How open is smart-glasses development?

"Is this platform open?" is the wrong question. It compresses at least four independent decisions into one word, and every smart-glasses vendor answers them differently. A platform can hand you a free, permissively-licensed SDK and still refuse to let you ship to real users. Another can gate the SDK behind a paid program yet let you publish to a public store in a weekend. If you pick where to build on a single "openness" vibe, you will be surprised at exactly the wrong moment — usually the day you try to put your app in someone else's hands.

This page gives you the model we use to reason about it, then places today's platforms on it.

Openness has two phases, not one

The single most useful distinction: build-time openness and ship-time openness are separate, and they don't correlate.

• Build-time — Can you get the SDK, write code, and run it on the hardware? This is where the SDK license, price, and the "who is allowed to build" gate live.
• Ship-time — Can you get that code into an end user's hands, and how wide can that audience be? This is a completely different gate: a store, a review pipeline, a partner agreement, or nothing at all.

Meta is the canonical example of the split: the SDK is free and public, and Developer Mode runs your own build on your own glasses with no invite and no review — but getting that build onto anyone else's glasses means inviting them by email to a release channel, and public publishing is partner-gated. Vuzix is the opposite corner — open SDK, and because the Z100 is a display-only Bluetooth peripheral, you ship an ordinary phone app through Google Play or the App Store with no glasses-specific gate at all. Even Realities splits the other way: a genuine public web/TypeScript SDK, but its first-party store is manually reviewed.

Hold those two phases apart and the rest of the model falls out cleanly.

The four dimensions

Score any platform on these four and you have its real posture:

1. SDK availability & cost — Is there a public SDK you can download today without an invite? Free, paid, or application-gated?
2. License — Permissive open source (BSD / MIT / Apache-2.0), or a proprietary closed binary (an AAR, an xcframework, a signed runtime)? This governs whether you can fork, self-host, audit, and survive the vendor changing direction.
3. Who-can-build gating — Anyone; a dev-mode toggle; a paid developer program; a light application form; or invite/partner-only.
4. Publishing gating — Self-distribute with no gatekeeper; an open store with light review; a curated/manually-reviewed store; phone-store-only (ordinary app review); partner-gated; enterprise-MDM-only; or no path at all.

A platform that is open on all four is a place you can move fast and keep control. A platform that is open on (1) and (2) but closed on (4) is fine for prototypes and demos and a trap for a product.

The spectrum

From most open to most closed. The tiers are about net freedom to build and ship to real users — a permissive license pulls a platform up, a publishing wall pushes it down.

1. Fully open — OSS SDK, self-distribute, no gatekeeper

You get open-source SDKs, you keep the keys, and you distribute your own host app, so there is no one to ask permission of at either phase.

• Brilliant Labs (Frame & Halo) is the most open in the category: OSS multi-language SDKs (BSD-3/MIT), an on-device Lua VM over plain BLE, a first-party IDE, an open-source reference host app, open hardware/firmware, and an OSS BYO-key/self-host assistant. You ship your own app; nobody gatekeeps either phase.
• MICROOLED ActiveLook — an open BLE SDK (Android + iOS + a generic API) you embed in your own app, no gatekeeper.
• Omi (OmiGlass) — open SDKs (Python, Swift, RN, Expo), full AI access with BYO keys or local models, an app marketplace and open GitHub self-distribution.
• Mentra (MentraOS) — an MIT TypeScript SDK (@mentra/miniapp, in beta) with a store and LAN QR install. Notably it is cross-vendor, which is why it also shows up as the ungated path on hardware whose first-party channel is narrower (see Even Realities and Vuzix below).

2. Open to build and ship — permissive-enough SDK, open publishing, proprietary core

Publishing is genuinely open, but the SDK itself is proprietary or carries a cost/hardware gate. Net freedom is still high.

• Snap Spectacles / Specs — a free public SDK (Lens Studio 5) plus an independent WebXR path, and public Lens Explorer distribution with a narrow ~2–3 day review. Camera/mic/location + internet is publicly publishable via Transparent Permissions, including BYO-AI Lenses through the Remote Service Gateway. The only real wall is hardware access — and it got higher: Snap has withdrawn the published sign-up for its subscription developer program (announced at $99/month US, €110/month in six European countries) without an end-of-life notice, leaving a $2,195 Specs pre-order as the only listed purchase route to hardware.
• Vuzix — a free, publicly downloadable native SDK (Android + Apple) plus MIT-licensed MentraOS; a Z100 app is an ordinary phone app in the normal stores.
• HTC VIVE Eagle — a free, anonymously downloadable iOS + Android SDK (0.6.0 beta) and an ordinary phone app that ships through the App Store and Google Play, so ship-time is the normal store review. The qualification is real, though: the app-registration step that lets your app talk to the glasses is undocumented, and the only published route to it closed in July 2026.
• Solos — a paid but public SDK (standard iOS/Android, commercial use allowed) with no application step; ship-time is wide open through the normal app stores. Audio-first, no HUD.
• Iristick — a native Android + iOS SDK behind a paid, NDA-bound developer program (€1,137.50 one-time including the first three months, then €1,000/yr); distribution through Google Play and the App Store requires the Certified Software Partner tier, while the SDK Licence path is internal-use only.
• Even Realities (first-party track) — a public web/TypeScript SDK with self-serve developer entry (signing in to the web hub flips your account to developer); the remaining gate is ship-time, since the Even Hub store is manually reviewed. Private and email-invited Beta builds install unreviewed, and MentraOS + raw-BLE community tooling reaches both G1 and G2 with no Even gate at all.
• INMO (Air3) — a standalone Android 14 device that ships internationally with the Google Play Store, plus a Unity SDK; publishing mixes an open Play path with a curated first-party Air3 store. Qualified openness — the prose API reference sits behind a login-walled Feishu doc, though the SDK and the XMLDoc reference shipped inside it are login-free.

