1. | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
1.1. | Optics and AR/MR/VR devices |
1.2. | VR, AR, MR and XR as experiences |
1.3. | Segmenting devices: VR vs AR |
1.4. | Classifying headsets |
1.5. | Apple's Vision Pro and re-evaluation of XR |
1.6. | The rise of passthrough MR in VR headsets |
1.7. | XR headsets: State of the market in 2023 |
1.8. | The outlook for XR: Comparing the VR and AR markets |
1.9. | Optical requirements for XR |
1.10. | Motivation - why are XR optics important? |
1.11. | AR vs VR optics: Development status and design considerations |
1.12. | XR headsets: Optical technology choices |
1.13. | Technology landscape: Optical combiners for AR |
1.14. | Optical combiners: Definition and classification |
1.15. | Waveguides vs other combiner types |
1.16. | AR combiners: Promising technological candidates |
1.17. | Status and market potential of optical combiners |
1.18. | Benchmarking criteria for AR combiners (I): Commercial factors |
1.19. | Benchmarking criteria (II): Technological factors |
1.20. | Attribute importance in wide vs narrow FoV devices |
1.21. | Narrow FoV AR benchmark performance |
1.22. | Wide FoV AR benchmark performance |
1.23. | Wide FoV AR combiner technology forecast (adoption proportions) |
1.24. | Narrow FoV AR combiner technology forecast (adoption proportions) |
1.25. | AR combiner forecasts: Overall summary |
1.26. | AR combiner technology players |
1.27. | AR: Prescription correction for waveguides |
1.28. | AR combiners: Key technological takeaways |
1.29. | The VR optics technology landscape |
1.30. | Technological status of VR lens technologies |
1.31. | "Generations" of VR lens |
1.32. | VR lens benchmark performance |
1.33. | VR lens technology forecast (adoption proportions) |
1.34. | VR lens forecasts: Overall summary |
1.35. | Lens technology players: VR and ancillary AR lenses |
1.36. | Optics revenue forecasts |
1.37. | VR lenses: Key technological takeaways |
2. | INTRODUCTION |
2.1. | Introduction to XR |
2.1.1. | VR, AR, MR and XR as experiences |
2.1.2. | Segmenting devices: VR vs AR |
2.1.3. | Classifying headsets |
2.1.4. | AR, MR, VR and XR: A brief history |
2.1.5. | The 2010s to date - the age of XR begins |
2.1.6. | Passthrough MR in VR devices |
2.1.7. | XR Market Development |
2.1.8. | The VR market is consolidating |
2.1.9. | Applications in VR, AR & MR |
2.1.10. | The metaverse as a driver for XR development |
2.1.11. | XR devices and the metaverse |
2.1.12. | Industry 4.0 and XR |
2.1.13. | VR/AR solutions for Industry 4.0 |
2.1.14. | Apple's Vision Pro and re-evaluation of XR |
2.1.15. | Old terminology: PC-, standalone and smartphone XR |
2.1.16. | Updating terminology: Standalone vs tethered |
2.1.17. | AR: Defining terminology (I) |
2.1.18. | AR: Defining terminology (II) |
2.1.19. | Consumer AR headsets: A rocky history |
2.1.20. | Consumer AR devices face tough competition |
2.1.21. | AR headsets as a replacement for other smart devices |
2.1.22. | AR as the end goal |
2.1.23. | VR headsets: Selected players |
2.1.24. | AR headsets: Selected players |
2.1.25. | Potential Big Tech entries to the AR market (I) |
2.1.26. | Potential Big Tech entries to the AR market (II) |
2.1.27. | The outlook for XR: Comparing the VR and AR markets |
2.2. | Introduction to XR optics |
2.2.1. | Optical requirements for XR |
2.2.2. | Pairing optics with displays |
2.2.3. | AR vs VR optics: Development status and design considerations |
2.2.4. | Optical engines: Combining displays and optics in XR |
2.2.5. | Field of view defines XR experiences |
2.2.6. | An immersive experience requires a wide field of view (FoV) - but is this always necessary? |
2.2.7. | Eyebox and eye relief: Keys to XR usability |
2.2.8. | Measuring brightness and efficiency |
2.2.9. | No free lunches: Etendue, FoV and eyebox |
