Yesterday, Snap debuted its new $2,195 Specs glasses. In an interview with CNBC, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel described the Specs as something the company had been working on for more than 12 years, an attempt to “bring computing into the world” and “make it more human.” He positioned them as a device to help people stay more connected to the world around them instead of looking down at their phones. People, he said, are tired of screens.

While Spiegel was speaking, I was struck by how, whenever his head moved, the light caught the lenses just so, revealing the hidden outline of the Specs’ display. It was ironic that Spiegel was talking about screen fatigue and the desire to connect just as his very product visibly put a screen between him and the interviewer.

But mostly, I was distracted by how goofy the Specs looked on him.

Fashion is subjective, but the Specs are objectively bold and distinctive. They’ve got chunky frames and an angular design that’s vaguely reminiscent of aviators. The arms are ginormous and look awfully heavy atop Spiegel’s ears. If there were absolutely no technology inside them, I’d say they were a statement piece, something typically worn by folks like the fashion icons Iris Apfel, Karl Lagerfeld, or even Edna Mode from The Incredibles.

To be clear, Snap is positioning these as an aspirational, high-fashion gadget. You only have to look at the company’s global advertising campaign, shot by fashion photographer Steven Meisel, known for his work with Vogue and haute couture houses like Versace, Valentino, Dolce & Gabbana, Balenciaga, and Loewe. The models wearing the Specs? Big-name models like Kaia Gerber and Hoyeon, as well as basketball player Jimmy Butler and musicians Jack Harlow and Imogen Heap. Basically, all people known for their unique or eclectic sense of style. The problem is that the number one rule of wearable tech is that the device has to be comfortable — and stylistically versatile — enough for everyday wear. And on that front, Snap is setting these devices up to be worn by very few people.

I firmly believe anyone can pull off bold fashion with enough charisma and self-confidence. But in almost a decade of covering smart glasses, I’ve repeatedly seen that the bolder the design, the less confident the average Joe feels wearing them. Part of why the original Google Glass failed was that the design was too reminiscent of a Dragon Ball Z scouter or a cyberpunk dystopia. It made you easy to spot and easy to ridicule as a glasshole. Likewise, one of the main complaints I heard about the Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses was that the design was too chunky — and those borrowed a familiar, classic Wayfarer silhouette. Part of why the Ray-Ban Meta glasses work so well now is that they’re discreet and look like an ordinary pair of glasses. That’s also likely why the forthcoming Google and Samsung Android XR glasses are partnering with both Warby Parker and Gentle Monster. Warby Parker offers a stylish but low-key option, while Gentle Monster is available for folks with more avant-garde fashion sensibilities.

There’s no option to be discreet wearing the Specs. Perhaps that’s good from a public privacy perspective — you’ll be able to see someone wearing Specs a mile away. But it’s also one major reason why self-conscious folks won’t ever pick these up. (The other is the fact that these are $2,195.) The other problem is that we humans are vain creatures. These devices sit directly on your face and obscure your eyes, the so-called windows to the soul. If you even suspect you’ll look goofy in these, you’re just never going to buy them, even if they’re the most miraculous tech product in the world. If there’s even the off chance that wearing these on a first date won’t get you a second, why would you risk it?

There are other practical reasons why these glasses fail the most important wearable design rules. For starters, the 47mm version weighs 132 grams, while the 52mm version weighs 136g. I found the Meta Ray-Ban Display started hurting my face after a few hours, and those weighed 69g. As a lifelong glasses wearer, I’ve grilled opticians about ideal eyewear weight over the past three decades. (When you have garbage eyeballs and extremely strong prescriptions, lightweight frames are a must to prevent headaches.) Most have told me the ideal weight for lightweight glasses is somewhere between 15 and 25g. Acetate frames (think classic Brooklyn hipster glasses) typically weigh 20 to 35g. Smart glasses typically range from 40 to 70g, and you can definitely feel it after a few hours. At about double that weight, I can’t imagine the Specs are comfortable enough to wear for more than a few hours at a time. Meaning for those of us who need prescriptions, they cannot be your primary pair, and that means you’re spending $2,195 for a secondary pair of glasses.

I find it impossible to believe Snap isn’t fully aware of this. Which is probably why it’s leaning into the haute couture, high-fashion aesthetic. They know that at this price point and at this weight, the Specs aren’t a device that can be a true mainstream hit. It was always going to be for the early adopters, and that’s a crowd that’s maybe more amenable to bolder looks and standing out. And, momentum in the consumer smart glasses space is heating up. If Snap doesn’t want to miss the boat, perhaps the idea is to strike while the iron is hot and hope enough people tag along for the ride for a second- or third-gen model that hews closer to what the average person actually wants.

Look, some people are going to look cool in these. The Meisel pictures are evidence enough of that. But the cold, hard fact is that most of us will look more like Spiegel — kinda dorky, partly goofy, and incredibly conspicuous.

