Headworn Devices and the Next Computing Convergence

Why, where, and how glasses and headsets are converging, and what it means for mainstream adoption and the component ecosystem.

If you prefer to explore these ideas in a different format, I’ve used Notebook LM to create a podcast that talks through the concepts covered in this piece, with my own commentary at the start. You can access it on YouTube 👉 here:

Headworn computing devices are often discussed as if they are competing for the same future. Conversations tend to frame the space as headsets versus glasses, immersion versus augmentation, or replacement versus distraction. This framing is understandable, but it misses what is actually unfolding.

What we are seeing is not a battle for dominance, but the formation of a new computing divide. That divide becomes clearer when we stop categorising devices by hardware and instead look at how people use them, where they fit into daily behaviour, and how much attention they demand. The real shift is not about which device wins, but about how computing fits into different moments of our lives.

What’s emerging instead is a moment of computing convergence, where headworn devices are consolidating around a single mainstream platform while still serving different moments and contexts.

---

Technology moves in cycles, and we’ve seen this pattern before

To understand where headworn devices are heading, it helps to look more carefully at how personal computing has actually evolved. In every previous shift, the market ultimately converged around one consolidated device that became the mainstream default, with other devices continuing to exist but no longer defining the category.

Laptops did replace desktops for most people, but not because they were philosophically different devices. They won because they became light enough, powerful enough, and portable enough to meet everyday needs. Desktops did not disappear, but they retreated into specialised roles where performance, ergonomics, or fixed environments mattered more than mobility.

The next shift was quieter but just as important. Tablets did not replace smartphones, and they did not fully replace work laptops either. Instead, they absorbed a large portion of casual, personal laptop use. For many people, laptops became tools provided by work, while tablets and phones covered most personal computing needs. The category did not collapse into a single device, but it did reorganise itself around behaviour.

Smartphones have remained universal throughout this transition. Everyone has one, regardless of whether they own a laptop or a tablet, because phones are personal, constant, and socially embedded. They are not the most powerful devices, but they are the most indispensable.

This pattern is useful when thinking about headworn devices. In the long term, glasses have the potential to take on the role phones play today. Most people would own a pair, use them throughout the day, and rely on them for notifications, context, communication, and increasingly immersive media. Headsets would still exist, but more like laptops or tablets, used deliberately by some people for work, creation, or deep immersion rather than carried by everyone.

This is the same pattern we have seen before. Categories mature when behaviours converge, not when experiments multiply. Once glasses become a single, recognisable product in people’s lives, their relationship to headsets, and to phones, becomes much easier to understand. The challenge is that we are not there yet. Despite that, the forces pushing these devices together are already well underway.

---

Why purpose-built devices comes first

Today’s headworn device market appears fragmented across audio glasses, notification glasses, monocular displays, and binocular systems, as well as devices positioned as screen replacements or lightly immersive experiences anchored in the physical world. Some are tethered to phones, others to computers, and others to purpose-built companion devices.

However, each of these devices is designed to serve a specific use case, and together they form a spectrum shaped by use and environment rather than by technology alone.

At one end are glasses with basic displays, where the primary use cases are navigation and notifications. These devices prioritise situational awareness. The experience is intentionally lightweight, designed to surface information for a few seconds without pulling the user out of their surroundings.

In the middle are glasses that need to support immersion without full exclusion. A user might watch a film on a bus, expecting scale, clarity, and presence, but not at the expense of peripheral vision or awareness. Immersion here is bounded rather than total, designed to coexist with movement, public space, and social norms.

At the other end are immersive headsets that fill the user’s view and deliberately remove them from their physical environment. Their strength lies in deep focus, but that focus comes at the cost of mobility, peripheral awareness, and social acceptability. Even as headsets increasingly support collaboration and social interaction, they still signal a deliberate withdrawal from shared physical space.

These different devices need to exist. They allow the market to explore what is possible while also revealing what people actually want. As those experiences accumulate, a familiar tension begins to emerge. People want the freedom of lightweight, socially acceptable glasses, but they also want the richness and depth found in more immersive devices. That tension defines the boundaries of the category. Convergence begins only once those boundaries are well understood.

---

Where convergence is taking shape

Once the boundaries of the category are understood, the next phase is not expansion, but normalisation. Convergence begins when devices are no longer judged primarily on what they enable, but on how reliably they fit into everyday life.

Until today’s variants collapse into a clearer default, adoption will remain slower than the underlying technology alone would suggest. Fragmentation creates uncertainty, not just about capability, but about behaviour. 

This is where the real battles are now being fought. Normalisation pressure shows up in questions of comfort, predictability, and trust. It depends on whether users feel confident wearing a device outside the home, whether it can remain useful without demanding constant attention, and whether its presence feels acceptable across different social contexts.

