[HN Gopher] Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses
___________________________________________________________________
Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 545 points
Date : 2023-09-27 18:18 UTC (1 days 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.
| justinclift wrote:
| > I understand the privacy argument, but that is not going to
| be enough.
|
| Why not? Privacy is important to people.
|
| For a long time, the majority of people didn't really seem to
| care about their online privacy. However, the EU still created
| the GDPR.
|
| Perhaps a "real world privacy" equivalent of GDPR should happen
| at some point?
| 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| This comment may eventually seem as outdated as asking 'what's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?
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| Nah, earbuds and phones could do audio recording just fine
| and for longer. Adding video does not make it "unlike any
| other", so this is rather a minor erosion on top.
|
| > Glasses can stream effortlessly and continuously
|
| For a rather limited time duration and with a glowing light
| and with actually quite a bit of effort.
|
| > without anyone's consent.
|
| Why? You still need the same amount of consent as with any
| other camera.
| smolder wrote:
| Adding video is not a minor erosion on top of recording
| from a microphone.
| 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.
| tjpnz wrote:
| But there will be physical violence if that light goes on
| infront of the wrong person. Make no mistake.
| 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".
| spigottoday wrote:
| I don't like being recorded all the time when out in
| public or in stores or hospitals or other places or
| institutions. The thing that I find completly
| unacceptable is having the recording sent off to meta or
| google or somewhere to be analyzed and monetized without
| my consent. Not only do I not benefit from this I
| consider it a profound abuse of my privacy and autonamy.
| before all this invasive corporate surveillance being
| seen in public was a localized and ephemeral experience
| and privacy laws were adequate to cover this. This is no
| longer true. Not that I think this will happen any time
| soon (or ever) because, you know, money; and not enough
| people outraged about this or that feel safe enought to
| express thier outrage, but a simple fix would be that if
| I am not a consenting user of a corporate service like
| meta or google or ticktock or whatever then that service
| is not permited to retain or use that (personal)
| information in any way. So when the service recieves
| video it must remove or completely obsure any individuals
| image and audio from the video that are not current users
| of the service. Better yet and more feasible would be to
| just flag and delete the video, which puts the burden on
| the person making the video, where it belongs. Of course
| this would apply to any and all information conected to
| all non users of the service. To motivate compliance an
| automatic award of, let's say, $10,000 to an abused party
| would probably do the trick. If this sounds extream to
| you I just consider it a good start.
| 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
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > there are actual LEGAL consequences that could befall
| you
|
| There are, but they are extraordinarly unlikely. People
| push and shove each other all the time over minor insults
| and disagreements and almost never end up in front of a
| judge. Most cops would just say "you should have put the
| camera down when he asked you to, now stop wasting my
| time."
| 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.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| First, just because China did it doesn't mean its
| necessarily wrong. The real bad part of Chinese system
| are the laws that govern what is bad and what the
| punishment - the surveillance in itself alone is neutral
| at worst. More information never hurts.
|
| Secondly, this would be "society filming society",
| without the government being involved.
|
| I really see only positive with the mass adoption of
| these things. When I go out in public, I drive
| respectfully, I don't cut in line, I clean up if I make a
| mess, I don't play loud music or have an obnoxiously loud
| car, I don't talk loudly, and am generally not an asshole
| to people. If someone needs the fear of being recorded,
| and put online and losing their job to not act like
| asshole, then so be it.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > More information never hurts.
|
| How do you reach that conclusion?
|
| > this would be "society filming society"
|
| It would also be a corporation filming private citizens
| on a very large scale (and government can obtain data
| from corporations).
|
| > If someone needs the fear of being recorded, and put
| online and losing their job to not act like asshole, then
| so be it.
|
| People are attacked and shamed for many things that are
| private or harmless or even good things.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| >How do you reach that conclusion?
|
| Because the hypothetical damage a bad member of society
| could do outweighs the potential risk of private life
| details leaking (and any effect resulting from this) for
| good members of society.
|
| Say you live in a neighborhood with 50 people, and nobody
| knows anything about each other. Then one day, a hacker
| comes in an publishes a lot of private details about
| every single resident - grocery shopping lists, movie
| preferences, political leanings, website search history,
| even private videos and photos. However, it turns out
| that one of the residents is a serial rapist, while
| another one deals drugs. Getting information on those two
| is extremely valuable to the neighborhood, even if it
| came at a price of reduced privacy.
|
| >It would also be a corporation filming private citizens
| on a very large scale (and government can obtain data
| from corporations).
|
| I get the whole "government bad" liberterian sentiment,
| but this never really plays out in reality. I mean, lived
| 4 years under a literal fascist and came out largely ok.
| There is enough due process in place and good people in
| the government to avoid misuse of power on a wide scale.
| Furthermore, the government is a combination of
| incompetency and not enough man power for the average
| citizen to worry about.
|
| As for corporations, most people are ok with data being
| collected about them and used for things like
| advertising, because they still continue to use the
| products and apps, because the value add of those is
| worth more than privacy (which many people don't even
| understand what it is).
