[HN Gopher] Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses
___________________________________________________________________
Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 213 points
Date : 2023-09-27 18:18 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.meta.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.meta.com)
| sp3000 wrote:
| Any good argument that anyone can think of for a scenario where
| smart eyewear will not be as ubiquitous as smart phones
| eventually? I understand the privacy argument, but that is not
| going to be enough. The ability to think or blink in a certain
| way and capture anything you see is too powerful a tool,
| alongside the augmented reality that is coming.
| aftergibson wrote:
| This comment may eventually seem as outdated as asking 'what's
| the point of Dropbox,' but it seems we're approaching the
| limits of human-computer interaction. It feels as if we've
| reached a point where technology, originally a 'tool' to serve
| humans, is beginning to erode essential aspects of our
| humanity, manipulating our core motivations. People may start
| to opt out, not necessarily due to a lack of useful features
| and functionalities, but because the overall cost to our
| humanity outweighs the benefits. This is something we're
| gradually coming to realize more fully.
| elfbargpt wrote:
| I kind of agree with your first part. For a while now, I've
| considered the possibility that a handheld device like an
| iPhone is actually pretty close to the ideal way humans
| actually want to interact with a computer. Even though it
| seems cool as an idea, I don't think people want their
| experience with a computer to be too immersive--handheld
| device might be the sweet spot.
| esafak wrote:
| "Smart" glasses erode everyone's privacy unlike any other
| technology. Cameras and cell phones have to be held up to
| record. Glasses can stream effortlessly and continuously,
| without anyone's consent. If that is not reason enough to
| object what more do you want, my fist in your face?
| freedomben wrote:
| I think your point would be a lot better without the threat
| of physical violence at the end (which seems both silly,
| uncalled for, and unnecessary).
|
| I'm very deeply concerned about privacy, but a simple thing
| like an "on" or "recording" light on the glasses could alert
| people that recording is on.
| esafak wrote:
| By the time I am close enough see that puny light you've
| already recorded me. It's an opt out mechanism, not opt in.
| Maybe if there was an unobtrusive way for me to prevent
| recording through a wearable, like a ROBOTS.TXT file, or a
| universal gesture (a middle finger, or a grimace) to
| indicate my desire to be erased from your recording, I
| would consider it. I would also want some assurance that my
| request is honored. Given how unlikely this all is, I am
| simply saying "nope" today.
|
| It's fine in situations where consent is obtained in
| advance; e.g., events.
|
| I should add that I take more pictures than the average
| person, and used to be a street photographer, so I have
| been in situations where people did not want their likeness
| captured. Also in countries where people objected to
| photography altogether on the grounds that it stole their
| spirit. I always had to make a decision with my trigger
| finger, so I was able to apply human oversight. My stance
| is informed by experience.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Committing violence against others who are not doing
| anything illegal seems like a pretty easy way for you to
| lose a lot of privacy.
|
| Edit: OP removed their reference to punching people who
| would dare film them. This thread will no longer make
| sense to other's trying to catch up.
| pzo wrote:
| Try taking your phone out and start recording when
| talking to some random people on the street or in shop at
| cash register, or when talking to policeman etc. and see
| if none of them will start getting very annoyed or even
| aggressive - even if it's not (maybe) illegal people
| won't like it.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| People are allowed to be annoyed. If you punch someone,
| or break/steal their property for recording, there are
| actual LEGAL consequences that could befall you. People
| record others all the time, there is this whole Karen
| phenomenon that is kinda hard not to know about..
| Gud wrote:
| There is a big difference between actively choosing to
| film, showing you are filming someone and a passive
| camera always on. The first one can be easily avoided,
| the second one not so much.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Who is talking about passive only on recording? This
| device would melt your face before if it tried that.
| esafak wrote:
| That is a technicality; I object on principle. I
| extrapolated current capabilities to underscore the
| argument, because more people will lifestream/lifecast
| the easier it gets. Tomorrow it may be a neural link.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestreaming
| esafak wrote:
| People should not be recording others all the time. It is
| not consensual. This is the crux of the debate. The
| legality is debated, and it varies by jurisdiction:
| https://www.notta.ai/en/blog/is-it-illegal-to-record-
| someone...
|
| Don't squander your right to record in public on
| something as mundane and personal as a civilian minding
| his own business. Record a crime, at least. Otherwise the
| law may change and you may lose that "right".
| pzo wrote:
| I didn't mean that this is ok to punch someone. My point
| is it will annoy a lot of people and some will eventually
| punch you. There are many legal things that if you do you
| are just asking yourself for a problem.
|
| I also think in some countries it might be illegal to
| record someone either video or audio without explicitly
| telling or asking for permission. Even at the airport (at
| least in many I have been) it was not allowed to do video
| recording
| paganel wrote:
| Then what else have we got left in order to confront
| those very rude people that film you without your
| consent? It's pretty clear that the law is not up to the
| task.
| pzo wrote:
| such LED can be covered with tape, paint or damaged on
| purpose.
| antiterra wrote:
| The copy _claims_ the glasses will complain audibly if
| you cover up the LED, but doesn't say whether or not it
| stops recording. It's also not clear how easily
| circumvented this is, but they've obviously considered
| the angle.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| If you are in PUBLIC, that is by definition NOT PRIVATE.
| esafak wrote:
| Correct, and people _do_ have expectations, albeit reduced,
| of privacy in public too. Moreover, this expectation is
| thankfully backed by the law in various jurisdictions. I
| would very much like to see those rights beefed up for the
| machine learning age, after reading all these comments.
|
| Or would you like to live in a panopticon like the Chinese?
| Hey, you're on PUBLIC property, citizen! Smile for the
| camera, and don't think we can't read your lips. Like for
| real; we got software for that.
| packetlost wrote:
| Nah, I think it's the future. We don't have to have cameras on
| them, but it does greatly hinder their utility.
| [deleted]
| rdtsc wrote:
| > Any good argument that anyone can think of for a scenario
| where smart eyewear will not be as ubiquitous as smart phones
| eventually?
|
| Yes, if it is clunky and doesn't look like an ordinary
| accessory people would wear anyway.
|
| Smart watches are popular enough as people might wear a watch.
| Smart glasses could be popular if they look like actual
| glasses. Smart pants? Sure, if they can be worn like pants,
| thrown in the laundry and so on.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| I recently saw an ad, probably on facebook, for a camera with
| a form factor the size of a USB stick, that you could clip on
| your belt or lapel or whatever, and record whatever was
| around you with a wide angle lens.
| dkasper wrote:
| fwiw the meta glasses look almost identical to regular ray
| bans
| rdtsc wrote:
| Exactly. That's why I can see them being successful.
| rattlesnakedave wrote:
| No. Wearable AR tech is the future. The trend has been "get
| this device as out of my way, and integrate it into my life as
| much as possible." e.g: big iron -> desktops -> laptops ->
| smart phones enabling greater mobility and flexibility of use.
|
| We're just starting to see the next state of it with wearable
| tech. Smart watches. Airpods. Many people have these. Many
| people wear them for extended periods because they're
| comfortable interfaces to the services they care about. A
| family member has a hearing aid that's connected to their
| phone's bluetooth. Comfortable enough to wear all day &
| discretely listen to phone audio whenever. I think that's the
| next step (obvious evolution from airpods). Glasses -> AR
| displays shortly after.
| parl_match wrote:
| Eventually? Sure. Maybe. It wont be a capture story, it'll be a
| consumption and interaction story.
|
| The biggest thing preventing that future is hardware, and
| considering how you're brushing up against hard physics, I
| honestly don't see smart eyeglasses that look like normal
| eyelgasses playing out in any serious capacity for a looooong
| time.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| I don't want to typical mind the world and assume very many
| people feel the same, but I'm at least chiming in with the few
| here who have already they don't like wearing any kind of
| jewelry or really non-essential accoutrement of any kind. I
| have thankfully never needed corrective glasses, but I don't
| wear sunglasses, either, nor a watch, nor hats. I don't even
| wear my wedding ring except when I'm traveling and my wife nags
| me enough. I get that a wearable probably feels less obtrusive
| than a phone to someone who actually uses their phone a lot,
| but I don't. It's not obtrusive sitting in my pocket and even
| less so when it's on my bedside table charging and I'm
| somewhere else without it. Anything I'm wearing is inherently
| there. I don't particularly want to be that integrated with a
| digital world. I don't usually feel much of a need to record or
| augment my environment.
|
| I'd go for musculoskeletal enhancement, given how much it sucks
| to get old and have more or less at least one active chronic
| joint injury at all times no matter what, but thankfully, for
| now, my eyes and memory still work pretty well on their own.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| In terms of privacy its as bad as phones in top pockets. At
| least with glasses they tend to have recording lights.
|
| Moreover its really hard to upskirt with glasses on your head.
| mobile phones however are super easy, as I witnessed last year.
|
| As a capture device, smart glasses are a dead end. When they
| have a display, and a ergonmic input system, then they'll
| replace smartphones
|
| oh and 100x battery density.
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| I was one of the ridiculous-looking people who had a Google
| Glass when it came out. It was clunky, and lasted a very short
| time, and your face would get hot, and it had no real AR
| interaction with the real world.
|
| But. If you could squint at the rough edges, and project
| forward what this could be like with more advanced tech, it was
| a no-brainer for me that it will be a far superior form factor
| for what we do with the phone. For 2 weeks, I tried hard NOT
| using a phone and just using it. While it was difficult (mostly
| because I couldn't have a conversation with anyone that didn't
| begin with them asking what was on my head), when I went back
| to the phone I so strongly noticed how much I was craning my
| neck, how annoying it was to interact with tech like that, and
| it kinda felt terrible.
| jsight wrote:
| I remember having similar thoughts about Google Glass despite
| never using it and never really wanting to use it.
|
| I mean, the concept seemed amazing, but it seemed clear that
| it needed to be combined with vastly more AI capability. All
| of the things that people imagined it doing were basically
| impossible.
|
| But now it seems like something much more powerful shouldn't
| be that far away.
| parl_match wrote:
| Google Glass user here as well, and the one thing that form
| factor is missing is input (possibly solved by AVP with its
| eye and finger gestures).
| itomato wrote:
| Somehow it didn't stop millions of Angel and VC dollars from
| flowing.
|
| I worked at a such a startup. It was vapor.
|
| At least Glass had an API.
|
| I wonder if any of the VPs at Essilor and Meta who shook on
| this are still with their companies and if their bonuses are
| linked to adoption.
| hinkley wrote:
| I wonder if we will see an inversion of the clip-on
| sunglasses design but with corrective lenses.
|
| Clip your prescription to a pair of sunglasses instead, or to
| your smart glasses.
|
| You might have to clip them to the backside to get it all to
| work out. But in that case variations in lens shape will be
| less visible, because sunglasses.
| ojbyrne wrote:
| Maybe I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you can
| order these with prescription lenses, either tinted or not.
| dwighttk wrote:
| prescription lenses for most people are extremely
| inexpensive to produce... the only reason glasses cost a
| lot is the luxottica cartel
| smeej wrote:
| If the sunglasses sit a normal distance from the face, most
| people's corrective lenses won't fit behind them.
|
| There's a reason over-glasses sunglasses are so big and
| clunky and ugly.
| hinkley wrote:
| These days, at least if you can afford designer, they use
| rare earth magnets and the frames are exactly the same
| shape.
|
| Since most glasses only grind the back side of the lens,
| they fit pretty closely together.
|
| Which is also why you wouldn't be able to reverse the
| position of the lenses without changing how they're
| ground (also thick lenses hidden behind the frame conceal
| just how bad your eyes are, which some people get self
| conscious about.
|
| Point was, if you wear a pair of glasses that people
| require you to take off regularly, you still need to be
| able to see, and that means carrying two pair of glasses.
| Transitions lenses exist in large part because people
| can't be arsed to carry around two pair of glasses.
| smeej wrote:
| You're missing the point. Corrective lenses have
| thickness. For the frames that use magnets to add a
| sunglass layer, they only work because it can go on the
| outside, with the lens already set in the frame at the
| right distance from the eyes/lashes. It just wouldn't
| work in reverse, to take a sunglass lens at the right
| distance and snap something in behind it. You'd get oily
| lash streaks all over the corrective layer constantly.
|
| It's even worse if you wear really thick glasses, because
| sometimes they even have to sit slightly proud of the
| frame in the front.
|
| Your solution just isn't viable for this problem, as any
| longtime glasses wearer could easily tell you.
|
| If that's not enough, there's a whole industry of people
| designing eyewear; you really think "What if you just
| added the corrective part inside the tinted part?"
| wouldn't have been done if it were viable?
| esafak wrote:
| You can talk to people with smart earbuds, with no invasion
| of privacy.
|
| edit: All right, all right! It's a fair cop.
| freeflight wrote:
| You can talk to people with smart earbuds, but you have no
| clue if those smart earbuds are recording what you say or
| not.
|
| The person wearing them could be on a call, and the caller
| on the other side would hear what you say.
|
| The person wearing them could be streaming to twitch, and
| everybody watching that stream would hear what you say.
|
| All while you assume that you are having a private
| conversation with earbud person.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > You can talk to people with smart earbuds
|
| Which I don't do. If someone is wearing earbuds, that's an
| unambiguous signal that they don't want people talking to
| them.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| The Meta glasses don't have a display, it's just camera and
| audio.
| Animats wrote:
| Huh? Then how do they deliver ads?