At the same time, headsets and glasses are no longer evolving in isolation. Inside the teams building them, the same constraints increasingly shape design decisions across categories. Power consumption, heat management, optics, and weight dominate conversations regardless of form factor. Headsets are racing to become smaller and more comfortable, while glasses are racing to add capability. Both are responding to the same requirement, to feel natural to wear and consistent to use.

As glasses begin to display visuals across both eyes, their technical challenges increasingly resemble those faced by more advanced headsets. Differences that once defined categories start to collapse into differences of degree rather than kind. This is convergence driven by constraint rather than ambition. Shared limits push teams toward shared solutions.

As a result, the competitive question starts to shift. Instead of asking which category a device belongs to, teams begin asking whether it behaves consistently enough to earn daily use. When that question becomes more important than raw capability, convergence stops being theoretical and starts to take shape in practice.

---

What convergence means for component makers

As headworn devices move toward convergence, the implications extend well beyond device manufacturers. Component makers play a decisive role in shaping which products can realistically reach scale, and when. As categories mature, success tends to come from aligning with the devices that sit closest to mainstream behaviour, rather than those that push technical boundaries first.

Across displays, sensors, optics, compute, and power management, components are becoming cheaper and more consistent in quality. Performance is stabilising, yields are improving, and expectations are beginning to normalise. This is a familiar phase in the evolution of hardware categories, where progress becomes incremental and predictable rather than experimental. At that point, the market begins to reward components that can be manufactured reliably and integrated at volume.

In this context, HUD style glasses represent the most practical near-term focus for component makers. Not because they are the most advanced expression of headworn computing, but because they align most closely with the emerging mainstream. Their use cases extend existing behaviour, reducing the friction of adoption, and their technical demands are constrained in ways that make scale achievable sooner.

Those constraints matter. HUD glasses prioritise efficiency, comfort, and consistency over peak capability. Power budgets are tighter but more predictable. Thermal requirements are manageable. Optics can remain relatively simple. Displays can focus on brightness, clarity, and legibility rather than full immersion. For component suppliers, this creates a clearer design target and a faster path to real-world deployment.

Crucially, this work is not a dead end. The components that succeed in HUD glasses are also the foundation for future XR glasses once they reach mainstream viability. The same progress in power efficiency, thermal management, optics, and integration that enables credible HUD products will be required as capabilities expand. By supporting HUD glasses today, component makers are effectively building the muscle memory, supply chains, performance baselines and partnerships that will carry forward into more immersive devices tomorrow.

This is how convergence plays out in practice. Near-term devices create volume, standards, and confidence, while longer-term products build on that base rather than starting from scratch. For component makers looking to win sooner while remaining positioned for the next phase, focusing on HUD glasses is less a compromise and more a strategic bridge. As the market converges, those who enable the first credible mainstream devices will be best placed to support whatever comes next.

---

When will we reach mainstream success

Mainstream success in headworn computing may ultimately be driven by a single company, much as Apple shaped the smartphone era with the iPhone, but the conditions for success will be defined by behaviour, form factor and cost rather than branding.

It will arrive when a headworn device becomes a credible default for everyday use, covering enough of what people already do without demanding a change in behaviour. That moment will come when one device can move comfortably between experiences that require focus and those that sit quietly in the background, adapting to context rather than forcing it. It will come when the price reflects this utility.

The remaining constraints are familiar ones. They are not speculative challenges, but practical barriers that shape what is viable today and what will reach everyday use first.

In practice, this means headworn devices still need to clear several hurdles at the same time:

• Component cost and availability, which determine whether devices can be produced and sold at prices that reflect everyday utility rather than early adopter novelty.

• Battery performance and heat dissipation, which limit how long devices can be worn comfortably and how much capability can be delivered without compromise.

• Comfort and wearability, including weight distribution, fit, and long-term physical tolerance for all-day use.

• Aesthetics and social acceptability, which shape whether people are willing to wear a device in public, not just whether it technically works.

• User experience, content, and interaction models, which must mature beyond experimentation into patterns people understand, trust, and return to.

Each of these constraints is easing as products mature and expectations stabilise. What will matter more than raw capability is whether the technology integrates naturally into daily life, feels acceptable to wear, and knows when to step aside.

Specialised devices will continue to exist, but they will no longer define the category. 

The mainstream will settle around what works well enough, often enough, to be worn daily. When headworn devices reach that point, success will be obvious. Not because the technology feels extraordinary, but because it stops demanding attention simply to justify its existence. That is the real threshold for mainstream adoption, and it is where the next computing divide will be drawn.

---

If you’re looking to deeply understand where this emerging technology market is heading, let’s talk. I help founders and product leaders build frameworks for understanding, competing, and prioritising in this market. Reach out at info@crwburgess.com.