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > However, it turns out that one of the residents is a
| serial rapist, while another one deals drugs.
|
| Hypotheticals are easy to populate with supporting
| examples, but also in the neighborhood are the political
| enemies of the government, minorities, targets of
| oppression (e.g., LGBTQ), etc.
|
| > I get the whole "government bad" liberterian sentiment
|
| Spare me your bullshit dimissal. Do you have anything
| substantive or is that all you have?
|
| > this never really plays out in reality
|
| I think cracking open any history book or reading the
| news will show the horrors inflicted by dictators. I'm
| glad you were ok.
| vunderba wrote:
| I'm surprised you're not already aware that this is
| already the norm. The number of cc style cameras in
| London alone should give you pause.
|
| If we're already dealing with ubiquitous recording _in
| public_ , I'd rather give some of that power back to
| individuals rather than the government.
| esafak wrote:
| It is not the norm everywhere and, in any case, we should
| push back. It gives me no joy to walk past video
| surveillance cameras. They stick out like sore thumbs to
| me and make me feel treated like a potential criminal.
|
| I believe we reclaim no power by recording our fellow
| citizens going about their daily lives. We merely augment
| the corpus of corporations and governments.
|
| My beef with these smart glasses is that while they can
| be used to document crimes, I estimate they will
| typically be used for mundane purposes, while eroding the
| privacy of law-abiding citizens. More so than cell
| phones, which require you to at least hold the thing up
| and press a button. You will do so to document a crime,
| but not to mindlessly and continuously record everything
| you see. This changes the balance.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| In case my top level comment was not clear:
|
| if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy
| outside of physical interaction in your immediate space
| outside your body (and even then, on crowded public
| transport, this is not the case). If someone can see what
| you are doing, there is no difference between that and
| them recording it. If someone can hear what your are
| saying, there is no difference between that and them
| recording it.
|
| If you don't agree, you are essentially saying that you
| are entitled to do and say what you want, but gathering
| any evidence of you doing so is not allowed, which not
| only doesn't make sense but is also pretty indicative
| that you are looking to be up to no good.
| esafak wrote:
| > If someone can see what you are doing, there is no
| difference between that and them recording it. If someone
| can hear what your are saying, there is no difference
| between that and them recording it.
|
| There is all the difference in the world. This is what
| we're debating here. According to your binary logic,
| everyone is within their right to record and retain in
| perpetuity all public activity, with arbitrary high
| fidelity. And if that's fair game, I suppose you'd be
| okay with unifying them into one view and mining it? Like
| China, but even worse. I would be disgusted and ashamed
| to live in such a society. Fortunately, the law does not
| say this.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > I'd rather give some of that power back to individuals
|
| You'd be giving it to Facebook, though I suppose
| Zuckerberg is an individual.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| For this specific product. If successful, you will no
| doubt get some i-glasses, goggles, galaxy glasses, ...
| and probably some infighting for openglasses and
| libreglasses.
| 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.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| Glasses are uncomfortable to wear all the time. They are hard
| to control because they have very limited input methods. Nobody
| wants to charge their glasse. Every "smart glasses" product
| ever has failed - nobody wants these.
| [deleted]
| mFixman wrote:
| The same argument I make against smartwatches: they are great
| for people who regularly wear the dumb version, but
| uncomfortable for people who don't.
|
| Smartphones became ubiquous quickly because by the year 2007
| almost everyone was used to having a cellphone in their pocket,
| smart or not. Personally, I find regular sun/glasses
| uncomfortable and I don't see myself ever buying smart ones.
| 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?
| hinkley wrote:
| No man. Look.
|
| Take a pair of glasses. Attach sunglasses to them. Move
| the bows from the glasses to the sunglasses. The geometry
| of the glasses or frames don't matter, it's whether
| there's enough distance from the eye.
|
| My glasses have almost always sat proud of the frames.
| And there's plenty of distance behind them. (I've had
| sunglasses that brush my eyelashes though, when I was
| young and they were cheap, and that bugs the hell out of
| me).
|
| > 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?
|
| First of all, that's an Appeal to Authority, and you know
| where you can stick that. Two, you think I'm trying to
| solve a very old problem, which means _you_ missed the
| point.
|
| Putting something on your face that vastly outsizes and
| outcosts your glasses is a brand new problem.
|
| Scientists get eyepieces for microscopes with
| prescription lenses. That's not on your face. Skiers just
| buy goggles with prescription lenses, which cost almost
| as much as VR goggles. That's basically a luxury market,
| not a consumer market.
|
| Also the whole fuckin' point is that none of these
| solutions (to people insisting you take your glasses off)
| work because a rounding error of people are going to
| carry two pair of glasses with them, and even the
| workaround is unwieldy. You're lost in the weeds talking
| about the physics of it, which aren't a problem and
| aren't the real problem.