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Presumably they monetize by selling your real-time
| location and live video feed to your local surveillance
| authorities or political enemies.
| SantalBlush wrote:
| They deliver ads to the people being filmed with the
| glasses, once they're identified and tracked by facebook.
| Gud wrote:
| I wonder if Zuckerberg one day will wake up and realize
| what he's doing to the world.
| LASR wrote:
| Doesn't he already? And that's why he's doing what he's
| doing?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| _" To conclude, it's worth noting that, at least for a
| time, product managers at Facebook -- Russ' job before
| starting DocSend -- were required to read Snow Crash as
| part of their internal training."_[0]
|
| I think he knows.
|
| 0: https://www.deaneckles.com/blog/700_docsend_in_snow_cr
| ash/
| [deleted]
| freedomben wrote:
| Wow dang, they really should make this more obvious. If I
| bought one and discovered that (despite being able to
| record and stream video) it had no display, I would be
| pissed.
| majikandy wrote:
| I agree this marketing is definitely misleading, this
| image is a clear representation of a screen. Very black
| mirror. https://ibb.co/HYpNzxD
| capableweb wrote:
| > Wow dang, they really should make this more obvious.
|
| How? It's not mentioned anywhere that this is about
| displaying content, but it's very clear it's about
| capturing video and listening to audio only.
|
| Or you want them to put "Notice: No display is included
| in the device" on the landing page?
| darkclouds wrote:
| [dead]
| OJFord wrote:
| To be fair the second sentence in the short top
| description is about staying connected with calls _and
| messages_. I don 't think many people's first assumption
| (without any other context/knowing more) would be that
| that means having them read out.
| capableweb wrote:
| The full quote is:
|
| > Stay connected with hands-free calls and messages and
| listen to your favourite tracks through built-in
| speakers.
|
| Which makes it seem pretty clear they're talking about
| stuff you can do because of the speakers.
|
| Then later:
|
| > No more stopping to answer your phone. Also, make calls
| and send messages on WhatsApp, Messenger and SMS,
| completely hands-free - simply by using your voice.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| The first part seems intentionally ambiguously worded to
| be interpreted as:
|
| _> (Stay connected with hands-free calls and messages)
| and (listen to your favourite tracks through built-in
| speakers)_
|
| vs:
|
| _> (Stay connected with hands-free calls and messages
| and listen to your favourite tracks) through built-in
| speakers_
|
| So it's not clear from that wording that there isn't a
| display, or that the messages are read aloud. An
| unambiguous wording would be:
|
| _> listen to your favourite tracks and stay connected
| with hands-free calls and messages through built-in
| speakers_
|
| As, well, the below statement is true whether there is a
| screen or not, and also doesn't specify that the messages
| are read aloud:
|
| _> No more stopping to answer your phone. Also, make
| calls and send messages on WhatsApp, Messenger and SMS,
| completely hands-free - simply by using your voice_
|
| That plus the image of the screen floating next to the
| glasses definitely make it seem like marketing is trying
| to trick people into thinking there's a display without
| explicitly claiming it
| dwighttk wrote:
| I don't use WhatsApp or Messenger, but the messaging apps
| I use are I'd guess at least 10% gif/photo/video
| content... some threads more...
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I found google glass to be great. It had real world AR in
| directions. I used it several times in other cities to move
| about. I never really had any heat issues. I do wish we could
| have gotten a couple iterations, but that's Google for you.
| toast0 wrote:
| Google Wear is the second iteration of Google Glass, pretty
| much the same UI, but on your wrist instead of awkwardly up
| and to the right.
| addicted wrote:
| That same ability might lead people to ban people wearing smart
| glasses from participating.
|
| If we were having a party, we'd almost certainly not allow
| people to keep their smart glasses on because the complete lack
| of friction would mean certain individuals who are decently in
| the public eye would have to basically spend the whole evening
| just making sure there's not even a suggestion of a still
| picture capturing something that may go wrong.
|
| You will almost certainly be required to remove your smart
| glasses before entering any sort of medical institution, and
| even a building containing a medical institution would probably
| have you removing it on entering the building itself.
| Gud wrote:
| Thanks a lot for this viewpoint. This type of surveillance
| tech is extremely scary to me. I have no doubt a big enough
| minority will want to embrace it, without a moments thought
| to what the people around them might feel like.
|
| But it's very comforting that in many places they will be
| outright banned. I will do my best to get them forbidden in
| as many places as I can.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I wouldn't allow someone in my home if they're wearing these.
| If I were at a social function where someone had these on,
| I'd almost certainly leave.
| [deleted]
| paxys wrote:
| "Capture anything" aka recording videos is exactly one use case
| compared to a smartphone which can do that and..basically
| anything else. So I don't see how smart glasses will ever
| approach the ubiquity of a phone.
| xmprt wrote:
| The only argument that I have is that wearing glasses kind of
| sucks and is pretty inconvenient. And glasses are kind of a
| fashion statement so unless these manufacturers can come up
| with a way to easily swap out parts like the frame (just like
| people change phone cases today) and lenses (to support people
| with prescriptions), it'll be tough to reach the mainstream.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Social pressure, perhaps? If people generally object, wearing
| them when you're interacting with people will come with a
| social cost.
| audunw wrote:
| Why glasses? I've paid a lot of money not to have to wear
| glasses.
|
| I might use some kind of camera attached to my head if it was
| something most people used. Would be nice to be able to capture
| moments instantly.
|
| I haven't seen a use-case for low quality augmented reality
| that would make me use glasses daily. Then again, I personally
| don't find smart watches worth it and lots of people use those.
|
| I think the Apple Vision kind of illustrates what it'd take for
| really compelling augmented reality. If it can replace my TV I
| might actually use it. But then they clearly don't intend for
| you to use them outside. And I'm still not sure if it's worth
| the discomfort of wearing tightly fitting glasses.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| > Why glasses? I've paid a lot of money not to have to wear
| glasses.
|
| Because it's the only socially acceptable way to point a
| camera at people without tipping them off.
|
| That's one reason google glass didn't take off as well. When
| you show up at the party waving your camera around on record,
| people tend to find a way to distance themselves.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| It means that either this line of product will ruin glasses
| (false positives of people assuming your thick frame
| glasses are a hidden camera) either people really aren't
| tipped off and we'll have a moral panic about private
| footages overflowing in the media.
|
| I see a future in smart glasses, in particular for
| notifications, but they absolutely need to tip off people
| when the camera is pointed at them.
| Ygor wrote:
| As someone who wears glasses, my argument was always that most
| people don't want to wear glasses all the time, even if they
| were adding no extra friction vs your regular sunglasses
| (weight, looks, cost).
|
| But, I had the same argument for Apple watch - no one in my
| circle was wearing watches any more. However, that didn't
| prevent people to start wearing an Apple watch.
|
| So, I can definitely see a future where people who don't wear
| glasses choose to wear smart glasses.
| Mekulpa wrote:
| It's still a question of benefit and effort.
|
| That watch can do a lot. Like paying etc.
|
| I do agree that I wouldn't have assumed that the watch is
| used that much but after it got its own esim and can be used
| instead of a phone, it can replace a device.
|
| And for sports it's actually practical.
|
| Glasses? I still think nope. It's still not a beauty thing
| codexb wrote:
| Eyewear isn't ubiquitous.
| Eji1700 wrote:
| Cost and interface mostly. Also to some extent privacy issues.
|
| Phones being $1000 is already an issue, and they're by default
| more robust. Glasses, assuming we can get them to a similar
| cost, are probably even more likely to be lost or broken. For
| comparison think of foldable smart phones, which exist, but are
| mostly seen as a trendy luxury item due to their durability
| issues.
|
| The interface, I think is huge. Smart phones took off because
| apple figured out a good interface. People like to rip on them
| for just copying an idea that already existed and hadn't taken
| off, but they ignore that apple nailed the hell out of getting
| it so the average person could use it.
|
| You need it to be clear, obvious, and responsive.
|
| All the examples i've seen of these smart glasses (website
| isn't loading for me so I can't check this) are the sorts of
| things that nerdy people like me (typing on a cornish zen)
| would find fine, and will never be smooth enough for the
| average user, ESPECIALLY at current costs.
|
| While things like the air pods pro have changed my opinion on
| the average user adopting tactile controls, I still think that
| voice activation and mostly reference-less tactile controls is
| NOT mass adoptable. And this is before we get into just the
| hassle of glasses (smudges and the like).
|
| From what I can tell, these are basically just "headphones +
| camera" on your face. So it's not displaying anything, at which
| point this is like airpods with a camera. Is there a group of
| people who want that? Sure, this looks tailor made for luxury
| influences. Is that a use case for the average person? I don't
| think so.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Phones costing $1,000 is a feature.
|
| Not a feature _I_ like or endorse, but one that 's clearly in
| the interest of both device vendors _and_ much of the online
| advertising and commercial sector.
|
| In a world in which credible attestations of interest and
| potential commercial value are difficult to assess without
| the manifest signals of a high street address and the visual
| assessments made possible by physical presence, owning a < 2
| y.o. piece of $1,000 kit is a highly reliable market
| segmentation signal.
|
| This is a key reason why websites (especially commercial
| ones, but also anything advertising-related) are on such a
| relentless treadmill of ever-escallating resource demand. Got
| to keep those undesireable old-cheap-Android and 15-year-old
| desktop plebes out _somehow_.
|
| Previously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27410503>
| <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29612296>
| <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16959819>
| <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21530274>
| quitit wrote:
| In my opinion barriers are:
|
| 1. Outward appearance. People don't like wearing glasses if
| they don't have to.
|
| 2. Tech issues: e.g. short battery life, weight, need for
| charging, UX.
|
| 3. Compelling features that make them worthwhile to use. This
| point is harder to explain, but a device needs to provide
| features to the wearer as they wear them and not indirect
| benefits. These features need to be particular to the device's
| unique position on the face. It needs to solve the question:
| what can a device on the face do, that one in the hand can't.
|
| 4. Recording content must be a secondary feature of such
| devices. We let smartphones into private places, such as change
| rooms, because they provide an enormous set of features, and
| only bad actors would use the recording features in an indecent
| way. If the main purpose of smart eyewear is to record others,
| then they'll not only be banned from such locations, but those
| around the wearer will become unnerved by them. People need
| privacy and downtime.
|
| I feel meta's smart glasses partly answer point 1, but fail at
| the rest. They are a lop sided product in their efforts: the
| main feature is to produce recordings, this means there's no
| compelling reason to always take them out and their primary
| purpose is bested by the smartphone they need to be paired
| with. The smartphone has better cameras, better battery life,
| the ability to easily review and retake photos, and doesn't
| need to be worn on the face.
|
| I can't understate how wearable tech needs to deliver features
| to the user as they're wearing them, and in a way that only
| that position on the body enables. Meta's product here doesn't
| really offer anything that they can't get in a better form from
| other products, products that the market already owns:
|
| Recording content: The phone is infinitely better.
|
| Shortcuts/listening to music: BT headphones/Airpods are
| simpler, have longer battery, more private and provide all of
| the same features such as handling calls, volume and playback
| control.