2.2.10. | Resolution, FoV, and pixel density |
2.2.11. | Foveated rendering and displays: Higher display quality at reduced resolution for both VR and AR |
2.2.12. | The vergence-accommodation conflict |
2.2.13. | Contrast and dynamic range: The same but different |
2.2.14. | How do display requirements differ between AR and VR? |
2.2.15. | Optical aberrations present design challenges |
2.2.16. | Optic coatings in VR and AR |
2.2.17. | Optical combiners for AR |
2.2.18. | Choices of AR optic |
2.2.19. | Choices of VR optic |
2.2.20. | Summary: XR optical design is a complex balancing act |
3. | MARKET FORECASTS AND DISCUSSION |
3.1. | Forecasting methodology |
3.1.1. | VR headset forecasting: Important data sources |
3.1.2. | AR headset forecasting: Important data sources |
3.1.3. | Methodology - device and display forecasts |
3.1.4. | AR and VR headsets: State of the market |
3.2. | Headset market forecasts |
3.2.1. | AR: Historic device sales |
3.2.2. | What is not considered in forecasting |
3.2.3. | AR headsets: Revenue |
3.2.4. | AR headsets: Headset volume |
3.2.5. | VR: Historic device sales |
3.2.6. | Cyclic nature of VR hardware sales |
3.2.7. | VR headsets: Revenue |
3.2.8. | VR headsets: Headset volume |
3.3. | Market forecasts: Optical combiners for AR |
3.3.1. | A reminder on AR market segmentation |
3.3.2. | The future of combiner technology |
3.3.3. | Manufacturability of waveguides - why is this expected to change? |
3.3.4. | Why reflective waveguides are likely dominate for immersive consumer AR |
3.3.5. | Non-waveguide combiners - what does the future hold? |
3.3.6. | Forecasting adoption proportion for AR combiner technologies |
3.3.7. | Wide FoV AR combiner technology forecast (adoption proportions) |
3.3.8. | Narrow FoV AR combiner technology forecast table (adoption proportions by technology) |
3.3.9. | Wide FoV AR combiner technology forecast (headset volume) |
3.3.10. | Wide FoV AR combiner technology forecast table (headset units by technology) |
3.3.11. | Wide FoV AR combiner technology forecast (revenue) |
3.3.12. | Wide FoV AR combiner technology forecast table (combiner revenue by technology) |
3.3.13. | Narrow FoV AR combiner technology forecast (adoption proportions) |
3.3.14. | Narrow FoV AR combiner technology forecast table (adoption proportions by technology) |
3.3.15. | Narrow FoV AR combiner technology forecast (headset volume) |
3.3.16. | Narrow FoV AR combiner technology forecast table (headset units by technology) |
3.3.17. | Narrow FoV AR combiner technology forecast (revenue) |
3.3.18. | Narrow FoV AR combiner technology forecast table (combiner revenue by technology) |
3.3.19. | Total AR combiner technology forecast (adoption proportions) |
3.3.20. | Total AR combiner technology forecast table (adoption proportions by technology) |
3.3.21. | Total AR combiner technology forecast (headset volume) |
3.3.22. | Total AR combiner technology forecast table (headset units by technology) |
3.3.23. | Total AR combiner revenue forecast |
3.3.24. | Total AR combiner technology forecast table (combiner revenue by technology) |
3.3.25. | Status and market potential of optical combiners |
3.3.26. | AR combiner forecasts: Overall summary |
3.4. | Market forecasts: Lenses for VR |
3.4.1. | VR lens forecasting justification |
3.4.2. | Pancake lenses: From niche to standard |
3.4.3. | "Generations" of VR lens |
3.4.4. | VR lens technology forecast (adoption proportions) |
3.4.5. | VR lens technology forecast table (adoption proportions) |
3.4.6. | VR lens technology forecast (headset volume) |
3.4.7. | VR lens technology forecast table (headset volume containing optic) |
3.4.8. | VR lens revenue forecast |
3.4.9. | VR lens revenue forecast table |
3.4.10. | Technological status of VR lens technologies |
3.4.11. | VR lens forecasts: Overall summary |