| smeej wrote:
| What you actually said was: > 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.
|
| And what does "Move the bows from the glasses to the
| sunglasses" even mean? Bows?
|
| You can't take a glasses frame that is designed to be
| worn at a normal distance from the eye and then clip
| something to the back side of it, between the original
| lens and your eye. There's not enough space to add a
| corrective lens back there.
|
| Even if there were, it's _still_ unfeasible, because the
| part you have to take off is the smart part or the tinted
| part _not the prescription part._
|
| Never mind that it's only a rounding error of people who
| are willing to carry around a clip-on layer either,
| because it requires nearly as much protection as a full
| pair of glasses to avoid breaking it.
|
| Making the prescription part the clipping part is inane
| on every level. Nothing about it works.
| 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.
| ponyous wrote:
| Is there any source that can back this up? I can't
| imagine my local police paying to have live locations at
| all times.
| smolder wrote:
| You can't imagine police departments that buy stingray
| devices and spy illegally with them to also pay for
| surveillance data? Anyway for real time tracking, police
| stations can likely get the feds involved which get that
| info from your telco, who are best buddies with the
| federal government.
| 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.
| surfingdino wrote:
| Knowing and reflecting upon what you know are two
| different things. And even then the outcomes may be
| different than what you would expect.
| 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]
| _flux wrote:
| They'll quietly whisper them into your ear.. !
| 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.
| justinclift wrote:
| > Which makes it seem pretty clear they're talking about
| stuff you can do because of the speakers.
|
| That's true. But it's not excluding display stuff.
|
| It's along the lines of some product having multiple
| features, and some marketing point only talking about the
| advantages of the first feature. People would expect
| further marketing points to address the other features,
| and/or not even realise they'd not seen the other
| ("assumed to be present") features mentioned later on.
| capableweb wrote:
| > That's true. But it's not excluding display stuff.
|
| How many product landing pages talk about what you cannot
| do with the product or what it doesn't include? That'd be
| a very strange landing page for a product...
| freedomben wrote:
| I think you're technically correct, it definitely is
| unusual to talk about what you cannot do.
|
| However, do you really think the marketing team didn't
| get together and recognize the major limitation of not
| having a display, and carefully craft the marketing so as
| to minimize that?
| capableweb wrote:
| > However, do you really think the marketing team didn't
| get together and recognize the major limitation of not
| having a display, and carefully craft the marketing so as
| to minimize that?
|
| Probably a bunch of people wished it was Google Glass 2.0
| because it'd make the marketing people jobs easier/more
| interesting, but I don't think they'd craft the message
| to trick people, it'll impact the amount of returns and
| they'll probably lose more handling that than people not
| buying it because it doesn't have a screen.
| 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...
| OJFord 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.
|
| I don't agree at all (I wasn't not quoting to hide
| anything, I was just typing from mobile with a crappy
| connection on a train) - that's not clear to me - but ok.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| Meta is all about VR. VR means a display. Anyone would
| assume "meta glasses" are AR glasses. This is just a
| desperate attempt to boost the meta hype because they
| have made no progress on actual VR products.
|
| They are also called "smart glasses", but they are just
| headphones and a camera. Nobody calls their bluetooth
| headphones "smart".
| 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.
| braislan wrote:
| "Would you favor or oppose the government installing
| surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic
| violence, abuse and other illegal activity"
|
| In the 18-29 age range, 30% said yes.
|
| I agree with your sentiments but we have already lost. You
| just have to enjoy what we have now because it won't last
| forever. Someday everyone's entire life will be filmed and
| watched over by AI. To me, that is absolutely obvious at
| this point. If that was not going to be the case we
| wouldn't be where we are now.
| [deleted]
| euroderf wrote:
| Fistfights at Burning Man.
| 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.
| justinclift wrote:
| > they absolutely need to tip off people when the camera
| is pointed at them.
|
| Which is already "too late", as most of the time the
| person will be recorded before they've noticed it.
|
| Not sure there's a perfect solution to the problem
| though, as it's the intersection of several concurrent
| conflicting requirements. :/
| 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.
| braislan wrote:
| The argument is that many people go through the hassle of
| contact lenses as to not have to wear things on their face.
|
| The bigger problem is that most of reality is just not that
| interesting. We are already well passed the marginal utility of
| additional photos/video.
|
| Augmented reality has been right around the corner for many
| years now. There is obviously all kinds of fundamental flaws
| with these ideas that those with vested interest pretend do not
| exist.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| Everyone wearing them will eventually die in terrible car
| crashes because Eye-Sta-Gram Videos are more entertaining than
| stop lights
| euroderf wrote:
| "He died doing what he loved most: watching cat videos."
| 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.
| majikandy wrote:
| Yep, I don't use headphones that much either.
| 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.
| gumballindie wrote:
| > augmented reality that is coming.