|
| With al of these obvious shortcomings, the only rationale I can
| imagine is that Meta are just doing their fast-follow strategy.
| They couldn't acquire Snap, so they copied Snap's stories and
| now these are a copy of Snap Spectacles.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| people like wearing glasses that say ray ban
| quitit wrote:
| to quote my own comment:
|
| > I feel meta's smart glasses partly answer point 1, but
| fail at the rest.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Some do, sure. But not most.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Eyeballs are pretty optimal for getting data out of a computer
| and into a brain. I think professionals will continue to use a
| high-resolution large-format desktop monitor, but a high-
| resolution large-format display on a pair of glasses is
| unambiguously superior to a phone screen, no matter how much
| resolution they pack in or how much larger than a pocket they
| get.
|
| What I wonder is where the keyboard is going. I have an
| imagination that can draw and abstract things with (I think?)
| about as much fidelity as my eyes can take in, but there's
| nothing that even comes close to that for getting that data out
| of my brain and into the computer. Not keyboards, not mice, not
| touchscreens or pen/tablet, not game controllers, not voice-to-
| text. Not my Leap Motion gesture sensor or Spacemouse, though
| those are interesting products. With lots and lots of training,
| I can get hundreds of WPM of text into a computer, with exotic,
| high-information-density syntax if required (text entry speed
| doesn't really seem to be the bottleneck for productive work,
| but that's beside the point IMO).
|
| The optimal input mechanism is definitely not blinking, though
| I can imagine that eyeglasses with gaze tracking tech (and some
| training for "wink to click" or similar) may someday be of
| comparable or greater utility to a mouse pointer. But how close
| can we get to "think to text" or "think to image"?
| DoctorOetker wrote:
| our ears can speak.
|
| the inner ear is a _mechanical_ amplifier.
|
| a device comparing the incoming acoustic spectrum with the
| otoacoustically emitted spectrum can see the mixer settings
| (controlled by the brain).
|
| we could learn to type and communicate with our cochleas
| (assuming they weren't destroyed by wearing big headphones
| while cycling...)
| valine wrote:
| I've been imagining the future will be smart glasses paired
| with mini pocket keyboards, like the bottom half of a
| blackberry. Or who knows maybe everyone will lean heavily
| into dictation.
|
| I think there's also a future where hand tracking gets so
| good you just type on a full sized floating keyboard. That's
| seems to be apples approach with the Vision Pro.
| arp242 wrote:
| > Or who knows maybe everyone will lean heavily into
| dictation.
|
| Impractical, as lots of input is hard or even impossible to
| do with dictation; saying "next" or "go back" every time
| quickly becomes tiresome, and never mind things like games.
|
| For pure text messages and the like there are loads of
| scenarios where you don't want to be talking out loud, for
| reasons of convenience, privacy, and not being a nuisance
| to others.
|
| It's looks cool on Star Trek and all, but voice control
| will never be the main interface to computers. Absolutely
| great accessibility tool and like many accessibility tools
| useful for everyone from time to time. But the default for
| regular people? I'm not seeing that happening.
| smolder wrote:
| I can't imagine willingly introducing any more "smart" devices
| into my life given the baggage "smart" comes with. We have to
| cede a little autonomy and privacy to unaccountable central
| authorities for every new "smart", cloud-enabled gimmick we buy
| into. I'd be happy to invest in tech that treats me like I own
| it, but that way of doing things is on its way out, at least
| for the average person.
| jehb wrote:
| I mean, sure, there are plenty: regulation, battery life,
| ruggedness, the creep factor, the fact that this does not
| provide me with anything similar to the value of a smartphone.
|
| Not all of us spend our days walking down urban streets, having
| a desire to have the things around us augmented. My smart phone
| spends 98% of its life in my pocket _because_ I don 't want or
| need any application most of the time. I've tried adopting a
| smartwatch on multiple occasions and never found it offered me
| any value. All it did was convince me to turn off a bunch of
| notifications I didn't need to be getting to begin with.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| Everyone wearing them will eventually die in terrible car
| crashes because Eye-Sta-Gram Videos are more entertaining than
| stop lights
| ClarityJones wrote:
| I don't think it will be _as_ ubiquitous as smart phones for
| the same reason smart watches are not as ubiquitous as smart
| phones.
|
| The reason I do not wear a smart watch is not because they're
| not useful, but because it's simply not comfortable for me to
| be wearing something on my wrist. It's not a big deal, but I
| prefer to not wear rings, watches, bracelets, etc.
|
| Similarly, I prefer contacts over glasses because of a 1)
| glasses reduce your field of view / quality of vision, 2) the
| touch / feel of having something on my face, and 3) them
| inevitably falling off or being grabbed by my baby.
|
| Smart watches got as ubiquitous as normal watches, and
| smartphones got as ubiquitous as wallets (and other things you
| might keep in a pocket or purse). I expect smart glasses will
| become about as ubiquitous as regular glasses.
| PlunderBunny wrote:
| David Brin's 'Earth' novel (which feels very prescient in some
| ways) has elderly people wearing sunglasses that continuously
| capture live video which is monitored by (private?) security
| companies. If I recall correctly, in the novel this effectively
| eliminates street-crime.
| stickfigure wrote:
| We already do this with dashcams; when the form factor
| allows, I expect it'll be just as common for walking. For
| mostly the same reasons. It might actually improve city
| street life.
| majormajor wrote:
| People spend thousands to _avoid_ having to wear glasses or
| contacts all the time.
|
| Now you can wear them all the time again, but now with more
| ads?
|
| EDIT to add something less snarky: phones were a "here's
| another thing to carry in your purse or pocket" additive thing
| to lifestyles, which wasn't too big a burden, and then
| gradually got more and more useful. Glasses and contacts, on
| the other hand, have _decades_ of evidences of people actively
| avoiding them except for situational stuff. So them getting as
| pervasive as phones would need a lot more behavioral change.
| some_random wrote:
| Is there a good way to text someone with smart glasses yet? How
| about cropping a photo before posting to instagram? What's the
| experience of doomscrolling twitter/x/whatever? I really don't
| think they're going to be as ubiquitous, as smartphones without
| being as good or better than them in at least some of these
| troupe wrote:
| > Is there a good way to text someone with smart glasses yet?
|
| You could stream video from the glasses and then video
| yourself writing them a note and hope someone else tags them
| to let them know it was for them.
| majikandy wrote:
| I'd say "comfort". Glasses aren't comfortable for many people
| and neither are contact lenses. I have a mild prescription but
| the discomfort of the glasses (arms, nose bridge, turning head
| more) is greater than the discomfort of my vision not being
| ultra sharp (for me). So a future of putting on glasses for the
| tech really isn't for me.
| throwaway689236 wrote:
| Same could be said about headphones, yet here we are.
| ArekDymalski wrote:
| > Any good argument that anyone can think of for a scenario
| where smart eyewear will not be as ubiquitous as smart phones
| eventually?
|
| I see 2 potential scenarios:
|
| 1. Some series of safety/privacy mishaps will lead to
| social/media hysteria which will push politicians towards a ban
| for such devices.
|
| 2. Initial price set too high will cause vicious circle of: low
| userbase -> lack of interest from developers -> lack of
| valuable features -> low userbase.
|
| I won't argue that these are very probable scenarios, but quite
| possible imho.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| > 2. Initial price set too high will cause vicious circle of:
|
| These are listed at $299. Hardly expensive, compared to how
| much ray bans cost.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| But these aren't good enough to see mass adoption. It's
| possible that the tech needed to create an affordable smart
| glasses product that is actually usefully is for whatever
| reason just physically impossible to create.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| The tendency for people to be creeped out by your surveillance
| glasses.
|
| If anyone around me wore these, I'd promptly tease them
| playfully about it, making it clear it's creepy.
|
| I understand that there are folks like yourself that are
| comfortable with it, but most people are against others walking
| around and recording.
|
| I hate that they are trying to hide the fact that the glasses
| are modified. Clearly they understand that the camera must be
| hidden for it to be socially acceptable.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Cops have to wear body cams that are recording continuously
| (or at least we hope they are). Dash cams are popular...even
| standard...in places where insurance fraud is rife. How long
| the hold out will be until wearing a headset recording device
| is considered normal rather than creepy?
| gorjusborg wrote:
| I see your point, but dash cams are recording the road,
| which is not a place that most people consider private.
|
| An always-present personal recording device is different.
| People enter and leave areas that others feel are private.
| In some cases, there are even laws protecting what can be
| recorded (two-party states in the U.S. for example).
|
| If something like these glasses started to take off, I
| would expect public backlash and legislation that
| restricted or prevented its use in certain contexts, which
| would essentially make them useless (the point is that you
| wear them all the time).
| eertami wrote:
| Depends on the culture, really. Dash cams (& ring
| doorbells/private security cameras) are illegal in quite a
| few countries with strong privacy protections.
|
| Even on a public street people have a right to privacy in
| my country, I couldn't just start taking pictures or video
| of someone without consent.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| If everyone being able to record anyone in public is the way
| we get people to stop acting like assholes to each other, Im
| all for it.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I'm not. It would make me avoid being in public places.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I think a single trip down Reddit's r/PublicFreakout should
| be enough to convince you that the ubiquity of cameras
| doesn't stop people from acting like assholes.
| nrki wrote:
| _The Circle_ 's "completely transparent" vibes.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| I had the original version of these (Ray-Ban stories), and I had
| to return them three times because they kept dropping the
| Bluetooth connection. I more or less only wore them while
| running, so my best guess is moisture from my sweating got into
| them. Given that they were advertised heavily for sports stuff,
| that was disappointing.
|
| The return process was also complicated and annoying. Overall,
| I'd recommend against buying the first generation of these new
| glasses.
| zip1234 wrote:
| I see a lot of people complaining about display. These are not
| meant for that use case. Maybe someday the tech will be available
| to have a display. That said, I have v1 Rayban Stories and use
| them as my daily driver sunglasses. I use them mainly for
| answering calls or listening to music but take occasional photos.
| [deleted]
| jejeyyy77 wrote:
| finally, smart glasses that look good.
| cvccvroomvroom wrote:
| Have you seen or worn them in real life? The previous gen
| looked normal online but absolutely craptastic in person.
| zip1234 wrote:
| They are slightly bigger but not everyone has the same face
| shape. Looks like they made them even slimmer in this gen and
| have more options.
| geephroh wrote:
| What company would I trust less than Google to deploy wearable
| technology with potentially staggering privacy issues?
|
| OK, it's probably Twitter; but still, I'm sure as hell not buying
| anything tied to Meta, either.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I like it. It's a pity about this stuff, though, because it's the
| equivalent of holding your phone camera up to everyone you're
| talking to. The form factor is so useful but the camera lens just
| makes everything weird.
| DiabloD3 wrote:
| Can dang do something about the corporate spam that keeps popping
| up on HN? I don't think meta, or Apple, or the rest of these
| companies need help advertising products.
| gruturo wrote:
| I dislike Facebook as much as the next guy, probably more, but
| this stuff _is_ news for hackers. And it 's not even
| particularly beneficial for them to be featured on HN, we're a
| rather critical audience.
| toyg wrote:
| Because YCombinator is not "corporate"...? Dude.
| mometsi wrote:
| A tech giant is using luxury branding to encourage people to
| put networked cameras on their faces.
|
| I think that's worth my attention even if I'm not the intended
| customer.
| Philpax wrote:
| Well, I don't think you can really stop people from talking
| about new technology on a forum for hackers...
| dredmorbius wrote:
| You can:
|
| 1. Flag content you feel isn't appropriate for HN.
|
| 2. Email mods at hn@ycombinator.com requesting that specific
| sites be deprecated and/or penalised.
|
| As for the latter, I'm aware that general news and ideological
| sites _are_ deprecated. I 'm not aware that any mainstream
| corporate sites _which have not engaged in vote-juicing
| practices_ are penalised.
|
| There are those who share your weariness of promotional
| material from ... a certain commercial toothed segment, let's
| say.
| ziziyO wrote:
| I don't understand how putting a camera on a pair of glasses is
| what meta/rayban wanted to spend time on.
| cush wrote:
| Yeah it's their looooong term bet.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| "For sunglass creeps to capture more long-term memories."
|
| --Some Rayban Executive, probably.
