Positive Reviews: AI Consumer Hardware is Accelerating the Human-Computer Interaction Revolution, and Multi-Route Exploration is Unleashing New Possibilities for the Industrial Ecosystem
In the wave of AI centered around large models, the explosive innovation of AI consumer hardware is redefining the boundaries of human-computer interaction. From the perspective of the Tencent Research Institute, the three major development routes of current AI consumer hardware (the AI native exploration school, the incremental enhancement school, and the model empowerment school) not only demonstrate diverse paths for technology implementation but also send positive signals at the levels of business models, ecosystem construction, and user experience, injecting new growth momentum into the global intelligent terminal industry.
First, the paradigm innovation of AI native devices has sown the “seeds” for the interaction revolution. Although products such as the Rabbit R1 and the Humane AI Pin face market doubts due to their immature user experiences, their design concept of “weakening apps and making intentions equivalent to operations” is essentially a bold challenge to the GUI (Graphical User Interface) interaction paradigm dominated by smartphones. This kind of product is similar to the exploration of early Palm OS devices. In the era of feature phones, Palm pioneered the prototype of mobile computing with its “stylus + streamlined system,” ultimately laying the cognitive foundation for the disruptive innovation of the iPhone. Today, AI native devices attempt to enable users to directly “command” devices to complete complex operations (such as ordering takeout and checking schedules) using natural language through large model-driven semantic understanding and task execution. Once this LUI (Language User Interface) attempt breaks through technical bottlenecks (such as reducing cloud dependence and enhancing local computing power), it is very likely to become the “iPhone moment” for the next generation of intelligent terminals. Even the currently underperforming companion robots (such as LOVOT), with their “emotional connection” design logic, provide differentiated solutions for niche scenarios such as elderly care and child – rearing, verifying the potential market for “hardware + emotional value.”
Second, the “steady evolution” of the incremental enhancement school is accelerating the inclusive implementation of AI. Tech giants such as Apple and Meta choose to gradually enhance AI capabilities by integrating local large models based on existing terminals (phones, smart glasses, and headphones). The greatest advantage of this path lies in “low cognitive threshold + high market penetration.” For example, Apple embeds the local large model supported by its M – series chips into the iPhone, which not only ensures privacy and security (sensitive data does not need to be uploaded to the cloud) but also optimizes the user experience through functions such as “intelligent grouping” and “call answering,” directly driving 54% of potential phone – replacing users to list AI capabilities as a core decision – making factor. This strategy of “innovating within the familiar” avoids user resistance caused by sudden changes in interaction habits. At the same time, through edge – side computing power optimization (such as Apple’s dual – block architecture reducing response latency), AI is upgraded from a “tool” to an “intelligent companion integrated into daily life.” More notably, the incremental school converts hardware sales into long – term user value through subscription models (such as health analysis reports and exclusive AI functions). The case of Oura Ring, where the subscription conversion rate increased by 18% after shifting from “basic data charging” to “deep – service subscription,” proves that the “continuous value of intelligent services” is the key to driving user payment, opening up a second growth curve of “hardware + services” for hardware enterprises.
Third, the “utilities” model of the model empowerment school is promoting ecosystem openness and technology diffusion. Large model manufacturers represented by OpenAI and Google choose to inject AI capabilities into third – party devices through APIs/SDKs. This strategy of “not making hardware but building a platform” is essentially an “intelligent upgrade” of the Android ecosystem. Its value lies in two aspects. On the one hand, the ubiquity of model capabilities (such as the integration of GPT – 4o into smart glasses and Doubao headphones) allows small and medium – sized hardware manufacturers to quickly obtain the “intelligent” label without self – developing large models, reducing the threshold for industry innovation. On the other hand, model manufacturers build revenue sources decoupled from hardware sales through models such as charging based on call volume and enterprise subscriptions, dispersing the risk of failure of a single hardware form. For example, the Tongyi Tingwudao headphones of Alibaba achieve “instant wake – up and continuous response” through their own models, which is essentially a deep integration of model capabilities and hardware scenarios. This “model – as – a – service” model is promoting the evolution of AI from a “single – point technology” to an “infrastructure.”
Finally, the trend of integration between upstream and downstream industries and edge – cloud collaboration provides more solid support for technology implementation. The in – depth cooperation between model manufacturers and chip giants (such as Meta and Qualcomm, Alibaba and hardware manufacturers) promotes the efficient operation of lightweight models (with 3B – 7B parameters) on the edge side through technologies such as knowledge distillation and the MoE architecture, solving the contradiction of “strong model capabilities but insufficient terminal computing power.” The edge – cloud combination strategy (the edge side handles high – frequency, low – latency tasks, and the cloud side supports complex reasoning) balances user experience and cost, ensuring privacy (such as local photo album organization) and expanding the functional boundaries through cloud – based large models (such as long – text writing). This collaborative innovation of “hardware – chip – model” is building a complete ecological chain from underlying computing power to upper – layer applications, laying a technical foundation for the large – scale popularization of AI consumer hardware.