|
| If delivered, augmented reality will be the single biggest
| technical breakthrough since the smartphone.
| 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.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| And if more people had the same mentality, it would be
| great.
| 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.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Thats a small minority of incidents. There are a lot more
| day to day behaviors that people do that are
| inconsiderate, and if there is a chance of you getting on
| video, being identified and losing your job, Im all for
| it. There is no immediate reward for acting good, and
| very little to no punishment for acting like an asshole.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| Comfort and looks: In recent years I have seen lots of people
| move from glasses to contacts or even to laser surgery. And
| smart glasses will necessarily be even heavier.
|
| Battery life: The announcement says 4 hours. That puts it at
| "gaming laptop" levels of inconvenience. It will have to be at
| least day long to be that ubiquitous and improvements of that
| scale will take many years.
|
| Usability: touch gestures on the frame or a smartphone app make
| this very non-effortless. The "think or blink in a certain way"
| is definitely not there yet and I doubt it will be in the next
| 20 years. Also, that UX would be the innovation, not the
| glasses it is affixed to.
|
| Banal reason: Look at VR, 3D, google glass,... . Much hype and
| then nothing. Why should this be any different?
| ge96 wrote:
| Boo it's not AR.
|
| I wish RayBan would make oled-infused corrected lenses.
| [deleted]
| nrki wrote:
| _The Circle_ 's "completely transparent" vibes.
| [deleted]
| ConcernedCoder wrote:
| so where's the virtual HUD ?
| 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.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| How is privacy dealt with? I am not sure, but we are already
| tracked by meta without even being signed up, are we going to be
| tracked even offline for taking a walk? Is this piece of disgrace
| company and the piece of shit that work for it just so
| uninterested of what their products to do people? Is it possible
| to inject some common sense in big tech?
| 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.
| forgotusername6 wrote:
| Does anyone else get stuck with it just refreshing the page if
| you decline optional cookies?
| [deleted]
| 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.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| Meanwhile: Apple's internal teams already acknowledge
| this... by showing [digitally, with outward-facing LCDs]
| the wearer's "eyes" whenever they are able to see [and
| where they're looking, approximately?].
| 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).
| [deleted]
| romusha wrote:
| Thing that will die out 2 years from now:
| [deleted]
| tapvt wrote:
| > Imagine if you could take a picture of anything, add a little
| note, have it filed away.
|
| I'd use that regularly while working on my truck. It'd be a lot
| easier than stopping during every disassembly step to snap a
| picture with my phone.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| gascoigne wrote:
| > And being able to snap a photo without pulling my phone out
| would also be great
|
| The camera is only 720p. There are probably a couple more
| iterations before this becomes good enough to not pull your
| phone out.
| flockonus wrote:
| Where did you get 720p from? On the website it says 12MP,
| which i believe is equivalent to 4k resolution.
| mbreese wrote:
| From: https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/wayfarer-shiny-
| black-plan...
|
| _Camera 12 MP ultra-wide
|
| Image framing / resolution - Portrait default / 3024 X
| 4032 pixels
|
| Video - Vertical default / 1440 x 1920 pixels at 30 fps_
|
| So, the video is a mix of 1440 and 1080p. (1920x1440, but
| tall rather than wide).
| bigbluesax wrote:
| When I tried bone conducting headphones a couple years back,
| the audio quality wasn't good enough to really enjoy music,
| podcasts worked well through.
| bpye wrote:
| Bose had sunglasses with bone conduction audio for a while -
| but I think they got discontinued. I like the idea but these
| are, to me, worse. I get why some people would like having a
| camera, but I wouldn't feel comfortable with it.
| beebeepka wrote:
| There are countless bone conducting headphones on the
| market. And they are very affordable. No need for brand
| names.
| bpye wrote:
| Oh sure - but as someone that wears glasses the idea of
| them being a combined device is interesting.
| koube wrote:
| Bone conducting headphones are great, I use them all of the
| time on walks, and you can hear everything as long as you
| don't play anything too loud. If they get loud enough then
| you don't hear certain things but that goes for any kind of
| headphones.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| The ones I tried for a few days made me nauseous enough
| that I had to return them. But I think that's a rare
| reaction.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Luxottica is probably doing very nicely on this partnership,
| and may well be offering Apple a substantial price cut to
| compensate. I had never heard of 'Rayban' before this Apple
| announcement! (Not that I am the target market for sunglasses
| anyway, in dark and wet Great Britain)
| [deleted]
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _I had never heard of 'Rayban' before this Apple
| announcement!_
|
| Apple? Or do you mean Meta? It would be understandable if you
| had never heard of them, given the recent rebrand!
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Oh, right - sorry for any confusion. I find it difficult to
| work out who owns who nowadays :D
| geon wrote:
| Apple?
| jondwillis wrote:
| No, Facebook.
| bobobob420 wrote:
| Have you seriously never heard of Rayban but know what
| Luxottica is? I dont want you to dox yourself but I assume
| non US...?