| standardUser wrote:
| I wonder how much the acknowledged the creep factor
| internally, or if they just kind of danced around it. But
| it must be their target demographic.
| mike10921 wrote:
| I'm no fan of either company but the general concept is that
| Meta specializes in software not fashion, so partnering with
| Rayban will allow people to feel fashionable while using Meta's
| device (and of course allowing meta to follow their every
| move).
| api_or_ipa wrote:
| Pricing is interesting. $299 for the Wayfarer model when the base
| Wayfarer goes for $171 on the Rayban website. If (and this is a
| big if) you assume Luxottica takes the same cut on both models,
| then Meta is selling a camera, headphones, etc, conveniently
| packaged into a very small form-factor for $128. If I were in the
| market for a new pair of sunglasses, it isn't hard to seem me
| splurging another $128 for something that could potentially
| replace my airpods for taking calls while I'm away from home.
|
| Personally, not a fan of sticking a camera everywhere I look
| though. I get why companies want to push that feature (more
| data!) but I just don't see a reason why consumers need a camera
| pointing at everything they're doing.
|
| Kinda cool nonetheless.
| MrMetlHed wrote:
| Yeah, I go hiking several times a week and I'd wear these all
| the time. I like listening to podcasts or music, but want to be
| able to hear any rattlesnakes or interesting birds, so the
| speakers seem like a plus. And being able to snap a photo
| without pulling my phone out would also be great. I probably
| wouldn't use them in a lot of situations, but hiking seems like
| a good one. If these end up being decent I'd consider them over
| a normal pair of sunglasses next time I need a pair.
| lm28469 wrote:
| For me, and probably a lot of people, it's the opposite, I'd
| pay more if needed to get the non tech version
| dwighttk wrote:
| if facebook were business smart, they'd sell these for less
| like the TV screen people...
| [deleted]
| KarlKode wrote:
| In my local sunglass store iI can buy genuine Wayfarers for a
| bit more than 100$ so I guess Luxotica's margin is even higher
| than expected...
| e4e5 wrote:
| Why when I press accept cookies it just reloads the website and
| shows me the same banner? Not even Facebook can get this to work?
| galbar wrote:
| After three tries it loaded the right page. Disgusting pattern,
| IMHO
| KaiserPro wrote:
| I have a set of original rayban stories. They are excellent
| hardware hampered by shite, shortsighted software, both on the
| glasses and on the app.
|
| 1) The killer feature is not the camera, but the sound. Having
| bluetooth audio with you, without stuff in/over your ears is
| really really great.
|
| 2) The physical button action is swapped. single press is video,
| long press picture.
|
| 3) the touch pad is hard to find and there is no texture
| difference. Not only that but its really easy to trigger music
| playing by holding them in your hand.
|
| Over all the hardware is great.
|
| Firmware, however, is utterly shite.
|
| For the first year, the maximum time you could get them to play
| music was about 15 minutes. They'd just stop, disconnect from
| Bluetooth and need a power cycle to get back again.
|
| They would randomly disconnect for shits and giggles. worse than
| cheap bluetooth headphones. Whom everlet them out the door in
| such a poor state, then compounding it by not actually fixing the
| problems, just shitting out half backed features, should be told
| off (I'm looking at you Boz).
|
| Then there is the assistant. Functionally limited, I don't use
| them because you have to say "hey facebook" as the wake word. I'm
| not saying that in fucking public. who though that was a good
| idea clearly has been with the company too long.
|
| The app is called "view" its now only just been integrated into
| the ios photoroll. for the longest while it had its own photo
| gallery, and you needed to manually sync the photos you wanted.
|
| Whats even more odd is there is no integration with either
| instagram or facebook, so getting the photos and videos into
| either of them is a multi-app multi-stage faff.
|
| TLDR:
|
| Great hardware, shit firmware, lots of promise squandered by a
| total lack of QA or attention to quality or detail in basic flow.
| hacful-tonteg wrote:
| i'd love a pair of jf rey smart glasses
| expertentipp wrote:
| Cannot wait for having to charge yet another thing, which haven't
| needed charging by now.
| itomato wrote:
| When I see something like this the first thing I think is "what
| sinister thing is disguised as harmless accessory?"
|
| The proven benefit for meta outweighs any potential I might be
| sold.
| will5421 wrote:
| Hopefully these will be banned
| [deleted]
| vagab0nd wrote:
| At the very least it should flash a red light when recording.
| bluescrn wrote:
| There's cameras literally everywhere already. If you leave
| your home, you get recorded. That's just the world we're in
| now.
|
| If somebody wants to record anything covertly, there's surely
| better options out there already - there's crazy stuff like
| cameras concealed in screw heads.
| Aditya_Garg wrote:
| It does flash a light when recording. If you cover the light
| then the camera functionality is disabled.
| joemi wrote:
| > If you cover the light then the camera functionality is
| disabled.
|
| Is this confirmed yet? The website just says "If the LED is
| covered, you'll be notified to clear it." Note that it does
| not say the camera won't work.
| [deleted]
| bjnewman85 wrote:
| if you cover the LED notification light you will get a
| notification to uncover it. Surely that will stop anyone from
| covering it.
| its_ethan wrote:
| It could notify you and then disable any recording until it's
| uncovered again..
| pseudalopex wrote:
| It could. But why would they not say it will?
| netsharc wrote:
| I wonder if the easy mod would be to replace the LED with
| invisible IR LED (then again the makers have probably
| considered this).
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| at that point make your own glasses with a much tinier and
| less obvious camera.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Feeding Meta more video and audio is the least interesting use
| case for smart glasses. The hardware looks like a nice start for
| smart glasses but the lack of AR display and required tethering
| to Meta makes these undesirable to me.
| pianoben wrote:
| What do I need to use these? ... - a valid Meta
| account
|
| Well, I'm out then. Glasses look cool but I couldn't be happier
| with my choice to ditch Facebook, et al.
| [deleted]
| smcleod wrote:
| As someone else here said - I don't care about a camera, I want a
| display, and I certainly wouldn't want a camera from Facebook.
| expertentipp wrote:
| It's not about what you want, it's about what ad industry
| wants.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it 's about what ad industry wants_
|
| On what planet would an ad exec choose this over a pair of
| sunglasses with a screen?
|
| We don't currently have the technology and/or industry to
| sell a decent $300 screen on your face. _That_ is why we
| don't have it.
| smcleod wrote:
| exactly
| [deleted]
| kstrauser wrote:
| I don't hate them. I just wish it were almost any other giant
| company that was making them. If someone showed up at my house
| wearing them, I think I'd make them take their glasses off before
| they came inside, in much the same way (and for the same reasons)
| that some people don't allow shoes in the house. I don't want
| someone tracking Facebook into my living room.
|
| Maybe the only worse maker would be Twitter. If a friend came
| over wearing Musk glasses, I'd probably rip them off their head
| and stamp on them for their own good. I definitely would not
| allow them into my house.
| danw1979 wrote:
| _chef kiss_ at the analogy of Facebook with dog shit.
| samtheprogram wrote:
| > Maybe the only worse maker would be Twitter. If a friend came
| over wearing Musk glasses, I'd probably rip them off their head
| and stamp on them for their own good. I definitely would not
| allow them into my house.
|
| You might have gotten caught up in an ideology. I make fun of
| Elon and what he's doing to Twitter as much as the next guy,
| but... What do you imagine would be so harmful about them?
| Tracking, like with your Meta/Facebook example, or "omg those
| are Musk glasses, they must be destroyed!"
| callalex wrote:
| Musk companies have a proven track record of handling private
| data inappropriately. For example Tesla employees were caught
| sharing footage from vehicles on private property with their
| friends. https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-
| shared-sens...
| kstrauser wrote:
| That was exactly it. It's not a matter of animosity, but of
| privacy. I wouldn't want Twitter hardware in my house or on
| my Wi-Fi, even less than I'd want Facebook gear.
| samtheprogram wrote:
| Great point. I was more opposing their discourse and lack
| of any examples.
| crashingintoyou wrote:
| Am I the only one who saw almost-exclusively-vertical-format
| video and thought "I'll pass"?
| Bellend wrote:
| The headline was enough for me personally
| hotnfresh wrote:
| No but also all of us are rapidly approaching "old man yells at
| cloud" on this issue.
|
| Major video social media has settled on vertical. That's what
| folks in that world expect.
|
| I don't think that trajectory has a chance of changing until
| something replaces the cell phone (which'll probably me some
| kind of glasses, assuming it turns out to be possible to build
| a version of them that're any good as a replacement for a cell
| phone interface)
| artursapek wrote:
| Ok guys you know what to do. Mercilessly ridicule and degrade
| anyone who wears these to continue the very justified stigma
| against wearing a discrete camera on your face.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| bragr wrote:
| I'm not interested in this particular device, but after almost
| being hit by cars several times this month while walking my dog,
| I am starting to warm to the idea of some form of "dash cam" for
| walking.
| [deleted]
| maxwell wrote:
| What are you going to do, bring footage to your local police
| station and get laughed out?
| [deleted]
| colpabar wrote:
| To play devil's advocate: be careful what you wish for. With
| the way that things are going, police will probably have zero
| issue getting whatever video from your "dash cam" they deem
| necessary to do their jobs.
| yodon wrote:
| > The Capture LED lets others know when you're capturing content
| or going live. If the LED is covered, you'll be notified to clear
| it.
| bajsejohannes wrote:
| > Designed for living in the moment
|
| > Capture life's best moments and live-stream to Instagram and
| Facebook. Now with a 12 MP camera and 5-mic system. Stay
| connected with hands-free calls and messages and listen to your
| favourite tracks through built-in speakers.
|
| I have a very different idea of what "living in the moment"
| means.
| tempsy wrote:
| the only people who will buy these are creeps who want to
| secretly record other people in public
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Or people who want to capture precious moments with their kid
| but don't want to have a camera in their face. There are plenty
| of legitimate use cases.
| function_seven wrote:
| This isn't true. For one, it'll not be secret. The LED will be
| on. Also, these glasses do not match the appearance of their
| "analog" namesakes. I just compared the Wayfarers on that page
| to the pair I have right here, and the thickness is quite
| noticeable. These things are chunky!
|
| I think having it to record snippets of my golf game would be
| neat. Every par 3 I tee off is a hole-in-one opportunity, and
| how cool would that be to have that moment captured? Or
| grabbing some footage of a concert without holding my phone up
| like a dick. A lot of uses cases for chest-strapped GoPros will
| switch to these for sure.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Black tape and paint both exist.
|
| Requiring The Rest of The World have 100% situational
| awareness to look for the glowing specs is also frankly
| ridiculous.
| function_seven wrote:
| I guess. Meta claims these will know when the LED is
| blocked, but that's probably circumventable as well. And
| little hidden cameras also already exist, and people
| filming in public is already a thing, so I don't really see
| how this specific product will change things in any
| significant way.
| bparsons wrote:
| I don't know anyone who would want this.
|
| Nobody wants to be around someone in social situations who might
| be surreptitiously filming them. Wearing glasses with a camera on
| them is a great way to be labelled a creep by everyone around
| you.
| itissid wrote:
| I am wondering how they will build out Wifi-Index for
| positioning(GPS sucks in cities) assuming they want to do
| location based targetting for any number of purposes(ads,
| recommendations, location based geo-fencing etc). The critical
| piece for attribution is linking Wifi based position to a PoI(for
| location based anything). This takes a few years to build. Google
| has a great map blue dot has good fidelity with location because
| they have a phone collecting all that Wifi data for many years..
| ianbicking wrote:
| These glasses appear to be pretty closely tied to your phone
| (like the previous revision), so they can just use whatever
| positioning your phone has.
| pzmarzly wrote:
| I really hope it'll be possible to use the cameras in voice
| calls. First person PoV would be way better than phone camera
| PoV, and it would free my hand from carrying the phone in front
| of me.
| loufe wrote:
| In my industry, mining, I can see this sort of integration into a
| miner's helmet working its way into sites as a sort of situation
| analysis tool pretty easily. It would make a lot of things so
| much easier for folks on the surface to be able to quickly see
| 3-D scans (lidar would be amazin) of broken rock, or new tunnel,
| or cracks, etc.
|
| I am with others for the desire for more opennness. I would never
| hop on this loaded with proprietary restrictions. 100% data
| control for personal use would be a must.
| giantrobot wrote:
| For the livestream it seems you can do that right now with an
| action camera attached to a miner's helmet and streamed via
| their smartphone.
| anyoneamous wrote:
| Any other company and I might be excited, but Meta can get in the
| bin.
| paganel wrote:
| Bleak and creepy at the same time.
|
| Fortunately, I feel that the vibe shift related to this bleakness
| has already got going, and people seen wearing these abominations
| will instantly get branded as not-cool and worse. Come to think
| of it, Ray-Ban was also on its way down well before this.
| golemiprague wrote:
| [dead]
| xwdv wrote:
| I'm curious, if we had a thick enough frame could we integrate
| some kind of telephoto camera with a long optical zoom?
