The Verge56%

Xreal’s new AR glasses are way cheaper and almost just right 47%

By Cameron Faulkner0%

7/10/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Biased Writer Voice, and Optimism Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 34% saturation with 419 hits. Analysis detected 3,092 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,233 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.8% and a BS Rank of 47% (10,965 of 20,381 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.80% of the article peer group.

Xreal’s new AR glasses are way cheaper and almost just right 
The A01 Plus are flimsier and have fewer features than the 1S, but they might deliver exactly what you’re looking for. 
Jul 10, 2026, 1:00 PM UTC 
The modular blue-tinted glasses shell included with the A01 Plus won’t turn your content blue . 
Photo: Cameron Faulkner / The Verge 
Cameron Faulkner is an editor covering deals and gaming hardware. 
He joined in 2018, and after a two-year stint at Polygon, he rejoined The Verge in May 2025. 
I love it when a company challenges itself to make a cheaper version of a beloved product. 
Xreal’s $299 A01 Plus is a stripped-down version of its $449 1S that’s light on features but with just enough of the 1S’ best qualities. 
These AR glasses are comfortable, they look good, and the screens are surprisingly bright and contrast-rich for the price. 
The new glasses are super lightweight at 62 grams  over 20 grams lighter than the 1S. 
They’re as light as I wish every model was, but the frame feels flimsy by comparison. 
Its durability came into question when I adjusted the A01 Plus’ temple arms to center the screens. 
They require more of a gentle touch, so as to not over-muscle the frame that houses its delicate micro OLED panels and birdbath optics, or pop off its modular eyeglasses shell. 
Xreal included an extra modular glasses shell that blocks light on all sides, and it makes the A01 Plus better for outdoor use than the 1S. 
The A01 Plus look similar in many ways to the 1S, but they’re thinner and significantly lighter. 
Speaking of those shells, customization is a big selling point for the A01 Plus. 
Xreal includes a shell that puts tinted lenses on the other side of its screens, and it can be swapped with other covers, even 3D printed ones in the future. 
Removing them requires gently tugging on its edges near where the temple arms attach, which feels risky to do until you get the hang of it. 
The company provided an alternate cover that accentuates the A01 Plus’ bright screens and keeps reflections out of view. 
The new AR glasses lack electrochromic lens tech with adjustable opacity, which is standard across most models, but I don’t mind the omission here. 
The A01 Plus have reflective films covering the back of their optics that are passable at preventing light from disrupting the experience. 
One of the removable covers included with the review unit is better at blocking out light than the pricier 1S. 
I held my phone’s flashlight right up to the lens as I wore them and I could barely see it. 
I kind of like casually wearing the A01 Plus without a snap-on shell installed because they’re so, so compact. 
As with every pair of AR glasses that I’ve tested , I played a lot of games from my Steam Deck on the A01 Plus. 
First impressions with these glasses were mixed. 
The 1080p resolution, brightness, 120Hz refresh rate, and contrast looked good, but the screens appeared very blurry. 
However, Xreal provided a set of HonsVR prescription lenses that drastically improved clarity. 
The glasses have an IPD range of 54.5mm to 74.5mm, but I can’t guarantee that you’ll have a better experience than I did out of the box unless you buy some lens inserts, which will likely cost around $50. 
The screens were fuzzy for me until I snapped in some prescription lenses that Xreal provided. 
They cost about $50. 
The A01 Plus include a hard case that snaps shut, just like Xreal’s pricier AR glasses. 
Some of my complaints about the A01 Plus come from being spoiled from using the $449 1S. 
The biggest feature omission here is three degrees of freedom, a feature that gives you the option to lock your virtual screen in position. 
Xreal aims to bridge the gap between zero and three degrees of freedom with a toggleable stabilization feature that operates kind of like a gimbal. 
It does a decent job of reducing unwanted screen movements (moving it just a little instead of a lot), but it introduces jitter that’s easy to spot with text. 
Also, audio quality is decent on the A01 Plus, but they don’t get nearly as loud as the 1S, and they’re comparatively lacking in the lows and mids. 
I understand cutting three degrees of freedom and sound quality to reach a lower price point, but other omissions don’t make as much sense. 
The A01 Plus has nearly the same button layout as other Xreal models, but there’s currently no way to adjust the volume from the glasses. 
You have to go to the audio source instead. 
Also, the screen can only display content at one size  equivalent to 147 inches with a 50-degree field of view that I can’t clearly see the borders of  and you can’t make it bigger or smaller like other glasses allow. 
It’s weird that these are apparently considered too premium to include in the A01 Plus. 
Xreal’s $449 1S (left) next to the A01 Plus (right). 
The 1S have superior build quality and temple hinges that don’t feel flimsy compared to the cheaper model. 
The A01 Plus have little touches of neon inside the right temple arm and on the USB-C cable. 
It’s not my favorite look, but it’s not too loud. 
Despite its shortcomings, the A01 Plus glasses are exactly what some people will be after: a relatively affordable set of USB-C AR glasses for mirroring their games, movies, or whole computer screens on. 
They’re lighter on features, but they nail the basics, with bright screens, serviceable audio quality, and a comfy, lightweight build. 
I’m actually impressed with all that’s included for the price. 
The features you get by spending $150 more for the 1S might be worth the plunge for some, but generally the A01 Plus are great for first-time buyers who don’t want to spend more than $300 (just make sure to factor in the $50 you may need to spend on prescription lenses). 