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Indeed, I'm from Britain. I really hadn't ever heard of
| Rayban - and I only know what Luxottica is because I looked
| it up after reading this thread :)
| [deleted]
| baby wrote:
| Rayban is famous worldwide tho
| herbst wrote:
| To be fair they are barely relevant in my circle and more
| a fashion piece for the older generation. It's not like
| teenager or young people around here think it's cool to
| have expensive cheaply made glasses
| baby wrote:
| I guess I'm part of the older generation being in my 30s,
| what are teenagers wearing these days?
| ChristianGeek wrote:
| Not if you've never heard of them!
| presentation wrote:
| It's only probably the most famous sunglasses brand in human
| history
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Sunglasses aren't a particularly good investment when there
| will only be a couple of weeks bright enough to want them
| :) But awareness of raincoat brands in Britain, now you're
| talking!
| djtango wrote:
| Yes... I remember when Hunter wellies were a UK fashion
| export amongst some circles I moved in haha
| Spare_account wrote:
| I wear sunglasses for driving every day of the year in
| the UK.
|
| Your optician will also encourage you to wear sunglasses
| year-round, UV damage can occur even in overcast
| conditions.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| That's a good point; roads can certainly have a strong
| glare.
|
| I see an independent optician who is fairly old. Although
| they sell sunglasses, the optician has never suggested
| that I should wear them. Do you think this is perhaps
| newer guidance that is shared by more recently-graduated
| opticians, or maybe something promoted by a major chain
| of opticians?
| fomine3 wrote:
| As a worst fashionable and no glass person, I knew Ray-Ban
| from counterfeit spams by hacked account. It's one of the
| worst encounter.
| Snoddas wrote:
| I learned about Ray-Bans in the early 80s because that was
| what Jake and Elwood Blues wore.
| 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...
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| they are business smart!
| dwighttk wrote:
| Business smarter then I guess
| [deleted]
| dmix wrote:
| Maybe there's some app store type arrangement.
| tamimio wrote:
| > $299 for the Wayfarer model when the base Wayfarer goes for
| $171 on the Rayban website.
|
| With the amount of data collected, it should be provided free
| of charge, heck, you are getting paid too!
| seventytwo wrote:
| I bet these smart glasses have basically zero profit margin, or
| even negative.
|
| The real value to be made here is to get facebook's data vacuum
| into a new aspect of our lives.
| pharmakom wrote:
| First company to crack this will have Apple like market
| dominance.
| scrum-treats wrote:
| If I recall correctly, Google already did. I also remember
| people largely pushing back against hyper-surveillance tech
| such as this.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| google is an innovator but they don't really stick with
| things if they're not immediate hits.
|
| meta has privacy concerns but they've made a name for
| themselves in XR so this move isn't out of nowhere and
| with apple joining soon it's more normalized. apple wants
| us to strap a hmd to watch our kid blow out the candles
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Not zero, negative margin.
| bbor wrote:
| Omnipresent video input is going to be essential for Artificial
| Self-Instantiation AGIs early next year. Your personal
| assistant can't help you if you need to tell it what you're
| doing all the time!
| mgrund wrote:
| Sounds interesting, any reading material you could point to
| about this?
| jondwillis wrote:
| Why do you say early next year?
|
| Agents barely work as of now. OpenAI's plugins that ~do~
| things like browse are still quite slow.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Your personal assistant can't help you if you need to tell
| it what you're doing all the time!
|
| I assume "help" in this case will mean shoving endless ads
| your face and feeding manipulative lies to you on behalf of
| anyone willing to pay for it.
| mikelward wrote:
| Yeah, I would take no cameras, less creepy, and longer battery
| life, if I had the option.
|
| Edit: I do love that they have a transition lens version,
| though. I haven't seen that elsewhere.
|
| Bose had some Bluetooth glasses, but their website currently
| says "We'll be back soon". I also can't find them on Amazon, so
| I'm wondering if they were discontinued.
| surfingdino wrote:
| Yes, it's to gather even more data. Ad agencies have figured
| out how to glorify this. Dell in the UK is running an ad
| telling the viewer that the tourists photographing and filming
| coral reefs are helping the scientists help preserve nature.
| wyclif wrote:
| The base, regular Wayfarers were cannibalized and cheapened out
| by Luxottica a long time ago. I'm fortunate enough to have a
| vintage pair from the mid-1980's that still look brand new.
| They have higher quality zyl frames, polarized glass Bausch &
| Lomb lenses, and, crucially, five barrel bolted hinges. They're
| built like a tank.
|
| The new ones are so cheap I won't even wear them. Cheap
| plastic, plastic lenses, spring hinges that break quickly, and
| obnoxious branding on _both_ the temples and the lenses.
| Terrible.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Agree they're complete trash now.