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Good news for those who don't want to be caught on camera
|
| "The Capture LED lets others know when you're capturing content
| or going live. If the LED is covered, you'll be notified to clear
| it."
|
| So that's nice.
| trey-jones wrote:
| The jailbreak will be out tomorrow.
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| Black nail polish is out today
| knodi123 wrote:
| "If the LED is covered, you will be required to uncover
| it."
| JohnFen wrote:
| It's better than nothing, but it does put other people in the
| uncomfortable position of having to ask the glasses wearer to
| not record. And can you see the indication before you're
| actually on camera?
| luckluckgoosed wrote:
| Makes me think of the power dynamic between smart glass wearers
| and bystanders as a social problem and not a technical one:
| https://spectrum.ieee.org/ar-glasses
| pseudalopex wrote:
| They didn't say it wouldn't record.
| gffrd wrote:
| You've read your fair share of T&C's ...
| fillskills wrote:
| Pretty inconspicuous. So no, not a great feature to stream/live
| upload people who didnt want their privacy violated.
| alex_young wrote:
| The 4 hour battery life will probably save us for a bit, but do
| you really want to walk around in a world where a bunch of
| strangers are taking pictures of you just by looking in your
| direction? I don't. Who cares about the LED.
| [deleted]
| serf wrote:
| >but do you really want to walk around in a world where a bunch
| of strangers are taking pictures of you just by looking in your
| direction?
|
| given that the social stigma of phone photography and who it
| targets has just about disappeared, I think the "I don't want
| to be photographed' ship has sailed.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > the social stigma of phone photography and who it targets
| has just about disappeared
|
| It certainly hasn't disappeared in my neck of the woods.
| ianbicking wrote:
| These could be pretty incredible if the platform was more open.
| You get highly available image and voice input, and good voice
| output.
|
| Imagine if you could take a picture of anything, add a little
| note, have it filed away. Not necessarily an awesome Instagram
| picture, but just a picture of some mail you got, a tool you are
| putting away, any thing you want to record and save. Heck, why
| not a picture of your computer screen? Pair that with quickly
| available audio transcriptions and you can also dictate anything,
| thoughts, small notes, information associated with the images.
|
| That all could be great... if the library of things you made was
| useful. It's pretty clear how it could be useful now; do some OCR
| and other detection on images, use a vector store for both that
| and transcripts, and hook it all up to an LLM assistant. It's a
| bit complicated, and a bit expensive to run, but at least for a
| prototype you could make something pretty incredible.
|
| Meta might make something like that... but they aren't doing that
| yet, and they might never do that. If the platform was open
| people could explore these things right now. And it doesn't even
| need to be radically open, you don't need to be able to hack the
| firmware; but it has to be more open than the preview Ray-Ban
| glasses, and I'm assuming more open than this revision.
| toddmorey wrote:
| I would be so uncomfortable having lunch with someone wearing
| these. Am I alone in that?
| hotnfresh wrote:
| People used to feel all kinds of ways about what is now
| normal smartphone use. There are probably a lot of remnants
| of those attitudes in '00s media that can still be found.
|
| Everyone either got over it or shut up about it because they
| (ahem, we) had clearly lost.
|
| I expect actually-useful smart glasses will eventually
| overcome the same stigma. Actually-useful being the key part
| of that.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Strong disagree. I think there is still a fairly large
| cohort of people who feel that e.g. looking at your phone
| at dinner, or responding to every random ding from your
| phone during a conversation, is rude and unacceptable
| behavior.
| ianbicking wrote:
| As long as the activation is overt I don't think it's a big
| issue. Overt as in taking a picture or recording requires the
| user to do something that is noticeable to the people around
| them. The wake word is quite obvious; the button on the stem
| is a bit less, but together with the light I think it's
| fairly clear something is happening.
| JohnFen wrote:
| You're far from alone in that.
| Gh0stRAT wrote:
| I mean, the light makes it VERY apparent when it's recording
| or taking a picture.
|
| Would you be just as uncomfortable eating lunch with someone
| who had their phone in their hand? It'd be much easier to
| surreptitiously record/photograph someone with a phone
| because they have no status indicator when they're recording
| and people inadvertently point phone lenses at each other all
| the time.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| _> Would you be just as uncomfortable eating lunch with
| someone who had their phone in their hand?_
|
| the entire time?
|
| of course - and I'd question my decision to invite them
|
| unless they're sharing their screen with everyone (showing
| pics, etc) or taking a group pic, having their phone out
| and pointed at you for more than a few moments would be
| both uncomfortable and rude
| duxup wrote:
| > someone who had their phone in their hand?
|
| I feel like I have a good idea when someone is recording or
| not. Phone orientation and behavior is different.
| hightrix wrote:
| Not at all. In fact, I would ask someone wearing this to not
| only remove them from their face but also place them in a
| backpack/bag.
| jperras wrote:
| > Imagine if you could take a picture of anything, add a little
| note, have it filed away. Not necessarily an awesome Instagram
| picture, but just a picture of some mail you got, a tool you
| are putting away, any thing you want to record and save. Heck,
| why not a picture of your computer screen? Pair that with
| quickly available audio transcriptions and you can also dictate
| anything, thoughts, small notes, information associated with
| the images.
|
| I know HN already has too much cynicism for my own liking, so
| it pains me to say: you can already do this with the phone you
| have in your pocket. Have a shortcut that enables audio
| dictation/photo mode/etc., and you're good to go.
|
| The workflow for glasses (either these or some other
| hypothetical ones) would involve hitting a button and then
| having to either speak the command out loud or hit some other
| button to capture video/audio/etc., which seems more cumbersome
| than the phone approach that exists today.
| rafaelmn wrote:
| Handling a phone is cumbersome - I'm playing a guitar and
| want to record to check what I'm doing wrong, I'm building
| something in the garage, taking something apart, etc. Sure I
| can setup some mobile stand but I usually won't bother, this
| would change that.
|
| But these are sunglasses and I doubt resolution/focus will be
| good enough for those use cases.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _hitting a button and then having to either speak the
| command out loud or hit some other button to capture video
| /audio/etc., which seems more cumbersome than the phone
| approach_
|
| For the mass market, perhaps the right place to put the
| camera is on headphones. (I'm already talking to my AirPods.)
| This product doesn't appear to be positioned for the mass
| market, however, but instead influencers.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| I have the near opposite experience especially having
| attempted to build the mobile based product you mentioned
| [https://placenote.com/]
|
| The seamlessness of glasses is really what makes this even
| possible, especially now that voice is becoming a seamless
| interface.
|
| I largely like my phone to remain in my pocket (especially
| when I'm with my impressionable kids) and bringing it out and
| unlocking, getting my brain to ignore all the notifications,
| going through whatever button routine is required, then doing
| the camera localization dance, just doesn't compare to one
| click + voice narration once it's built right.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| As a glass wearer I am slightly concerned about the weight:
| that can't be comfortqble for full day wearing, day in day
| out.
|
| You probably would have a regular pair of glasses, or no
| glasses for most of the time, and only wear those when you
| specifically want the smart features, which makes the
| seamlessness only occasional. Would you optimize a workflow
| for something you only wear from times to times ?
| jperras wrote:
| The cognitive load of the notifications is an interesting
| point that I hadn't considered; I can see myself being
| distracted by those in the workflow I proposed in my
| previous comment.
|
| I wonder if much of this could be solved by OS-level
| functionality (or at least having it in a developer-
| accessible SDK) that allows the new "always-on" lock
| screens to immediately trigger an application on a single
| tap.
| Hextinium wrote:
| This is on some android phones, double tapping power will
| open the camera. I use it all the time to take pictures
| of information that I don't want to write down, package
| numbers, measurements, error logs, all just tap tap,
| point, volume down.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > information that I don't want to write down
|
| I occasionally use it that way for painted labels on
| parking-spaces at the airport. (I have yet to _need_
| them, but it seems a reasonable precaution given how even
| a small amount of floor /zone/row forgetfulness could
| leave me wandering the 10,000-spot complex.)
|
| That said, I also find myself wishing I could mark those
| photos as "temporary", so that they get auto-deleted
| within a month or whatever.
| Groxx wrote:
| Glasses also free up _both_ hands, which is a pretty big
| deal.
| Terr_ wrote:
| In addition, headgear is more-likely to be aimed at
| whatever you're actually observing or manipulating,
| instead of some direction related to a shirt-pocket or
| chest-harness.
| ianbicking wrote:
| People already regularly use their phones for this kind of
| image capture (taking a picture as documentation, not for
| nostalgic memories or sharing). This seems like a positive
| signal. Voice doesn't get used this way, but the voice
| interactions are cumbersome on the phone mostly because the
| platform is not open enough, not because of form factor
| issues.
|
| In regards to voice: there's no way to have access to the
| easy start mechanisms of wake words or quick button access
| and also control what happens before intent resolution and
| endpointing (i.e., deciding when the voice interaction is
| done). You can have your own app with its own "record"
| button: hard to open but you have control of what happens. Or
| you use the assistant infrastructure and have to compete with
| every other Apple/Google product goal and parsing approach,
| and at best you have a chance to do further recording only
| after the initial intent has fully resolved, the mic has
| closed, and you can reopen it.
|
| So yes a phone can do all that, and it ALSO would be awesome,
| but just like with these glasses you can't ACTUALLY implement
| this.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| Android 10 allows it.
|
| https://phoneia.com/en/android-10-allows-two-apps-
| different-...
| jperras wrote:
| Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I'm not very well
| versed in this domain, and it's nice to have a civil
| discussion about wearable tech, especially when previous
| implementations have instantly become vapourware.
|
| > So yes a phone can do all that, and it ALSO would be
| awesome, but just like with these glasses you can't
| ACTUALLY implement this.
|
| A perfect summary, I think!
| solardev wrote:
| That... takes like a double-click on a modern cell phone to
| pull up the camera, with an all-day battery life and no silly
| designer glasses needed. Also doesn't need to upload all your
| crap to Meta.
| cvccvroomvroom wrote:
| I tried the previous ones. Those were chunky, cheap looking
| plastic like a kids toy, inconvenient, and expensive. There's no
| display, they're basically just worse than earbuds.
| promiseofbeans wrote:
| So... spy glasses?
| [deleted]
| fillskills wrote:
| Really shocked by the lack of controls around privacy. Its
| absolutely crazy that someone can now be filming my family
| members with a very inconspicuous device. On top of that it
| could be streaming or uploading live! Where is the outrage?!?!
| Am I missing something?
| kome wrote:
| > If the LED is covered, you'll be notified to clear it.
|
| then i don't want it. what's the point of putting a led there
| anyway?
| [deleted]
| gffrd wrote:
| Am I the only one who doesn't understand the obsession with
| ramming tech in to existing accessories?
|
| Why must sunglasses also be a camera? Or Alexa?
|
| It's not for lack of knowing the answer. Because you're already
| taking your sunglasses with you everywhere, anyway. Because
| there's no way you're carrying around another thing. Because it's
| the most convenient way of securing a more intimate relationship
| with customers.
|
| I'm with the others: I thought the future would be more exciting
| than this.
| phire wrote:
| When I hear "smart glasses", I'm thinking either a display, or
| some kind of active optics.
|
| It's a total letdown to click on a product like this and it's
| nothing more than a camera, a touchpad, and some crappy
| speakers near my ear.
| [deleted]
| itissid wrote:
| Because there is no way meta can challenge Google and Apple's
| dominance on the mobile platform(e.g. look at how the they have
| monopolized location services and apple has dented their ad
| market) and they are desperate to redefine what the next
| generation of communication and mobility devices look like.