3.5. | High level optical material forecasts |
3.5.1. | Material requirement forecasting methodology |
3.5.2. | Methodology - material forecasting |
3.5.3. | Material forecasts (volume): AR combiners (wide and narrow FoV combined) |
3.5.4. | Material forecasts (mass): AR combiners (wide and narrow FoV combined) |
3.5.5. | Material forecasts (volume): AR combiners (wide and narrow FoV combined) |
3.5.6. | Material forecasts (mass): AR combiners (wide and narrow FoV combined) |
3.5.7. | AR combiners: Identifying material opportunities (I) |
3.5.8. | AR combiners: Identifying material opportunities (II) |
3.5.9. | Material forecasts (volume): VR lenses |
3.5.10. | Material forecasts (mass): VR lenses |
3.5.11. | Material forecasts (volume): VR lenses |
3.5.12. | Material forecasts (mass): VR lenses |
3.5.13. | Material forecasting: Assumptions for geometric phase lens arrays |
3.5.14. | VR lenses: Identifying material opportunities (I) |
3.5.15. | VR lenses: Identifying material opportunities (II) |
3.5.16. | Conclusions: Key material opportunities in AR/VR |
3.5.17. | Advanced optical plastics - high volume with clear opportunities for innovation |
3.5.18. | Liquid crystal photopolymer materials - specialized materials for a new paradigm in optics |
3.5.19. | Photopolymers - enabling low-cost AR |
4. | TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: OPTICAL COMBINERS/ WAVEGUIDES IN AR |
4.1.1. | Optical combiners for AR |
4.1.2. | Optical combiners: Definition and classification |
4.1.3. | Waveguides vs other combiner types |
4.1.4. | AR combiner technology players |
4.2. | Waveguide combiners |
4.2.1. | Common waveguide architectures |
4.2.2. | Common waveguide architectures: Operating principle and device examples |
4.2.3. | Projector entry to waveguides |
4.2.4. | Exit pupil expansion/replication makes headsets more usable and compact at the cost of efficiency |
4.2.5. | Exit pupil expansion in waveguides |
4.2.6. | Transmission and eye glow - measures of AR's social acceptability |
4.2.7. | Waveguide substrate materials: Why refractive index matters |
4.2.8. | Comparing glass suppliers for waveguide substrates |
4.2.9. | Waveguide substrate materials: Glass vs polymers |
4.2.10. | Matching substrates with waveguide designs |
4.2.11. | Weight minimization in waveguides |
4.2.12. | Comparison between waveguide methodologies |
4.2.13. | Big Tech and AR: Focus on diffractive waveguides |
4.2.14. | Big Tech and AR: What about Meta? |
4.2.15. | Strategies in waveguide combiner supply |
4.2.16. | Diffractive waveguides |
4.2.17. | Introduction: Diffractive waveguides |
4.2.18. | Diffractive waveguides: Method of operation |
4.2.19. | Challenges of handling multiple colors with diffractive waveguides |
4.2.20. | Surface relief gratings (SRG) |
4.2.21. | Introduction: Surface relief grating waveguides |
4.2.22. | Grating structures in SRG waveguides |
4.2.23. | Manufacturing techniques for surface relief grating waveguides |
4.2.24. | Manufacturing techniques for SRG waveguides: The next step |
4.2.25. | Case study: Morphotonics and plate-scale NIL |
4.2.26. | Manufacturing techniques for SRG waveguides: The next step |
4.2.27. | Alternatives to nano-imprint lithography with spin coated resins |
4.2.28. | Alternatives to nanoimprint lithography with spin coated resins |
4.2.29. | The index matching problem for surface relief waveguides |
4.2.30. | Direct etching for SRGs |
4.2.31. | Surface relief diffractive waveguides in Microsoft's HoloLens 2: Ambitious design, unfortunate issues |
4.2.32. | Microsoft's butterfly waveguide combiner for FoV expansion |
4.2.33. | Magic Leap's headsets and the synergy between LCoS and SRG diffractive waveguides |
4.2.34. | SRG waveguides in narrow FoV devices |
4.2.35. | Diffractive Waveguides (SRG): SWOT Analysis |