|
| I once had a pair I found under a house from I'd guess the
| 60s, the builder must have misplaced them. They felt like
| something from another universe compared to today's garbage.
| throwaway837367 wrote:
| I work in the optical industry. I do R&D/quality control for
| a lens manufacturer and agree Luxottica is an awful company,
| but your comment is way off base. It's actually quite wrong.
|
| Your "zyl" acetate frames aren't higher quality. Modern
| acetate is stronger, lighter, less brittle, less subject to
| warping from temperature change, and more resistant to UV
| damage which impacts brittleness and color. 40 years of
| material science progress. No one in the industry would say
| older acetate is better. It's worse in every way especially
| because yours are old. They're breaking down.
|
| People don't wear glass lenses anymore for a reason. They are
| heavy and the only advantage over plastic is less chromatic
| aberration which is a non issue unless you are comparing to
| an extreme prescription using high-index plastic. They are
| also fairly dangerous compared to plastic due to the way they
| shatter. They fog up more easily. Again, 40 years of material
| science.
|
| Additionally, there are no low optical-quality plastic lens
| blanks. This is a solved problem. The only defects you'll get
| in lens blanks are bubbles and these won't make it through
| production. What happens after a manufacturer grinds the lens
| out is a different story but I can also tell you that their
| lens surfacing is not low quality by any means.
|
| Your hinges aren't any better and get loose over time. You
| can't actually use these for 40 years, they will wear out too
| and are harder to replace. Spring loaded hinges are lighter
| and reduce strain on both the frames and the wearer. I know
| what they use, they aren't cheap, and are high quality.
|
| I do agree with your point on the branding.
|
| The optimization for optics is all about weight. Your old
| frames and lenses aren't better because they're heavier,
| they're worse. As well as being more brittle and shatterable.
| It's like pining for the old heavy golf clubs made of wood
| and iron or all steel cars with V8 engines. Yeah, they're
| heavier! But they're worse in every way.
|
| I will also say that you should buy frames because you like
| the frames. If you want great lenses, you just get them made.
| You shouldn't expect high-quality prescription lenses from a
| frame manufacturer, that's what your optometrist is for. I
| buy cheap frames all the time and pop in whatever I want.
|
| You may have a bit of a point if you are talking moderate to
| high prescription ordered from Ray-Ban, but if you are
| talking about their non-prescriptive sunglasses, you're just
| yelling about all the wrong things.
|
| Edit: typo and swapped in "surfacing" rather than
| "production" for clarity.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| > They are heavy and the only advantage over plastic is
| less chromatic aberration which is a non issue unless you
| are comparing to an extreme prescription using high-index
| plastic.
|
| This isn't true, even the best plastic lenses of 2023 are
| nowhere near as scratch resistant as the best glass lenses
| of 1993.
| pulpfictional wrote:
| Where do I go to for quality sunglasses?
| csmiller wrote:
| Jacques Marie Mage are very nice, I'm also a fan of
| Matsuda.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I used to have Ray-Bans, but only buy Maui Jims these
| days. I tried Revos, which I had always thought of as
| very high-quality, but they were not good (lenses
| reflected lots of light from behind me, as if they lacked
| an anti-reflective coating).
|
| But even some MJs are not as good as the price would
| suggest. I have tried $300 MJs that didn't have spring
| hinges. They were just like regular lousy hinges.
|
| Costco has a selection of Maui Jim sunglasses for ~$100,
| which is far below retail.
| froh wrote:
| thank you for this very down to the facts excursion on 40y
| of progress in non-prescription glasses :-) this is what I
| come for on HN
| wyclif wrote:
| First of all, nobody (certainly not me) is "yelling." I
| find the way you wrote this response a bit telling, and
| that sort of thing actually detracts from your ability to
| persuade.
|
| I'd freely grant your point about the zyl. But the rest of
| your response is somewhat motte-and-bailey fallacy to me.
| For instance, I never maintained that there are "low
| quality plastic lens blanks." What I was getting at is that
| for a lot of consumers, the polarized Bausch & Lomb glass
| lenses are superior in quality and a better experience than
| the cheap plastic lenses. I also never, at any point,
| maintained that I'd "expect high-quality prescription
| lenses from a frame manufacturer." My comment was framed
| (pun intended) in terms of off-the-rack, non-Rx sunglasses
| which was absolutely clear from what I said above.
|
| And your claim about the hinges is simply laughable. I'd
| dare you to stress-test (in the R&D sense) the old five-
| barrel bolted hinges against these cheap spring hinges.
| That's a Pepsi challenge I'd be willing to take any day.
| Incidentally, as I mentioned above, I have a pair of 1984
| Ray-Ban Wayfarer IIs that are a few months away from being
| exactly 40 years old, and as I said they look and function
| like new even though they've been worn constantly for
| decades. Trying to maintain that the spring hinges
| Luxottica uses on today's Ray-Ban branded sunglasses are
| "high quality" completely destroys the force of your
| argument.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| Assuming both commenters are honest, I'm going to listen
| to the person who works in QA in the industry.