|
| This is also the first generation of mobile wearables. Expect
| more will come in the next two years paired with other devices.
| adamrezich wrote:
| > This is also the first generation of mobile wearables.
|
| is it? Google Glass was like a decade ago, and Snap
| Spectacles were released sometime after that. they keep
| trying to make this happen every few years and it never seems
| to stick.
| ctippett wrote:
| [*] Home surveillance cam -- Check
|
| [*] Car dash cam -- Check
|
| [*] Bike helmet cam -- Check
|
| [*] Drone follow cam -- Check
|
| [ ] Face cam
|
| Those of us in the FreeCam community have been dreaming of
| something like this for a long time.
| theodric wrote:
| Google Glass offered customers a face-mounted camera in 2013.
| Snapchat released their Spectacles in 2016. This is not a novel
| concept, even in the consumer electronics space, to say nothing
| of Steve Mann's work which stretches back decades.
| xnx wrote:
| What's the FreeCam community?
| ctippett wrote:
| It's entirely fictitious - it was an attempt on my part to
| use satire to bring attention the various products in market
| designed to passively capture and record video.
|
| If such a community were to exist I'd imagine they'd fit
| somewhere in the Venn diagram between smart-home enthusiasts
| and the quantified-self movement. Apologies for misleading
| you!
| jcims wrote:
| I just pre-ordered one. I like the concept. It'll probably suck
| but it'll be fun to try.
| zip1234 wrote:
| Even gen 1 is great--replaces need for airpods for music/calls
| if I am going out and they look nice.
| [deleted]
| nerdjon wrote:
| I can't help but feel like "smart glasses" is really pushing what
| this is? I feel like the vast majority of people when they see
| the words "smart glasses" they probably think some sort of AR
| tech, or at the very least some sort of screen.
|
| And yet this is really just glasses with something like AirPods
| stuck in it with a camera connected to your phone. Super smart.
|
| Society is far far from ready to answer the privacy questions of
| something like this, but when has Meta ever cared about that so
| why not just release it...
| [deleted]
| cvccvroomvroom wrote:
| They're voice assistants with a button on the glasses. It's a
| half-baked idea that lacks utility.
| nerdjon wrote:
| That is what I don't understand, I can do that with my
| AirPods already.
|
| The only "innovation" here is the camera. But while isn't
| horrible is far from anything I could call "smart glasses".
|
| I mean it isn't like it is even all self contained, it's
| tethered to a phone. I just don't see what this is really
| bringing to the table.
| the_arun wrote:
| How is this different from Google Glasses that were launched
| earlier?
| [deleted]
| jackbrookes wrote:
| No display, 2 cameras, much thinner form factor
| rockemsockem wrote:
| The biggest difference is that they don't have a display. These
| are oriented around sound for a lot of i/o with cameras for
| pictures/videos.
| tempestn wrote:
| Aside from being glasses with tech and a camera, they're very
| different. Google Glass had a screen, for one thing, so it was
| an early attempt at AR. It didn't have lenses, and didn't look
| anything like regular glasses. This is designed to look and
| function like regular glasses or sunglasses, with the addition
| of a camera and speakers.
| [deleted]
| xyst wrote:
| Did we not learn anything from the failure of "Google Glasses"
| lol
| clintfred wrote:
| I feel like's it's inevitable that these types of devices will
| eventually become _useful enough_ and _stylish enough_ to start
| catching on. Companies have to start somewhere.
|
| Google Glasses were a neat toy, but pretty far ahead of the
| tech's capabilities. One could make a similar argument for
| these new glasses as well, since they have no AR component.
| Sheeny96 wrote:
| Anyone notice that these meta links open a new tab, then close
| the tab you're on, not allowing you to use the back button to
| navigate back to the previous page? Horrendously user hostile
| behaviour.
| [deleted]
| idlewan wrote:
| That might be Firefox's Facebook container's fault. I don't
| like this behavior either, you lose the tab history and the
| ability to recover it, unfortunately.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Lack of HUD is why I wouldn't get these. I suppose if I was
| taking more pictures / video I might be more interested, like at
| the beach or something, but I don't find myself doing these
| things as much. Maybe this would make it easier for me to capture
| my life around me (my SO thinks i don't take enough pictures or
| video of our life), could alleviate having to remember to pull
| out the phone and such.
|
| Add a HUD like google glass had and you may have a more
| compelling use case.
| ineptech wrote:
| I'm excited about the use cases, and leery-but-cautiously-
| optimistic about tying the experience to meta, but am I the only
| one worried about buying hardware from a company that's
| synonymous with monopolistic price-gouging?
|
| (Ray-Ban is owned by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica )
| [deleted]
| archontes wrote:
| I'm sorry, but cautiously optimistic about tying the experience
| to meta?
|
| You must be the only one not worried about buying hardware from
| a company that's synonymous with blatant privacy violations.
|
| (Meta is owned by https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-
| news/a19490586/mark-zucker...)
| hoherd wrote:
| Ray Ban Wayfarer's are $171 without the included tech.[1] The
| included 12mp camera, 5 mic system, network connectivity,
| battery, microelectronics small enough to be hidden in
| fashionable eyewear all seem to add up to more than $128 worth
| of value. It seems to me that these are subsidized by Meta.
| I'll leave it to the reader to speculate on why Meta would do
| such a thing.
|
| 1. https://www.ray-
| ban.com/usa/sunglasses/RB2140%20UNISEX%20ori...
| tchaffee wrote:
| Seems like it could be fun to use these but no way am I trusting
| Meta with more personal info.
| [deleted]
| 14 wrote:
| I have to give it to Meta on this one. These look stylish and
| cool and they are at a price point that I could justify. About
| $400 Canadian. That means a lot of people can adopt this
| technology. I think Google was just a bit premature for peoples
| comfort level but I really wanted to see it expand. The con I see
| is pretty soon there will be no privacy. Facial recognition will
| make a record of where you are and someone will have caught your
| face on camera. But in a world heading towards deep fakes maybe
| this will be a good thing. These are going to also be awesome for
| Youtube videos I can not wait to get a set and start doing
| motorcycle repair videos where what I see is what you see so you
| can know exactly what I am looking at.
| gruturo wrote:
| These things lack a display.
|
| I don't want cameras strapped to my head, I want a lightweight
| display I can wear unobtrusively and doesn't make anyone near me
| nervous (doubly so since this is from a company known for
| invading privacy), even if it's a fairly low resolution one.
| Version 1 could even be 4 lines of text and I'd still pay for it
| - I already wear glasses every waking moment of my life anyway.
|
| Pair it with my phone, give me driving directions which don't
| require me to take eyes off the road. Remind me of things when I
| arrive home or get in the car. Let me read texts. Overlay that
| 9-minute pasta timer in a corner of my field of view until it
| runs out. Blink in a corner to remind me that my lawn sprinklers
| are still running, so I don't go to sleep forgetting to turn them
| off (ahem).
|
| I'll probably learn to use a swype-style keyboard while keeping
| the phone in the pocket and looking ahead through the glasses.
|
| Come on, I grew up awed at the HUDs of Robocop and Terminator,
| give me a damn HUD, it's 2023.
| m463 wrote:
| > I don't want cameras strapped to my head
|
| Not only is VR/AR hard, a camera is still very aligned with
| their business model :)
| jedberg wrote:
| Have you seen this:
|
| https://www.visor.com/shop
|
| Disclosure, I'm an investor. But I share this as a fellow
| technologist who just bought one.
|
| It's meant for working in VR/AR so it only ties to computers,
| but it might still work for you.
| r0fl wrote:
| Cool tech but those are hideous compared to a slightly
| thicker pair of Ray Bans
| [deleted]
| singularity2001 wrote:
| Yes, it's the creep factor of Google Glasses without the
| utility display
| jansan wrote:
| It is impossible to have a good display with a transparent
| lens, because you have to overlay the light that passes the
| lens with an even brighter light. Unless they find a way to dim
| shapes on the lenses, this will always be sub-optimal.
|
| What will work is a camera on your VR device, that will give
| you a quasi-AR device, but those are still clunky and as you
| can see with the iGlasses they look a bit spooky from outside.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| Unpopular opinion (even wsj wrote this product off [1]) but as
| a new dad these things have been an absolute game changer.
|
| I continue to play with my toddler at all times but I can also
| capture critical moments without my kid thinking I'm constantly
| on my phone.
|
| The grandparents have the footage on loop. This is just a win-
| win-win all around tbh even without any displays.
|
| [1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/metas-ray-ban-smart-glasses-
| fai...
|
| PS: added benefit that when I don't pick up my phone to get to
| the camera constantly I conveniently miss the attention
| destroying notifications _most times from other Meta products_
|
| PPS: Caveat: I live in a sunny location so sunglasses make
| sense most days.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Honestly this single HN comment may have turned my opinion of
| the product category around.
| Mekulpa wrote:
| Wearing the same glasses constantly just in case your kid
| makes a thing?
|
| There is a reason why people get lasik.
|
| But hey if people start wearing more sunglasses outside
| good for them it's better for the eyes.
| meowtimemania wrote:
| Yeah this would be a great way to market them!
| bsimpson wrote:
| This was what made the original Glass interesting - being
| able to live your life while also archiving memories for
| Future You etc.
|
| Still, Facebook isn't exactly a company that has earned trust
| to fill that role.
| [deleted]
| boarnoah wrote:
| It is extremely bizarre to advertise with typical Mixed Reality
| use cases (with display elements overlaid in your field of
| vision).
|
| Is this actually true or do the people here who say "it lacks a
| display" mean something else? That it's not suitable for VR or
| non overlay applications?
| joemi wrote:
| Look at the Product Tour part of the page. Zero mention of a
| display = no display.
| aqme28 wrote:
| > Pair it with my phone, give me driving directions which don't
| require me to take eyes off the road.
|
| I already do this with mine using audio.
| pzo wrote:
| sometimes audio is not enough, e.g. when driving
| motorbike/scooter in big city (Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur) audio
| navigation is not enough to on time figure out which lane
| ramp you have to use at some intersection.
| freeflight wrote:
| For motorbikes there are already options to get a HUD in
| the helmet, i.e. a CrossHelmet or Argon Transform.
|
| This is not an endorsement of these products, I have no
| idea if they are actually any good.
| [deleted]
| throw7 wrote:
| This is more simstim a'la neuromancer than robocop.
| kart23 wrote:
| I mean, this is obviously where its going, but the tech isn't
| there yet without seriously compromising on some axis (looks,
| size/weight, etc) I think its a great way to get people used to
| the paradigm of smart glasses and further develop the other
| components that are already mature on phones (camera, compute,
| speakers, etc.)
| hcazz wrote:
| Google Glass was released almost a decade ago, I'm not
| convinced the tech isn't there. I also had a RECON Mod Live
| HUD for my Snowboard Goggles which was released in 2011 which
| had a unit size not that far off from the Google Glass.
|
| It's disappointing that in 2023 there isn't something even
| remotely close (or better) to tech that was available 10+
| years ago in the case of the RECON Mod Live.
| [deleted]
| anjel wrote:
| ...which is why its available for the already chunky wayfarer
| frames and not the svelte Aviators. Past camera spy glasses
| were so chunky as to be obvious if you know to look what to
| look for. Can't say how unobtrusive or obvious the lens is
| for the Metas but the Temples are not discernably thicker or
| different in appearance from non-enhanced Wayfarers. Wishing
| they'd Add an inertial sensor making them quite useful for
| tort / crim evidentiary purposes.
| [deleted]
| majormajor wrote:
| A readier-to-access camera means I could take pictures I can't
| now, since by the time I get my phone out the moment has
| passed.
|
| To me an always-on display in my glasses, on the other hand,
| seems like a ramp-up of screen-time-interruptions and very
| diminished gains compared to a phone or watch.
| vidarh wrote:
| Cameras like this have been available for years. They're
| typically sold as "spy cameras", because that's how they're
| perceived. Amazon alone lists a few dozen models of various
| degrees reasonable appearance and features, most of them in
| the $40-$100 range.
|
| This is old enough that at least one startup has already
| failed to get traction for trying to establish a standard to
| clip cameras onto glasses...