Negative Reviews: High – Risk Exploration and Ecosystem Shortcomings Coexist, and AI Consumer Hardware Still Needs to Overcome Multiple Challenges
Although the innovation of AI consumer hardware is exciting, the problems exposed in its development process are also worthy of vigilance. From technological maturity to the matching of user needs, from business model verification to ecosystem control, multiple challenges may delay the process of industrial explosion.
First, the “high – risk gamble” of the AI native exploration school faces the dilemma of proving value. Most current AI native devices (such as the Rabbit R1 and the AI Pin) have not yet broken through the boundary of being “scene toys.” The core problems lie in “insufficient functional substitution” and “misalignment with user needs.” For example, the Rabbit R1 features “instant response and voice interaction,” but most of its functions (such as ordering takeout and checking the weather) can be efficiently completed by phone apps. Moreover, it has defects such as cloud dependence leading to delays and a closed ecosystem (inability to call mainstream apps), making it difficult for users to perceive its irreplaceability. Even companion robots targeting emotional needs (such as LOVOT) cannot support a high premium of $3935 due to functional defects such as short interaction battery life (less than 1 hour) and fixed gameplay (no language ability), ultimately falling into a vicious cycle of “high pricing – low sales – difficult iteration.” The dilemma of such products essentially lies in the disconnection between “technological ideals” and “real user needs.” Users are willing to pay for “disruptive experiences,” but only if the experiences are significantly better than existing solutions. If it only stays at the level of “conceptual innovation” without breakthroughs in experience, high – risk exploration is likely to become a waste of resources.
Second, behind the “steadiness” of the incremental enhancement school hides the risks of homogenization and pseudo – needs. The incremental school relies on existing hardware forms (phones, glasses, headphones) to integrate AI functions. Although this reduces the user threshold, it also leads hardware manufacturers into the trap of “AI function involution.” For example, the AI functions of smart headphones are mostly concentrated on basic scenarios such as “real – time translation” and “call summarization,” lacking differentiation. If the AI capabilities of phone manufacturers (such as intelligent grouping and call answering) only stay at the level of “efficiency optimization” rather than “scene reconstruction,” they are likely to be regarded by users as “icing on the cake” rather than “rigid needs.” More importantly, the implementation effect of the subscription model is limited by the user perception of “pseudo – intelligence.” If AI functions are only “automated scripts” (as some evaluations question the LAM model of the Rabbit R1) or the service value cannot be continuously perceived (such as the “basic data charging” of Oura Ring in the early stage), users’ willingness to pay will remain low. In addition, hardware manufacturers’ dependence on “edge – side AI capabilities” may lead to the solidification of technical paths. If the future interaction paradigm (such as seamless voice interaction) changes suddenly, the incremental school may miss the opportunity for transformation due to excessive dependence on existing forms.
Third, the “platform dream” of the model empowerment school is limited by control and cost pressure. The vision of model manufacturers to replicate the “utilities” ecosystem of Android currently faces three major obstacles. First, the high cost of model inference makes it impossible to authorize on a large scale with extremely low marginal costs like the Android system (for example, the token cost of calling GPT – 4o may exceed the profit margin of hardware manufacturers). Second, the adaptation between models and terminals has technical thresholds. The limited edge – side computing power leads to function shrinkage (such as high latency and inaccurate responses), affecting the user experience. Third, the control of the ecosystem is decentralized. Hardware manufacturers (such as Samsung and vivo) are accelerating the self – development of large models (such as Samsung Gauss and vivo Blue Heart) to avoid being “bound by models,” weakening the voice of third – party models. Even Google has to pay a high licensing fee to Samsung to pre – install Gemini on the Galaxy S25, reflecting the passive position of model manufacturers in the competition for user entrances. If model manufacturers cannot establish unified adaptation standards (such as unified API interfaces) or reduce inference costs, their vision of “model as a platform” may only stay at the level of “basic services” and it will be difficult to master the ecological dominance.
Finally, the undetermined long – term form and the intensifying competition for entrances increase industrial uncertainty. Although AI glasses are regarded as representatives of “seamless interaction,” they currently exist as a “supplement to phones,” and their optical and computing power maturity (such as display clarity and battery life) has not reached the level of “replacing phones.” The “screenless device” jointly developed by OpenAI and Jony Ive is expected to be the “iPhone moment,” but whether it can break through user habits (such as dependence on screens) and solve interaction reliability problems (such as misrecognition of voice commands) still needs time to verify. More importantly, the ultimate form of future AI hardware (such as whether LUI can replace GUI) has not been finalized, which means that all players (the exploration school, the incremental school, and the model school) may be eliminated due to “betting on the wrong track,” and the uncertainty of industrial competition is significantly higher than that in the smartphone era.