4.2.36. | Holographic gratings |
4.2.37. | Introduction: Holographic grating waveguides |
4.2.38. | The first commercial holographic waveguide: The Sony SED-100A |
4.2.39. | Fabricating volume holographic waveguides |
4.2.40. | DigiLens' manufacturing process |
4.2.41. | DigiLens Argo and the commercial status of holographic waveguides in 2023 |
4.2.42. | Switchable holographic waveguides for resolution expansion |
4.2.43. | Holographic Diffractive Waveguides: SWOT Analysis |
4.2.44. | Reflective waveguides |
4.2.45. | Introduction: Reflective waveguides |
4.2.46. | Manufacturing glass reflective waveguides |
4.2.47. | Plastic reflective waveguides |
4.2.48. | Diversity in reflective waveguide designs |
4.2.49. | Lumus as a front runner in reflective waveguides |
4.2.50. | Reflective waveguides: Development potential |
4.2.51. | Reflective Waveguides: SWOT Analysis |
4.3. | Non-waveguide combiners |
4.3.1. | Simple reflective combiners |
4.3.2. | Introduction: Simple reflective combiners |
4.3.3. | Birdbath optics: Weapon of choice for lower-cost AR |
4.3.4. | Prism-based birdbath optics |
4.3.5. | Simplicity in AR: Freeform mirrors |
4.3.6. | Bugeye combiners: Large-scale freeform mirrors |
4.3.7. | Birdbath combiners: SWOT analysis |
4.3.8. | Freeform mirror combiners: SWOT analysis |
4.3.9. | Bugeye combiners (aka large freeform mirror combiners): SWOT analysis |
4.3.10. | Freespace holographic optical element (HOE) combiners |
4.3.11. | Introduction: Freespace holographic optical element (HOE) combiners |
4.3.12. | HOE freespace combiners: Trouble taking off? |
4.3.13. | HOE combiners: SWOT analysis |
4.4. | Optical combiners: Technology benchmarking |
4.4.1. | Introduction to combiner benchmarking |
4.4.2. | Benchmarking criteria (I): Commercial factors |
4.4.3. | Benchmarking criteria (II): Technological factors |
4.4.4. | Benchmark scores: AR combiners |
4.4.5. | Comparing glass waveguides |
4.4.6. | Non-waveguide combiners vs waveguides |
4.4.7. | Glass vs plastic substrates in diffractive waveguides |
4.4.8. | Glass vs plastic substrates in reflective waveguides |
4.4.9. | Ranking the performance of optical combiners |
4.4.10. | Attribute importance in wide vs narrow FoV devices |
4.4.11. | Narrow FoV AR benchmark performance |
4.4.12. | Wide FoV AR benchmark performance |
4.4.13. | AR combiner benchmarking: Conclusions to inform forecasting |
4.5. | Encapsulation and prescription correction in AR |
4.5.1. | Approaches to prescription correction in today's AR devices |
4.5.2. | Future approaches to prescription correction: User-customization |
4.5.3. | Why encapsulate waveguides with lenses? |
4.5.4. | Ancillary lenses fill gaps in waveguide capabilities |
4.5.5. | Static accommodation adjustment |
4.5.6. | Prescription correction: 3D printing offers an elegant solution |
4.5.7. | Meta, Luxexcel and AddOptics: The waveguide encapsulation market in flux |
4.5.8. | Correcting the vergence-accommodation conflict |
4.5.9. | Deep Optics and liquid crystal GRIN-kinoform lenses |
4.5.10. | Summary: Encapsulation and prescription correction in AR |
5. | TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: LENSES FOR VR |
5.1.1. | The VR optics technology landscape |
5.1.2. | Lenses in VR |
5.1.3. | "Generations" of VR lens |
5.2. | Dioptric lenses |
5.2.1. | Fresnel lenses: The old standard in VR lenses |
5.2.2. | Meta's patented hybrid Fresnel lens |
5.2.3. | Other approaches to god ray mitigation |
5.2.4. | Fresnel doublets |
5.2.5. | Users modifying headsets |
5.2.6. | Aspherical lenses at the high end in VR |
5.2.7. | Fresnel lenses: SWOT analysis |
5.2.8. | Aspherical lenses: SWOT analysis |
5.3. | Catadioptric lenses |
5.3.1. | What are pancake lenses? |
5.3.2. | Pancake lenses: From niche to standard |
5.3.3. | Comparing pancake vs Fresnel lens designs |