|
| What you're paying for here is the Ray-Ban branding, not
| innovation.
| ajhurliman wrote:
| Yeah, that's just not what the product is. It's not targeted at
| helping people navigate roads, it's for giving creators a more
| seamless way of getting footage in their everyday life.
|
| Meta spent a crazy amount of money hosting a giant party at
| VidCon (a YouTube/TikTok/Instagram focused convention) and I
| haven't really seen them pushing these glasses anywhere else.
| Casey Neistat did a review on the first-gen version in the
| context of how it helped him film. This really seems like a
| tool for creators at this point, even if it may morph into
| something else later.
| vidarh wrote:
| "Spy cameras" like these have been available cheaply for
| years. The only thing new here is the Ray-Ban brand
| connection.
| ajhurliman wrote:
| Well, the integration into social media is novel too. When
| I did a demo I signed into my account and when I filmed
| something it went directly as a post to my IG.
|
| If there were more ability to do more editing and get
| access to the raw footage that would be helpful; I haven't
| tested this version though so I don't know what it
| does/doesn't offer.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| These aren't even new. They have been available for years.
| ajhurliman wrote:
| True, but the first version was garbage, the resolution
| was like 2007 Razr quality. I feel like the better image
| quality, battery life, and form-factor this gets, it will
| become a lot more compelling a product.
|
| I would never have bought the last version, but with the
| image quality on this one it may be worth it (plus the
| call-related stuff, although I normally have AirPods with
| me).
| dylan604 wrote:
| how many "spy cameras" allow you to live stream? "the only
| thing" here is your lack of imagination. not that I'm a
| proponent of these devices, as they are on the verge of
| creepCentral, but i'm not going to make an outlandish
| comment about them "only" being branded.
| somethoughts wrote:
| Interesting - this is pretty insightful in terms of product
| market fit.
|
| It seems more of a convenient GoPro POV camera form factor
| that allows more freedom from extra equipment (sunglasses
| versus some sort of helmet strap/chest strap) and less pre-
| planning.
|
| I could also see some sort of application where the creator
| is live-streaming a concert or event to Instagram reels and
| getting feed back via the headphones from the internet
| audience on where to go/what to do next.
|
| Definitely can see how it fits directly with FB/Insta in that
| it gets more people "creating" content for the rest of us
| (ergo more content to monetize for ads).
| dotancohen wrote:
| > I could also see some sort of application where the
| creator is live-streaming a concert or event
|
| Or police encounter.
| kart23 wrote:
| It would probably be pretty awesome at navigating roads too.
| I remember citibiking in nyc and basically having to memorize
| directions and street names, or constantly pull out my phone
| and figure out where i'm going. Having audio through the
| glasses would work great and still be able to hear your
| surroundings.
| mathewsanders wrote:
| I've been biking around nyc boroughs for over a decade now
| and I still follow directions from mapping apps!
|
| I've found Apple Watch to be okay (they give instructions
| on directions via haptic feedback) and AirPods with spoken
| directions to be even better.
|
| I wear glasses too, but for directions I think I'd prefer
| haptic and/or audio even if visual was an option just for
| safety purposes.
|
| The one pain point I have found with biking directions is
| that sometimes the directions come way too late to be
| useful (maybe I bike too fast haha).
| whartung wrote:
| > I want a lightweight display I can wear unobtrusively and
| doesn't make anyone near me nervous
|
| The BWM Connected Ride Glasses are close to this:
|
| https://www.bmw-motorrad.ie/en/wear/Apparel/connectedride-sm...
|
| They're specific for motorcycle riding (vs, you know, a pasta
| timer), but that's a detail of application.
|
| Other than that, it's a pair glasses with a built in HUD
| for...HUD things.
| CommitSyn wrote:
| Imagine that while you're driving, a big line of text that you
| can't see through appears on your windshield.
|
| Worse yet the text is opaque but you have to concentrate on it
| to read it.
|
| All this would do is give drivers a false sense of security in
| your directions example. You'll be concentrating on the text
| regardless, meaning your concentration is off the road.
|
| Even that autopilot sense where you drive your daily routine
| for 30 minutes and don't remember minutes 20 of it still has
| your subconscious aware of obstacles in the road, etc. This
| would require your concentration to be on the text. Whether you
| want it to or not.
| sterlind wrote:
| HUDs like this are already common on fighter jets, and even
| some passenger aircraft, precisely so you don't have to look
| away to check gauges. Are you saying riding a motorcycle
| requires more concentration than flying an FA/18 Hornet?
| [deleted]
| rcpt wrote:
| I think it'd be nice to blink and automatically post to Instagram
| everytime some driver does something unhinged while I'm on my
| bicycle.
|
| Not sure I can think of any pro-social use cases though.
| [deleted]
| manc_lad wrote:
| I don't wear glasses. I don't live in a sunny country. Unless I'm
| wearing flat and clear lenses I would infrequently wear these
| casually.
|
| I like the concept. Just not sure about market fit outside a
| people who wear glasses, sunny locations and hardcore fans.
| Although that's a lot of people!
| Zaheer wrote:
| Reminds me of Snapchat's Spectacles: https://www.spectacles.com/
|
| Forgot those even existed.
| euniceee3 wrote:
| Used these for a year. Great content, but the stabilization is
| trash. That and exporting without using the Snapchat app made
| me question if it is really worth sharing the most intimate
| moments.
| [deleted]
| cobertos wrote:
| Didn't these fail[1]?
|
| How are these glasses different? I can't imagine the market for
| this sort or thing has gotten _that_ much bigger since
| Snapchat's try at this.
|
| [1]: https://mashable.com/article/snap-spectacles-warehouse-
| deman...
| Gh0stRAT wrote:
| Did Snapchat's have really good audio quality that doesn't
| disturb the people around you? Pair that with modern AI
| assistant breakthroughs and it starts to seem pretty
| compelling.
|
| They also look way less dorky than Snapchat's attempt.
| trey-jones wrote:
| Probably the most convenient thing I can think of is just putting
| my whole phone in my glasses. By my whole phone, let's say I'm
| talking about my whole dumb phone. So calls, texts, camera - this
| seems reasonable. And if I can ask for information and get quick
| answers that's a bonus. Disregard privacy concerns for the moment
| - that's obviously important and will be a bit sticking point. I
| would replace my phone with these if it was standalone. Or maybe
| this + watch in tandem would be neat.
|
| If I didn't already need to wear glasses, that might change how I
| feel about it as well.
| cvccvroomvroom wrote:
| Except they're not Quest or phones. They're glorified BT
| speakers with a GoPro.
| cheeze wrote:
| Sounds awesome if I can get some additional features like
| calling and SMS, etc.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Could you please not record me while I'm eating a slice of pizza?
| Fuck absolutely very far off with this.
| jmoak3 wrote:
| Relevant: https://www.socialcooling.com/
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Genuinely curious - what is the issue with someone doing this?
| solardev wrote:
| Sometimes people get self-conscious when they're chowing down
| on something, especially a greasy floppy blob like a pizza.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| This is the most insightful comment on this topic.
|
| Ubiquitous visual and audio recording makes an already self-
| absorbed, anxious and self-conscious youth (and adults for that
| matter) MUCH worse.
|
| You put body cameras on police, whose adherence to uniform
| policies & procedures is in the public interest. You don't
| equip the general population with 27/7 cameras where the many
| mistakes of being human - mistakes we all make - are now fodder
| for the voyeuristic consumption of the masses, and the
| nefarious/political motivations of self-interested bureaucrats
| and politicians.
| [deleted]
| lopkeny12ko wrote:
| > If the LED is covered, you'll be notified to clear it.
|
| How does this work?
| nadavami wrote:
| I would guess there is photocell next to the LED and comparing
| the amount of light to the ambient light the cameras get. They
| might also be doing something clever and using the LED itself
| as a photo diode.
| Groxx wrote:
| I wish I could find more things talking about this, but
| there's this classic demo of the technique:
| https://cs.nyu.edu/~jhan/ledtouch/index.html
|
| It has always felt under-utilized to me. Maybe it needs
| power-sensing hardware that's too sensitive / too fast for
| most scenarios / costs?
| JohnFen wrote:
| It's actually not that hard to use LEDs in this way. I
| think it's not done a lot because in applications that need
| a light sensor, a purpose-built light sensor works a whole
| lot better, and it's rare that space is such a premium that
| having one is an issue.
|
| Glasses may be a use case where space is at a premium,
| though, so it could make sense there.
| kart23 wrote:
| The livestreaming usecase is honestly incredible. I really wonder
| how they managed to pull it off given the insane battery and size
| constraints and the technical details. I would be surprised if it
| could do more than 20 minutes of continuous livestreaming at an
| acceptable resolution.
| solardev wrote:
| The animations on that page are misleading. They show some sort
| of detached floating HUD next to each person using the glasses,
| but I don't think the actual product has anything like that? At
| first I thought it projects an image onto the actual lenses, but
| that doesn't seem to be the case. It's just (deceptive) marketing
| =/
|
| These aren't really smart glasses, they're just spy glasses.
| [deleted]
| throwaway2562 wrote:
| Recording everything you see is _the very opposite_ of "living in
| the moment" as they describe their product promise.
|
| Not to mention, of course, the intrusion into the lives of the
| people you're recording, whose "moment" is not your moment to
| record.
|
| Their language positively reeks of lies. I'm sure the glasses
| will be popular, and there's nothing we can do about it.
| flax wrote:
| These seem almost worth trying. I'd love to play with them if: 1.
| It's completely open for me to write my own apps to interface
| with it. 2. It had even the most rudimentary display (text only
| would be fine!) 3. It had nothing to do with Meta.
| [deleted]
| anotherevan wrote:
| And here I just got my Vocalskull bluetooth audio glasses a few
| weeks ago.
|
| https://vocalskull.com/
| ToDougie wrote:
| I'm having very complicated feelings about this.
| pstuart wrote:
| Indeed. The tech is impressive but the the unintended
| consequences make me very uneasy.
| asah wrote:
| for prescription, visit the ray-ban website
|
| ==> no way to order prescription glasses
| hintymad wrote:
| We should really give it to Meta for their tenacity. While Google
| canceled its projects left and right, including Google Podcasts
| to celebrate their 25-year birthday and Google Glass, Meta
| perseveres and pushes the state-of-the-art.
| cvccvroomvroom wrote:
| There's no tenancy here. They're not AR. They're not even at
| par with Glass.
| theodric wrote:
| This looks to me like a rehashing of 2016's Snapchat
| Spectacles combined with the bone-conduction bluetooth
| temples available on numerous cheap AliExpress sunglasses.
| jansan wrote:
| Meta is absolutely despearate. They bet their farm on the
| Metaverse thing and are trying everything to make that thing
| get some momentum.
| [deleted]
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Ooof, just in time for the death of the thick rimmed glasses
| trend of the last decade. It's all wire frames now guys.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| It'd be great if I could get these and _not_ have to login to any
| account.
| [deleted]
| SebaSeba wrote:
| Now if Meta would only get that website layout of theirs working
| on this Chrome browser that runs on my two year old Samsung
| Android phone, they would be a whole lot credible to me.
| Justsignedup wrote:
| Reminds me of google glasses and the "glasshole" mentality. But
| because these are pretty stealth people won't realize it.
|
| It does have strong surveillance state vibes, everything I look
| at is recorded and replayable. Gonna take the cancel culture (in
| both the positive and negative aspects) to overdrive.
|
| In any case, let's see the price tag. When that tag goes sub-$100
| we'll see some real stuff happening. Also would be interesting to
| see the cultural shift as most people may end up wearing glasses
| with AR built into them.
| cvccvroomvroom wrote:
| They're not stealth because they're unfashionable and chunky
| obvious in real life.
| [deleted]
| ortusdux wrote:
| "Bystander privacy - The Capture LED lets others know when
| you're capturing content or going live. If the LED is covered,
| you'll be notified to clear it."
|
| So at least there is that.
| Justsignedup wrote:
| Eh its not about stealth, its about availability.
| TwoFactor wrote:
| Interesting that the price is only around $100 more than regular
| Ray-Bans
| stefan_ wrote:
| Take into account that the regular Ray-Bans are about 99%
| margin
| tpmx wrote:
| Subsidized by Meta for getting them more data?