Advice for Entrepreneurs: Focus on Needs, Break Through with Differentiation, and Collaborate in the Ecosystem
Facing the opportunities and challenges of AI consumer hardware, entrepreneurs need to focus on the following directions based on their own resources and positioning:
AI Native Exploration School: Focus on “Irreplaceable Rigid – Need Scenarios” and Break Through User Education Costs with Experience
Avoid blindly pursuing “disruptive interaction.” Instead, deeply explore niche scenarios not covered by existing hardware (such as accompanying elderly people living alone and professional meeting recording), and verify product value through the dual – drive of “rigid – need functions + emotional value.” For example, for the meeting scenario, optimize the “real – time transcription + key annotation” function of AI headphones to ensure accuracy and low latency. For the accompanying scenario, improve the interaction battery life (such as extending it to more than 4 hours) and add personalized language capabilities (such as learning user preferences based on conversations). At the same time, lower the hardware pricing threshold (such as adopting the “low – profit hardware + subscription service” model), and quickly iterate the experience based on early user feedback to avoid falling into the vicious cycle of “high pricing – low sales.”Incremental Enhancement School: Build Differentiation with “Deep Services” and Activate Long – Term Value with the Subscription Model
Avoid getting into the homogenized competition of “piling up AI functions.” Instead, provide “perceivable and quantifiable” intelligent services around high – frequency user scenarios (such as health management and learning assistance). For example, smartwatch manufacturers can launch “personalized exercise suggestions” (based on users’ historical data and real – time physiological indicators) by integrating local large models, rather than just staying at the level of “step counting.” Phone manufacturers can strengthen the “cross – application operation” ability of AI agents (such as automatically organizing photo albums and generating travel photo albums), so that users can feel the value of “AI completing complex tasks for me.” In the design of the subscription model, adopt the “free basic functions + tiered charging for deep services” model (such as the successful experience of Oura Ring), lower the initial payment threshold for users, and increase the renewal rate through continuous function iteration (such as adding disease risk prediction).Model Empowerment School: Reduce Adaptation Costs and Build a Moat with “Technology + Ecosystem”
Focus on breaking through the technologies of “lightweight edge – side models” and “low – latency inference” (such as knowledge distillation and MoE architecture optimization), reduce the operating costs (computing power, power consumption) of models on terminal devices, and improve the adaptation efficiency. At the same time, actively cooperate with hardware manufacturers to formulate “unified interface standards” (such as defining model call protocols and data formats) to reduce the adaptation threshold for developers and enhance ecosystem stickiness. In addition, attract developers to participate through the “open – source + community” model (such as Meta’s Llama series) to build a collaborative innovation ecosystem of “model – hardware – application” and avoid being “isolated” by the self – developed models of hardware manufacturers.All Players: Pay Attention to “Edge – Cloud Collaboration” and “Application Ecosystem” to Seize Future Entrances
Regardless of which route is chosen, attention should be paid to the edge – cloud collaboration strategy. The edge side handles privacy – sensitive, high – frequency, low – latency tasks, and the cloud side supports complex reasoning and knowledge update to balance experience and cost. At the same time, build an application ecosystem around “AI agents,” open up data entrances (such as cooperate with mainstream apps and service platforms), and make AI the “unified entrance” for users and various services. For example, AI glasses manufacturers can connect to social platforms (such as Instagram) and life services (such as Meituan) to achieve a closed – loop experience of “shoot and upload immediately” and “what you see is what you get.” Model manufacturers can cooperate with hardware manufacturers to deeply integrate model capabilities into the terminal system (such as pre – installing AI assistants) to enhance user stickiness.
In conclusion, the development of AI consumer hardware is not only a competition in technological innovation but also a contest in understanding user needs and building ecosystems. Entrepreneurs need to find a balance between “disruption” and “steadiness,” “technological ideals” and “user value” to gain a foothold in this human – computer interaction revolution.
- Startup Commentary”Hong Kong’s Busiest Investor”
- Startup Commentary”The Next Stop for Artificial Intelligence: New Consumer Hardware”
- Startup Commentary”Invest 3 million to open a store and finally turn the tables: “After ten years of entrepreneurship, I’ve figured out one thing.””
- Chain Exploration”Full Text of Powell’s Speech at Jackson Hole: Opens the Door to Restarting Interest Rate Cuts”
- Startup Commentary”Decathlon, Trying to Please the Middle Class, Is Abandoned by the Poor Instead”