This is Optimizer, a weekly newsletter sent from Verge senior reviewer Victoria Song that dissects and discusses the latest gizmos and potions that swear they’re going to change your life. This week’s issue is a special early edition tied to The Verge’s WWDC coverage. You can expect our next issue at its usual time next Friday. Opt in for Optimizer here.

Apple doesn’t like telling people what to do with their health. At least, that’s been true of its approach to the Health app and Apple Watch for the past 11 years. You can track various metrics, such as steps, workouts, and sleep quality. You can also view long-term trends — as in, whether your resting heart rate has risen or fallen in the past six months. Depending on the gadgets you have, you can also get alerted if you’re showing signs of sleep apnea, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation. But aside from nudging you to close your rings or perhaps consult a doctor if the Watch flags potential health conditions, it’s up to you to figure out what you should do with your data. 

That’s a deliberate choice, as I wrote in a recent Optimizer about the Apple Watch. But while watching this year’s WWDC keynote, Apple’s approach stood in stark contrast to what I witnessed at Google I/O. At the latter, DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis declared that the goal was to use AI to one day “solve all disease.” (A bold statement that requires context.)

Google believes so much in AI health that it’s willing to court the ire of Fitbit diehards by heavily promoting the Google Health Coach as one of the primary selling points for the new Fitbit Air. Other players in the health tech space — Oura and Whoop in particular, but also Garmin and Withings — have all added AI to their platforms, steadily rolling out new AI-powered features every few months. These new features can generate workout plans, log your meals, suggest macros, interpret your data, and, in some cases, even review your bloodwork if you choose to share it. 

In contrast, health features weren’t center stage at this year’s WWDC keynote. Heck, watchOS 27 didn’t even get its own dedicated segment because the entire focus was on reintroducing the company’s vision for a smarter Siri and Apple Intelligence. There was a brief mention of perimenopause support in the Health app’s Cycle Tracking feature. After the keynote, Apple’s website noted a handful AI health and fitness updates in watchOS 27. Workout Buddy, an AI fitness feature introduced last year, will be available in Spanish, incorporate more fitness data in readouts, and work locally on the Watch when your iPhone isn’t nearby. There will also be more accurate algorithms for treadmill distance, plus other refinements in data syncing and GPS maps. Theoretically, you could possibly use the new Siri AI and Apple Intelligence features for health guidance in the same way you can with any other chatbot. For example, snapping a photo of your meal can now bring up nutritional facts. (The limits of Siri AI in this respect will be clearer as I test it.) But that too is something you’d have to figure out for yourself.

I wouldn’t be surprised if people interpret this as Apple falling behind on health AI and wearables. Before WWDC, Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman laid out a convincing case, reporting that Apple’s rumored Project Mulberry — supposedly an AI coach and doctor — was scaled back. He contextualized that alongside several longtime Apple Watch and health executives recently leaving or retiring. Meanwhile, screenless trackers like Whoop, the Fitbit Air, and Oura Ring seem to be gaining in popularity. Apple’s last major lineup shakeup was in 2022, and since then it’s been relatively iterative updates. As far as many gadget nerds and industry analysts are concerned, Apple needs to wow everyone or accept that the Series 12 will fall by the wayside. 

I get this line of thinking, but I’m not quite as convinced based on my experience testing many AI health coaches. I don’t necessarily see this lack of AI health news as a bad thing. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: The vast majority of AI health features are doo–doo dogshit, tedious to train, and require so much of your personal data to be at all effective that it feels ominous. 

Of the health coaches I’ve tested, Google Health is the most well-rounded, but the bar is deep in the ninth ring of Dante’s inferno. That’s not great when the stakes with health are much higher than an AI assistant mucking up a DoorDash order. The most responsible use case for any health coach thus far is as a “helper tool” between doctor’s appointments to help patients stay on track and have more productive conversations with their healthcare providers. Rushing to implement health AI might suit investors, but from talking with fellow reviewers and users, most find one or two things useful. The rest of those conversations are a laundry list of complaints and wish lists for improvements. I appreciate that this is an ongoing process, but so far, I feel a Pavlovian urge to groan every time I hear about yet another AI health feature. 

These might come off as fighting words. They’re not. After interviewing several doctors and researchers for Optimizer, it’s clear to me that AI has been a major contributor to health breakthroughs for decades. It has a role to play in the future of healthcare. Vaccine discoveries, for example, have benefited in recent years from AI streamlining several steps of the development process. What we haven’t nailed is how generative AI improves the consumer health and fitness tracking experience compared to a Google search. 

Could the Health app use a redesign? Sure. It is a bit cluttered, but show me a health and fitness tracking app that isn’t. (I’ll wait.) Do the people yearn for screenless trackers because of endless data fatigue? Big yup, but current AI health insights are rarely more than glorified, regurgitated summaries of obvious charts anyway. I can’t lie. If Apple doesn’t have a unique, genuinely helpful take on this space, I’m relieved that we heard nothing. I’d rather not test an underbaked Siri-flavored health coach this year. 

