Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) shelved plans for a lighter, lower-cost Vision Pro headset, code-named N107, according to Bloomberg columnist Mark Gurman. The decision allowed Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ: META) to launch a competing $1,299 VR device that relies on external computing modules.

The N107 project aimed to reduce processing requirements by connecting to an iPhone or Mac. Apple also worked on N109, a second-generation Vision Pro with improved cameras and faster processors. Both initiatives were abandoned as the company reassessed its broader headset strategy.

Meta’s External Computing Strategy

Meta’s new VR Glasses use an external module for the processor and battery. This design choice results in a device weighing one-sixth as much as the Vision Pro. The glasses offer approximately three hours of battery life, compared to 2.5 hours for Apple’s standalone headset.

While the Vision Pro retains advantages in field of view, video quality, and chip performance, Gurman noted that Meta made the right trade-offs for mass-market appeal. The Meta device allows noticeable light ingress and requires manual eye-distance adjustment.

Apple’s Shift Toward Smart Glasses

Apple is now reportedly developing smart glasses, code-named N224, to compete directly with Meta’s Ray-Ban lineup. This shift reflects a renewed exploration of lighter and potentially less expensive designs. If released, the N224 device is unlikely to arrive before late 2028 or early 2029.

What the Numbers Show

The divergence in product timelines highlights distinct strategic priorities. Apple prioritized standalone performance with the Vision Pro, resulting in a heavier device with shorter battery life (2.5 hours). Meta’s approach leveraged external computing to achieve a one-sixth weight reduction and extended battery life (three hours). This suggests that consumer comfort and duration may outweigh raw standalone processing power in the current VR adoption phase.

Market Reaction

Apple shares closed at $341.07 on Friday, up 1.53%. In Monday’s premarket trading, the stock traded at $340.55, down 0.15%. According to Benzinga Edge Stock Rankings, Apple ranks in the 97th percentile for Quality, with positive short-, medium-, and long-term price trends.

Apple Inc. (NYSE: AAPL) faces a $5.7 billion damages award after a federal jury in San Diego found the company infringed two patents held by Taction Technology. The verdict marks one of the largest patent damages awards against a technology company and the largest U.S. patent verdict to date.

The dispute centered on Apple’s Taptic Engine, the hardware component responsible for tactile feedback in devices such as iPhones and Apple Watches. Taction alleged that Apple utilized its vibration-related inventions without a license. The trial began on September 14, with jurors deliberating for two days before returning the verdict on Friday afternoon.

Verdict details and legal context

The jury did not find that Apple’s infringement was willful, a distinction that can impact final damages calculations in post-trial motions. Taction filed the case in 2021 in federal court in Southern California. The company’s lead lawyer, Lance Yang, stated that the jury vindicated Taction’s patent rights after a five-and-a-half-year wait for the trial.

Apple plans to appeal

Apple issued a statement disputing both the infringement finding and the magnitude of the damages. "While we thank the jury for their consideration, we strongly disagree with today’s verdict and the damages awarded, which are entirely unsupported by the facts," the company said. Apple plans to challenge the outcome through legal channels.

What the numbers show

The $5.7 billion award represents an exceptional outlier in patent litigation history. While the source does not provide Apple’s total revenue or net income for comparison, the sheer scale of the single-case liability highlights significant financial exposure from intellectual property disputes in the consumer electronics sector. The absence of a willfulness finding suggests the damages were calculated based on reasonable royalty rates rather than punitive enhancements, yet the total remains historically high.