|
| I would also imagine that Meta is paying them handsomely for
| the obvious brand risk here - getting Ray-Bans associated with
| glasshole behaviour.
|
| The Ray-Ban brand is owned by the Italian-French
| EssilorLuxottica conglomerate. Market cap 74B EUR.
|
| (Meta market cap: 770B USD.)
| KaiserPro wrote:
| lol, facebook can barely get the glasses to play sound
| reliably, they aren't spying on you with these glasses.
| tpmx wrote:
| There's very often a large difference between the v1
| capability and the long term aspiration, both in technical
| capabilities and market capture.
|
| Compare Windows 1.0
| (https://winworldpc.com/product/windows-10/101) with
| Windows 10/11.
| capableweb wrote:
| And also teams within the product pushing for different
| things, like the recent Google Marketing Team vs Google
| Chrome Team wanting different approaches.
| dangerlibrary wrote:
| The only lesson learned from google glass was "these look dorky,
| but are otherwise perfect."
| maxwell wrote:
| Haha a guy wore them in a bar in downtown Vegas in 2013, and I
| watched multiple people approach him and tell him to take them
| off and stop recording everything. I never saw another pair IRL
| again.
| netsharc wrote:
| If I were working for the Zuckborg, I wonder how I could make
| these things socially acceptable. Host an event with A-list
| beautiful people and pay them to wear these things and post
| all over social media, to make the glasses be desirable for
| the influencable?
|
| Though not many celebs might want to be associated with the
| Zuckborg, nowadays.
| cvccvroomvroom wrote:
| Like the college student at open mic night who can't sing
| but has a gaggle of supportive friends and family who
| applaud profusely, there's a cult of toxic positivity
| surrounding him who refuse to be honest, adult supervision.
| MilStdJunkie wrote:
| As a shooting enthusiast, my first thought is what this does in
| pistol competitions.
|
| Shooting a pistol is, perhaps unintuitively, more difficult than
| a long arm, because the rear sight is effectively floating around
| "out there", and you need practice to get your rear eye in the
| right place (even if using a flip-up red dot reflex sight). When
| moving around, re-acquiring always takes time, and it slows you
| down.
|
| With the smart glasses (and a teensy tiny accelerometer-thngy on
| the barrel), your point of aim is _always_ in your field of view,
| and you don 't need to slow down or even acquire. You could hip-
| shoot accurately from a dead sprint. It's gonna be pretty rad.
| They're gonna have to do eyeware examinations, or else it's going
| to be dominated by smartglass shooters. Like, "dominated" as in
| "someone is using a cheat code" dominated.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| There's no screen so, not yet.
|
| But it does sound pretty much like having a laser on the gun
| no?
| MilStdJunkie wrote:
| Ah criminy, no screen? The hell is the point.
| MilStdJunkie wrote:
| Seeing a laser dot at any serious range is pretty much
| impossible, at least in my experience. There's also a lot of
| airborne material at shoots as multiple rounds impact the
| target/ground/etc. They consistently time _slower_ than
| reflex sights, and sometimes even iron sights.
|
| That's not considering the problem that in fog/dust, the beam
| is a "HERE I AM" arrow. Not a problem in competition though.
| But it underlies the primary use of lasers: IR beams with
| nightvision. THAT'S the golden ticket for lasers, and you can
| see where your buddies are aiming too. Now, if you're
| fighting someone _else_ with nightvision . . hey, good thing
| we can choose who we fight, right guys? Guys?
| [deleted]
| spaceprogrammer wrote:
| no display? too bad
| DueDilligence wrote:
| [dead]
| TrueDuality wrote:
| The only appealing thing for me with smart eye-wear is a personal
| display. Doesn't need to be big or rich, enough for notification
| filtering much like smart watches give me. A camera on these is
| frankly still kind of in the creepy realm to me, but I do get it
| and it'll probably be a necessary component for any kind of
| proper AR.
|
| The Meta AI integration is also a massive turn off to me. To each
| their own, but I want to keep the smart bits mostly in the smart
| phone. The assistants so far have been anything but assistive on
| my devices and usually both get in the way (since for a while
| everyone was really pushing you to use them, only Google seems to
| have not gotten that particular message) and are privacy
| nightmares in their own right.
| monological wrote:
| Am I the only one who doesn't want this dystopian future?
| "Designed for living in the moment"?...no, this is definitely the
| exact opposite of living in the moment.
| [deleted]
| pvg wrote:
| You can scroll through the thread to check.
| [deleted]
| WesternWind wrote:
| I'm not personally in love with the idea of smart glasses that
| don't have a display of some sort.
| throwaway-blaze wrote:
| The technology for displays (resolution, battery/power needs,
| field of view issues) is so many years away that it makes sense
| to try and go with basic touch/swipe and audio UI now. There
| are great use cases for a device like this...no doubt with a
| display ability it would be truly incredible but no reason not
| to be working on this today.
| 7moritz7 wrote:
| They look way better than expected, almost exactly like the
| regular models. Issue being that the cameras are clearly visible
| and make the impression that you are either a voyeurist or a
| secret agent
| cvccvroomvroom wrote:
| Have you bought and worn these in real life outside of a store?
|
| They look good online but in person, they're absolutely ugly
| and cheap looking.
| smath wrote:
| Any word on whether they will let custom code/apps run on this,
| or is it a walled garden? Whisper + LLM with these would be nice.
| These glasses could also be great for vision impaired folks.
| l33t7332273 wrote:
| Can you explain what use case whisper and an LLM would have
| here?
| [deleted]
| smath wrote:
| I was thinking of an audio-based personal assistant running
| on the sunglasses, a la
| https://twitter.com/ggerganov/status/1640416314773700608
| knodi123 wrote:
| > The Capture LED lets others know when you're capturing content
| or going live. If the LED is covered, you'll be notified to clear
| it.
|
| Wonder how that works. Maybe the capture LED has a light sensor
| next to it that detects reflections? It solves an interesting
| problem, although the prevalence of cheap spy camera glasses on
| amazon make it an uphill battle.
| didntcheck wrote:
| I'd presume via the same type of proximity sensors that disable
| your phone screen when it's held to your ear
| farkanoid wrote:
| LEDs can effectively be used as light sensors when wired in
| reverse - About a decade ago there was a post where someone
| turned an 8x8 LED matrix into a touch sensor.
|
| Edit: Found the link, here it is:
| https://mrl.cs.nyu.edu/~jhan/ledtouch/index.html
|
| Analog Devices has an excellent article about using LEDs as
| sensors in this way:
| https://wiki.analog.com/university/courses/electronics/elect...
| Saris wrote:
| They could pulse the LED quickly and while it's off use it as a
| light sensor for ambient light.
| baz00 wrote:
| It's probably duty cycled on and off and compared to a
| photodiode output on the reflection.
|
| Either way the moment that light comes on you're getting
| punched if you point it at the wrong person. I'd rather have my
| phone hit out of my hand. Google Glass was not welcome and I
| suspect the same will be true of this.
| duxup wrote:
| How are people going to feel if people walk into a bathroom
| wearing these?
| artursapek wrote:
| Violated and threatened, as they should
| paxys wrote:
| If you want to secretly record people in the bathroom there are
| a hundred more discrete ways of doing so than these glasses.
| Someone's shirt button could be doing it right now.
| [deleted]
| operatingthetan wrote:
| Is there a market for this? Stealth smart glasses that force you
| to indicate you are recording? Are live-streamers going to use
| this? Don't people want to be using their phone anyway?
|
| >The Capture LED lets others know when you're capturing content
| or going live. If the LED is covered, you'll be notified to clear
| it.
| jejeyyy77 wrote:
| for sure - ppl are strapping go pros to their heads.
| l33t7332273 wrote:
| They do this generally while doing some kind of movement
| based activity, the kind of activity where you need to strap
| a camera on, not wear a set ofglasses.
| function_seven wrote:
| Can you list activities that you're thinking of? Because a
| lot of active sports are compatible with "wearing glasses".
| Surfing, snowboarding, rock climbing, water skiing,
| mountain biking, etc.
|
| Sure, scuba divers still need some specialized gear, but
| there's tons of room in the sports segment for this kind of
| product.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| > Because a lot of active sports are compatible with
| "wearing glasses". Surfing, snowboarding, rock climbing,
| water skiing, mountain biking, etc.
|
| I would not say any of those are compatible with wearing
| fashion-style sunglasses. I've lost pairs of glasses
| paddleboarding and kayaking before. I'm a mountain biker
| as well and crashes can be violent, I wouldn't trust
| glasses to stay on your face. All of those sports require
| firm attachment for a device worth more than say $100.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Yea there's for sure a market. Beyond what others have said wrt
| GoPros, many people photograph/stream shows/concerts/etc.
| Studies have shown you remember events better when you take the
| intentional act to photograph it, but fiddling with a phone in
| the moment can be distracting. Why would people _want_ to be
| focusing on a phone, or be seen with a phone, when they could
| just watch the event AND get the recording?
|
| I attend concerts a lot, and often post snippets to social
| media. There's always a tension I see among myself and others
| of trying to catch _those particular lines_ of a song, while
| still not missing the show to mess with your phone.
|
| Will I buy these? Meh, maybe. But the appeal is there.
| robertlray wrote:
| Why do you think people would prefer to use their phone over
| something like this? I assume people use their phone because
| that's what they have to use now. I could be wrong, I'm not
| representative of the average person, but if I could use my
| phone less and still engage with tech, I'd do it.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| My assumption is that people like to be seen recording and/or
| recording themselves. I'm guessing 'terminally online phone'
| people don't have the impulse to use their phones less and
| keep it in their pocket?
| toyg wrote:
| _> people like to be seen recording_
|
| I don't think so. Do people at a concert hold their phones
| out to be seen recording? No, they just want to record and
| that's the only way to do it. They'd love to be able to do
| it hands free for sure.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| Soon we'll see people holding up sunglasses then!
| coev wrote:
| Short people will still be throwing phones up
| toyg wrote:
| They are not "stealth smart glasses", they are the first
| iteration of AR glasses. Recording is one of the many things
| they do. And I'd buy them in a second if it means I don't need
| to take my phone out every few minutes (and if I had the money,
| I expect them to be uber-expensive); or I don't need to look
| away from the road to check directions as I drive; or I don't
| need to reveal in-shop that I'm checking online prices for an
| item. There are a lot of possibilities beyond capturing, if not
| in this generation in the next one with displays.
| cvccvroomvroom wrote:
| They're at least 2nd gen and there's no HUD so there's no
| feedback if or what they're capturing. They're disappointing
| overall.
| ooterness wrote:
| These are not AR glasses. As far as I can tell, they do not
| have a display at all.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| >they are the first iteration of AR glasses.
|
| You seem to be forgetting a lot of previous products. If
| anything these are a really late reply to Snap's Spectacles.
|
| Also, these don't have a display. Many of your listed use
| cases don't apply unless you count audio replies, which we
| already have, all over the place. Please read about what a
| product does before correcting someone in the future...
| clintfred wrote:
| Except these have nothing to do with AR (sadly)...
| l33t7332273 wrote:
| I agree. People who want to record their pov generally use a go
| pro-like device or their phone. Why do we need this?
| anonzzzies wrote:
| Ugh that battery life. I am happy with my xreal glasses because
| it has ton of battery via my phone and then can be charged on the
| go even more.
| Conscat wrote:
| My favorite glasses right now have little cat ears above the
| lenses. Meta stays behind state of the art as always.
| ginkgotree wrote:
| No way would I keep a camera on my head that is directly
| uploading image (and audio?) data to a Meta owned and operated
| platform. No. F*&(king. Way.
| expertentipp wrote:
| If they'll figure out one "wow how convenient" killer feature
| or killer app, everyone will be wearing it within 2 years.
| mplewis wrote:
| Absolutely not. People hate living in the panopticon.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I've done pretty well not listening to Gen X'ers about
| anything
| [deleted]
| haunter wrote:
| Gen 1 had horrible picture quality. Casey Neistat made a review
| and it wasn't nowhere near good as an iPhone 5 from 2012
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF3iysOyelg&t=280s
|
| If this has a better picture quality, like up to the ~2023
| smartphone camera standards then I'll buy one. I really like the
| idea.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-27 23:00 UTC)