5.3.4. | Artefacts in pancake vs Fresnel lenses |
5.3.5. | Pancake lenses and new design possibilities |
5.3.6. | Pancake lenses and the future of VR |
5.3.7. | Other catadioptric lens designs |
5.3.8. | Polarization-based pancake lenses: SWOT analysis |
5.4. | Focus-tunable lenses |
5.4.1. | Why is dynamically variable focus important for XR? |
5.4.2. | Emerging lens technologies by TRL |
5.4.3. | Solutions to the vergence-accommodation conflict for XR |
5.4.4. | SWOT: VA conflict workarounds |
5.4.5. | SWOT: Dynamic optics (focus tunable lenses) |
5.4.6. | SWOT: "True 3D" displays |
5.4.7. | "True 3D" displays |
5.4.8. | Overview: "True 3D" displays as key competitors to focus-tunable lenses |
5.4.9. | Light field displays: Reconstructing scenes from multiple viewpoints |
5.4.10. | Avoiding the resolution limit: Sequential light field displays |
5.4.11. | Case study: CREAL's light field near-eye displays |
5.4.12. | Holography: Reconstructing wavefronts |
5.4.13. | Computer-generated holography: Digital hologram generation |
5.4.14. | VividQ: Holographic displays for AR |
5.4.15. | Summary: "True 3D" displays as competitors to focus-tunable lenses |
5.4.16. | Geometric/Pancharatnam-Berry phase lenses |
5.4.17. | Introduction to geometric phase lenses |
5.4.18. | Flat lenses: Diffractive optics, metasurfaces, liquid crystals and more |
5.4.19. | Why geometric phase lenses matter |
5.4.20. | What is geometric (Pancharatnam-Berry) phase? |
5.4.21. | Optically anisotropic materials and GPLs |
5.4.22. | Liquid crystals and switchable waveplates |
5.4.23. | Liquid crystals in GPLs |
5.4.24. | Metasurfaces: Another method to apply geometric phase |
5.4.25. | Introduction to optical meta-surfaces |
5.4.26. | Harvard: Manufacturing optical metamaterials |
5.4.27. | Harvard: Applications for metalenses/metasurfaces |
5.4.28. | MetaLenz: Metasurfaces for distributing light and imaging |
5.4.29. | MetaLenz: Manufacturing metasurfaces via semiconductor fabrication |
5.4.30. | Metamaterial Technologies develop rolling mask lithography |
5.4.31. | Meta's GPL prototypes |
5.4.32. | The vision for GPL use in headsets |
5.4.33. | Geometric phase lenses for VR and AR: Production methods |
5.4.34. | Other focus tunable lenses |
5.4.35. | Tunable liquid crystal lenses |
5.4.36. | Meta: Various approaches to solving the VAC |
5.4.37. | Alvarez lenses |
5.4.38. | Summary: Focus tunable lenses |
5.5. | VR lenses: Technology benchmarking |
5.5.1. | Introduction to VR lens benchmarking |
5.5.2. | Benchmarking criteria (I): Commercial factors |
5.5.3. | Benchmarking criteria (II): Technological factors |
5.5.4. | Benchmark scores: VR lenses |
5.5.5. | Comparing overall lens performance |
5.5.6. | Ranking the performance of optical lenses |
5.5.7. | Attribute importance in VR devices |
5.5.8. | VR lens benchmark performance |
5.5.9. | VR lens benchmarking: Conclusions to inform forecasting |
6. | COMPANY PROFILES |
6.1. | Addoptics |
6.2. | Addoptics: 2023 Update |
6.3. | Cambridge Mechatronics |
6.4. | Deep Optics |
6.5. | DigiLens |
6.6. | Dispelix |
6.7. | HTC Vive |
6.8. | Inkron |
6.9. | Kura Technologies |
6.10. | Lenovo: The ThinkReality A3 |
6.11. | LetinAR |
6.12. | Limbak |
6.13. | Limbak: Acquired by Apple? |
6.14. | Lumus |
6.15. | Luxexcel |
6.16. | Luxexcel Acquired by Meta |
6.17. | Lynx |
6.18. | Lynx - Q2 2022 Update |
6.19. | Meta (VR Optics) |
6.20. | MICROOLED |
6.21. | Mira Reality |
6.22. | Mira Reality: Acquired by Apple |
6.23. | Mojo Vision |
6.24. | Morphotonics |
6.25. | Oorym |
6.26. | Optinvent |
6.27. | Schott AG: Augmented/Mixed Reality Operations |
6.28. | Sony (CES 2023) |
6.29. | TruLife Optics |
6.30. | Varjo |
6.31. | VividQ |
6.32. | VividQ and Dispelix: Pairing Holographic Displays with Waveguides |
6.33. | VividQ: Visit and Tech Demo |