed to enhance user interaction with the device. However, early adopters have reported significant latency issues, making navigation frustrating. The small touch surface, combined with lag, has been described as a “nightmare” for users attempting to interact with the UI.
Concerns escalated when the ring broke during attempts to resize it, leaving users with limited options for controlling the device. Alternatives like the secondary controller and touch-sensitive areas on the glasses provided some relief, but they fell short of delivering a smooth user experience.
The much-anticipated display itself, while sharp and capable of rendering clear visuals, also suffered from limitations. With a brightness peak of 600 nits, the glasses performed poorly in bright environments, making outdoor use impractical. Comparatively, the Meta Ray-Ban Display boasts a brightness of 5,000 nits, highlighting the Inmo Air 3’s shortcomings in this area.
While streaming video content from platforms such as YouTube and TikTok was feasible, users found the experience less immersive than expected, especially given the glasses’ high price point. The limitations in battery life, estimated at around 1.5 to 2 hours, further restricted usability, particularly for users hoping to engage in extended sessions.
In conclusion, the Inmo Air 3 AR glasses, while brimming with potential, ultimately fall short in delivering a satisfactory user experience. With their high price tag and numerous usability challenges, they may struggle to capture the interest of consumers looking for reliable and comfortable AR solutions. As Inmo looks to refine its technology, the lessons learned from the Air 3 will be crucial for future iterations in the competitive AR market.