|
| The parent just sounds like someone who loves a specific
| item and is a bit miffed they changed it.
|
| Lots of "cheap plastic lenses" and "cheap spring hinges"
| type complaints without much backup.
|
| Is carbon fiber cheap and rubbish because it isn't steel?
| Why does the parent think plastic means inferior?
|
| "Mine are 40 years old and fine!!" Is a bit useless, and
| a sample of one.
|
| I own a wide range of old and new sunglasses, and in my
| eyes, the new ones are mostly superior if you buy right.
| Granted Luxottica are a bad actor in many ways.
|
| "... destroys the force of your argument ..." really?
| Does it? Does it tho? No.
|
| I think the GP was bang on.
| hattmall wrote:
| This is just industry entrenchment. Owning a pair of old
| vs new raybans just doesn't compare, it's not just the
| weight. The springs and material are simply stronger,
| they don't break or get scuffed as easily. The new lenses
| may have some better technical properties in the lab or
| extreme settings but the biggest difference is just
| keeping them smudge free. Old lenses just stay clean and
| are so much easier to simply wipe down. The new ones are
| nearly impossible to clean without chemicals and seem to
| get dirty almost immediately.
|
| The bit about cars is telling too. Yes new cars are
| better in everyway on paper and in extreme cases. But
| from an actual consumer usage standpoint it's not the
| always better... $3500 repair because I bumped a
| guardrail on the highway one night vs some touchup paint
| in an older car. High speed collision, sure new car is
| preferred.
|
| No one at a marina is going to try and sell you on a
| 1980s Yamaha 2-Stroke vs the new EFI 4 Strokes, but
| anyone that owns both would tell you they just wish they
| made a few improvements to the old style instead of going
| completely modern. Of course the new motor makes 30 more
| HP and uses less fuel but it needs vastly more
| maintenance and you need an entire parts store to have a
| reasonable chance of avoiding being stranded.
|
| The improvements are great, but for most things, for most
| people, they just want them to work well for their
| intended typical usage.
|
| It's wonderful the new F225s can operate in 9ft swells at
| 0F but I would really just like it to have a greater than
| 50% chance of starting up in calm 75 degree weather which
| is like 90% of the time I'm boating.
|
| You know the dealers recommendations though, and I'm not
| joking, is just buy two (or more) motors!
| hellomyguys wrote:
| You can touch up an old car because they were not made to
| crumple when hit, which makes them pretty unsafe.
| rconti wrote:
| I find both comments pretty insightful and have a hard
| time disagreeing with either. It's nice that the poster
| you're replying to has deep knowledge about these
| glasses, but it doesn't actually change the way you
| _feel_ about a sturdier-feeling product. And, sure, maybe
| you treat them really carefully, but the fact that they
| 're 40 years old at least proves SOMETHING about them.
|
| Sometimes things that "feel" high-quality are actually
| less robust, but longevity is not always more important
| than aesthetics.
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| Oh man those Volvos from the 80s and 90s... I swear until
| a few years ago I heard people saying how they were the
| safest cars.
|
| Or even my mum, I remember how she didn't like how the
| doors in the Sierra (an European Ford model) that my dad
| bought to replace an old Taunus (also an old European
| Ford model) were lighter, she felt less safe.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > It's nice that the poster you're replying to has deep
| knowledge about these glasses, but it doesn't actually
| change the way you feel about a sturdier-feeling product.
|
| This is the entire basis of Beats putting chunks of
| shitty iron in their headphones. It does absolutely
| nothing for the audio quality, but it makes them _feel_
| heavier and therefore people will swear up and down they
| are of better quality.
|
| Part of being an intelligent person I feel is recognizing
| your own limitations, biases and failings. I am a very
| smart person, and I feel most people who know me would
| agree. But I am smart about _particular things._ I know a
| lot about my field of programming and I 'm well educated
| in the software I make, and I know a lot about web
| development in a bit of an old school way (was educated
| formally awhile back, and while I can still sling PHP and
| use SQL with the best, I don't know nearly as much about
| newer frameworks and ways of doing things.) And while I'm
| proud of all that, it doesn't mean I know shitfuck about
| anything else.
|
| I think a good part of what makes people intelligent is
| knowing what they know, knowing what they _don 't know,_
| and being open to finding out if they need or want to
| from people who _do know._
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| Listening to some of these arguments you'd believe we
| need to get an expert's opinion and a literature review
| to gauge the quality of the things we use in our daily
| lives.
|
| I don't need an expert showing me a frequency curve to
| gauge the quality of earphones, I don't need an expert on
| manufacturing to tell me whether my current pair of
| glasses are more or less solid than the previous pair.
|
| Part of being an intelligent person is also accepting
| that other people are just as intelligent as you, and not
| complete fools. People can see what's right in front of
| their eyes.