Photography by Cameron Faulkner/The Verge 
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates. 
ICE agents are making house calls for online critics 
OpenAI rolls out GPT-5.6 after government greenlight  and announces ‘ChatGPT Work’ 
Say hello to Claude Wrapped 
The ChatGPT browser is already dead 
Netflix reportedly considers adding always-on channels 
Advertiser Content From 
This is the title for the native ad 
Microsoft’s carbon emissions went up 25 percent last year 
Google will now tell you if an ad was made with AI 
Google’s Nest Thermostat has hit its best price of the year 
Microsoft’s patch Tuesdays are about to get bigger 
Schlage’s Sense Pro unlocks the door so I don’t have to 
The PocketMage resurrects the PDA with an e-paper screen 
Stevie Bonifield 12:04 AM UTC 
Stevie Bonifield Jul 9 
Jennifer Pattison Tuohy Jul 9 
Andrew Liszewski Jul 9 
Polestar owners left ‘holding the bag’ after EV brand pulls out of the US 
If you criticize ICE online, agents might just show up at your house 
Fidji Simo steps down from leading OpenAI’s AGI work due to illness 
Comcast is breaking up with NBCU. 
Why did it ever buy it in the first place? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.2%Cameron Faulkner: 1.8%The Verge: 3.5%Confirmation Bias6.2%This article: 7.0%Cameron Faulkner: 5.9%The Verge: 1.3%Anchoring Bias7.0%This article: 10.3%Cameron Faulkner: 2.6%The Verge: 3.7%Availability Heuristic10.3%This article: 4.1%Cameron Faulkner: 1.0%The Verge: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.8%Cameron Faulkner: 0.2%The Verge: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.8%This article: 3.2%Cameron Faulkner: 0.8%The Verge: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias3.2%This article: 13.8%Cameron Faulkner: 13.1%The Verge: 6.2%Framing Effect13.8%This article: 0.9%Cameron Faulkner: 0.2%The Verge: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.9%This article: 1.3%Cameron Faulkner: 0.3%The Verge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias1.3%This article: 1.4%Cameron Faulkner: 0.3%The Verge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect1.4%This article: 19.3%Cameron Faulkner: 6.4%The Verge: 4.1%Optimism Bias19.3%This article: 1.2%Cameron Faulkner: 0.3%The Verge: 2.4%Pessimism Bias1.2%This article: 14.1%Cameron Faulkner: 6.9%The Verge: 9.4%Negativity Bias14.1%This article: 5.4%Cameron Faulkner: 2.6%The Verge: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Cameron Faulkner: 4.4%The Verge: 3.0%Halo Effect9.4%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.8%The Verge: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Cameron Faulkner: 0.3%The Verge: 1.8%Recency Bias1.4%This article: 1.7%Cameron Faulkner: 0.6%The Verge: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.3%The Verge: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.8%Cameron Faulkner: 1.0%The Verge: 4.0%Appeal to Authority3.8%This article: 6.2%Cameron Faulkner: 1.5%The Verge: 1.6%False Dilemma6.2%This article: 1.1%Cameron Faulkner: 0.3%The Verge: 1.1%Slippery Slope1.1%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.3%Cameron Faulkner: 2.1%The Verge: 6.8%Hasty Generalization6.3%This article: 0.5%Cameron Faulkner: 0.1%The Verge: 0.2%Red Herring0.5%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.9%Cameron Faulkner: 2.7%The Verge: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion10.9%This article: 0.8%Cameron Faulkner: 0.2%The Verge: 1.1%Begging the Question0.8%This article: 3.7%Cameron Faulkner: 0.9%The Verge: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.7%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Cameron Faulkner: 0.8%The Verge: 0.8%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.0%Cameron Faulkner: 6.6%The Verge: 3.6%Anecdotal11.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 32.4%Cameron Faulkner: 8.1%The Verge: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)32.4%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.5%The Verge: 0.1%Middle Ground2.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Cameron Faulkner: 0.6%The Verge: 2.6%Unattributed Quote2.3%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 29.4%Cameron Faulkner: 13.2%The Verge: 10.8%Biased Writer Voice29.4%This article: 1.8%Cameron Faulkner: 0.4%The Verge: 1.1%Indoctrination1.8%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 1.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cameron Faulkner: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 34.0%Cameron Faulkner: 11.6%The Verge: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…34.0%

1233 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers13%attributed speech1,073writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageCameron Faulkner • 6 words • 0.0% coverageCameron Faulkner • 10 words • 0.0% coverageCameron Faulkner • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageXreal • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageXreal • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageXreal • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageXreal • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageCameron Faulkner • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageStevie Bonifield • 5 words • 0.0% coverageStevie Bonifield • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJennifer Pattison Tuohy • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Liszewski • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageFidji Simo • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Fidji Simo

100%flagged-word coverage
12 attributed words7.5% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+98.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Fidji Simo: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-33.8 ptsWriter: 33.8%Fidji Simo: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -33.8 ptsWriter: 33.8%Fidji Simo: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Fidji Simo: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.