3. Dev-mode / sideload — open to build, no consumer publishing surface

You can build freely and run on-device via ADB/sideload, but there is no public store or review pipeline to reach a wide audience yet. Great for internal tools and demos; you own the distribution problem.

• RayNeo — an open, standard-based build path (MIT OpenXR Unity ARDK + native Android ARDK, no invite gate), but a real developer-mode unlock and everyday delivery via ADB or community sideload tooling. No self-serve store, though RayNeo's X-series docs publish a manually brokered submission and review route.
• Rokid — four parallel dev axes, and the build path needs no account at all: the Maven repo and the AIUI tooling both resolve anonymously. The on-glasses AIUI runtime (JSAR) is Apache-2.0 while the native SDKs are closed AARs. The exception is the cloud OpenAPI behind the BYO-model agents, which requires an enterprise account arranged through sales. Sideload works today (phone app, WebUSB, community stores); a first-party native store is still emerging.
• XREAL — a Unity SDK; sideload / OTA via ControlGlasses.
• VITURE — a cross-platform + Unity SDK; distribution through host-platform stores.
• Epson Moverio — a native Android AAR SDK; sideload APK, no store.
• Lenovo ThinkReality A3 — Snapdragon Spaces (OpenXR, Unity/Unreal); sideload, Google Play, or Lenovo-managed.

4. Application- or partner-gated build

The SDK exists but you must be approved to get it or to onboard through the first-party channel.

• Jorjin J-Reality — the J7 SDK is sales-gated; distribution is partner/ODM.

5. Invite / partner preview — open to build, gated on who can receive it

• Meta — a DAT companion SDK and Display Web Apps, free to build against: Developer Mode runs your unpublished app on your own glasses with no invite and no publishing review, though Meta's FAQ limits the full toolkit — including the Wearables Developer Center — to developers in AI-glasses supported countries. The gate is ship-time: every DAT tester must be invited by email to an invite-only release channel, and public publishing is partner-gated; Meta AI is closed to developers. The most-watched platform, and among the most gated at ship time.
• Android XR — the Jetpack XR SDK is public, but the platform is GA-gating with Gemini as the assistant; treat it as staged-rollout rather than freely shippable today.

6. Enterprise-managed

Open enough to build, but distribution assumes a managed fleet — the "public store" is an MDM console, not a consumer channel.

• RealWear — a standard Android SDK plus WearHF/WearML; RealWear Cloud + APK sideload; the Ari assistant is end-user-facing, BYO-AI for your own apps.
• DigiLens (ARGO) — a DigiOS SDK (AOSP 12) + Unity/Spaces; sideload + enterprise MDM; Gemini voice via Google Cloud.
• ThirdEye Gen — Android (Java) + Unity + a VisionEye SLAM SDK; you upload APKs to a ThirdEye App Store dashboard.
• Emteq Labs (OCOsense) — a Unity SDK + Python LSL client shipped as a developer kit via GitHub/UPM; a specialized affect/expression sensing platform rather than a general app target.

7. Closed / none

• Apple — no third-party glasses SDK yet. There is nothing to build against.

The openness map at a glance

Where the phone-companion model sits

A cross-cutting factor the table hints at: who runs your code changes the gate. When the glasses are a display-or-audio peripheral and your app runs on the phone, publishing collapses to ordinary phone-store review — which is why display-only peripherals like Vuzix and audio-only Solos land in the "open to ship" tier despite proprietary SDKs. When the app runs on the glasses, you inherit that device's store, sideload story, or partner gate.

Extentos targets the phone-companion side of that line: the app lives on the phone, the glasses are the transport, and distribution rides the phone stores you already ship through. That inherits the ship-time openness of the peripheral model rather than a per-vendor on-glasses store — one reason the model ports across several of the vendors above. Which posture is right is a function of your product, not a universal ranking; the point of this page is to make the trade legible, not to sell one answer.

What this means for choosing where to build

Read the two phases against your actual goal:

• Prototype or internal tool, wide reach not required? Tier 3 (sideload/dev-mode) is fine — RayNeo, XREAL, Rokid. Don't over-index on the missing store; you don't need it yet.
• Consumer product you must ship broadly? Weight ship-time heavily. Open publishing (Tiers 1–2) beats a great SDK trapped behind a partner gate. A brilliant SDK you can't distribute is a demo.
• You need to fork, audit, self-host, or outlive the vendor? Weight license. Only Tier 1's permissive OSS (Brilliant Labs, ActiveLook, Omi, Mentra) gives you that guarantee; a proprietary AAR can change under you.
• You want to own the AI layer? Openness of the SDK and openness of the assistant are yet another independent axis — Snap and Brilliant Labs invite BYO-AI, while Meta's assistant is closed and RayNeo's is closed and region-split. If AI is your product, check that axis explicitly, not the general openness label.
• Betting on a not-yet-open platform? Meta, Android XR, and Apple may open further; build with an eye on portability so a gate that opens late doesn't strand you.

The honest summary: there is no single "most open" platform for every job. Rank the four dimensions by what your product actually needs to survive, score your candidates on each, and let the two-phase split — build vs ship — do the deciding. Each vendor page linked above carries the specifics for that scoring.

Related