Would it have been more exciting if Apple had surprised everyone with an innovative, never-before-seen, completely private, and utterly game-changing implementation where AI flips the script on healthcare as we currently know it? Duh. But that’s something I’m willing to wait for. 

I’m currently experimenting with anything and everything under the sun to help with some health issues I’ve been dealing with. Despite my innate skepticism, I’m always willing to keep an open mind in case I’m proven wrong. Yet, it becomes soul-crushing when nearly every attempt aimed at consumers feels like a thinly veiled, stapled-on cash grab. And this is coming from someone with annoying but not life-threatening conditions. I can imagine how much more frustrating the current limitations of consumer AI health tech can be for people suffering from serious chronic conditions or terminal illness. Or disorders that can be exacerbated by AI sycophancy or hallucinations, like eating disorders or hypochondria. A good AI health implementation has to be useful for those of us who are not in the best of health, too. 

I can understand the impulse for companies to “not miss the boat.” But taking a moment to zoom out at the current state of consumer health tech? It’s a hot mess. Most users aren’t happy, and now more than ever, it feels like AI is ironically exacerbating health data fatigue rather than solving it. Perhaps we could all do with Big Tech taking an extra beat or two to think things through. 

This is not an Oura Ring 5 review. That’s coming later, once I’ve had enough time to really test the new durability and battery life claims, plus the new software updates that start rolling out today. In the meantime, I did want to provide an answer to a burning question that I’ve seen asked in many Oura Ring comment sections across the internet.

Yes, it is smaller and lighter than the Oura Ring 4. And for impatient folks considering upgrades, I come bearing photographic size comparisons to the Oura Ring 4 — regular and ceramic versions — plus the Oura Ring Gen 3.

A note: Sizing matters a lot with smart rings. Not only do smart ring makers not follow standard ring sizing, but a bad fit might mean inaccurate data or a lost ring. Because of the smaller design, Oura has updated its sizing kit yet again. Even if it’s a hassle, even if you think you already know your Oura Ring size, I highly recommend getting the sizing kit. For example, I went from a size 8 in the Gen 3 to a size 9 in the Oura Ring 4. And while a size 9 is still the best size for me in the Oura Ring 5, it’s a more snug fit. If your finger is generally a “between” size, you’ll want to see how a tester kit works for at least 24 to 48 hours, since fingers can swell and shrink with temperature changes. Take it from me: Measure your smart ring size twice, buy once.

If you have any more questions about the Oura Ring 5, feel free to leave them in the comments. I’ll keep them in mind as I continue working on my full review.

Photography by Victoria Song / The Verge

A few months ago, Meta effectively handed Supernatural, a popular VR fitness game on the Meta Quest, a death sentence. As part of overarching VR layoffs, the company announced the game would no longer get any new content, enraging its tightly knit, devoted community. Now it looks like Supernatural is getting a second chance. Today, Meta announced in a community post that the game is being spun off into an independent company later this year.

The new entity will be called Supernatural Health, and will launch as a separate app on the Meta Horizon Store. Meta spokesperson Che’von Lewis told The Verge that the original founders and coaches are behind Supernatural Health and confirmed that James Senior will step in as CEO. Senior previously worked as Meta’s product leader for its Studio and New Vertical portfolios. The new app is expected to launch later this fall, along with new content. In the interim, Meta plans to wind down its current version of the app, and Supernatural Health will begin taking over Supernatural’s social channels and its official Facebook group. Current subscriptions will remain valid until December 3rd. Further details regarding the transition will be sent directly to subscribers.

Meta’s acquisition of Supernatural in 2023 was initially contested by the Federal Trade Commission, then led by Lina Khan. At the time, Khan’s FTC argued that Meta was trying to buy its way to dominance in the VR market and that the acquisition would lead to decreased competition in the future. The case ultimately failed, but many disgruntled Supernatural fans told The Verge that they viewed Meta’s acquisition as the “kiss of death,” leading to decreased product support and fewer new features once the tech giant took over.

Since Meta decided to sunset Supernatural, several fans have been vocal online about trying to save the game. Usually, these fan campaigns don’t have happy endings. That said, there’s always hope. Zombies, Run! is another recent example where a “dead” fitness game was re-bought by its original owner and brought back with new content. Smartwatch maker Pebble has also enjoyed a recent resurgence (under its original brand name, too), launching new devices years after the company was bought out by Fitbit in late 2016. In any case, Meta’s decision to grant Supernatural a second chance under a new, independent company does underscore one thing: VR definitely isn’t a top priority for the company right now.

Update, June 4, 2026: Added information about the new Supernatural Health CEO.