| pulpfictional wrote:
| It would be nice to have, I look for that when planning
| to acquire items I don't understand. Inference is good,
| certainty is better.
| Anon_Admirer wrote:
| There maybe survivorship bias in this persons feelings
| and beliefs.
| oooyay wrote:
| ++ I wear prescription Ray-Ban Wayfarers and they're highly
| durable and the lenses are pretty good quality. I use them
| out gardening and when working in the yard. In general I
| only wear Ray Bans because they're a pretty consistent
| quality, durable, very lightweight, and never pinch my
| nose.
| [deleted]
| wombat-man wrote:
| No way, I have a couple real pairs and they are solid. One
| I've had for like 13 years
| 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...
| emodendroket wrote:
| They sell them for like 20 times what they cost to make,
| according to https://seekingalpha.com/article/4472420-essilor
| luxotticas-m...
| wyclif wrote:
| Luxottica cannibalized and cheapened Ray-Bans a long time
| ago; see my comment above.
| sbilstein wrote:
| You can definitely go to a mall and get ray bans with solid
| barrel hinges
| wyclif wrote:
| You can't. They were only available on the original Ray-
| Bans before they sold out to Luxottica.
| cromulent wrote:
| Aren't these what you mean?
|
| https://www.ray-
| ban.com/eu/sunglasses/RB2140%20UNISEX%20orig...
| [deleted]
| demarq wrote:
| Finally someone understands. The glasses are the main point not
| the tech.
|
| A lot of previous product design in this area, has emphasised on
| shouting the tech and making it super loud that these are "tech"
| glasses.
|
| Here the tech is "inside" and the form and fit of the glasses
| takes priority.
|
| This is a big Win for meta
| [deleted]
| 5041us wrote:
| For those who enjoy reading sf short stories and wonder about the
| implications of recording one's entire life, I can recommend the
| remarkable short story 'The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling'
| by Ted Chiang.
| jeffreyq wrote:
| Thank you so much for sharing that short story. I've found my
| new favorite author.
| tomduncalf wrote:
| Great recommendation, I feel like most people on this site
| would enjoy his two short story compendiums. I'm not even a big
| SF reader but they're among my favourite books I've read.
| simon1573 wrote:
| One of them is what Arrival (2016) is based on.
| 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
| [deleted]
| 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.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| [deleted]
| danShumway wrote:
| It is absolutely incredible to me that Facebook thinks it still
| has the social capital to pull a product like this off. To me the
| question of whether smart glasses are a good idea in general
| either socially or commercially is somewhat secondary to the
| elephant in the room: "would I wear glasses made by Facebook?"
| And... no, of course not, of course I wouldn't do that.
|
| I guess people buy Oculus still so it's not like Facebook has
| zero success with its hardware, but I think a big part of that is
| that it's the lowest-priced option on the market and is aiming at
| a product category where consumers are not particularly privacy-
| conscious: ie, games. And from my perspective I look at Oculus
| with its required account links and all of the privacy and TOS
| drama that has come out of that hardware, and I just can't
| imagine buying a hardware product from Facebook at all, let alone
| a hardware product that has a camera attached to it and requires
| me to install an app on my phone to use it (which is likely a
| bigger data-trove for Facebook than the camera is).
|
| It feels like almost any other company would be better equipped
| to try and build a market around this.
| [deleted]
| phkahler wrote:
| >> It is absolutely incredible to me that Facebook thinks it
| still has the social capital to pull a product like this off.
|
| Maybe not Facebook, but surely Instagram.
| danShumway wrote:
| Fair, that's a really good point. I don't distinguish between
| the companies and I don't think they're tangibly different in
| regards to privacy, but definitely agreed that Instagram has
| a better public image than Facebook does and I could see that
| making a pretty big difference.
|
| I guess they're launching this under "Meta", they're not
| using either Facebook or Instagram as the branding. I don't
| have any data to know whether people are more likely to see
| Meta and think of Instagram or Facebook.
| TheHappyOddish wrote:
| > It is absolutely incredible to me that Facebook thinks it
| still has the social capital to pull a product like this off.
|
| I'm surprised you think they don't. Average people don't know
| who Meta are and that they own WhatsApp, Instagram and
| Facebook. Their properties have billions of daily active users
| and WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are _seperately_ two of the
| biggest messaging platforms in the world.
|
| Most Quest users have never heard of Oculus. Remember the Quest
| 2 sold 10s of millions of units.
|
| Sorry to tell you, but most people don't have the same concerns
| that you (and I) have, and even then many people will still put
| their trust in anyway.
| danShumway wrote:
| Is the Quest's success more about ignorance of its
| relationship to Facebook or is it more about it being a low-
| priced entry VR set for a market segment where privacy
| doesn't really matter at all to most people? I don't mean
| that to be dismissive, I'm genuinely not sure if I can make a
| strong case in either direction. But if the success boils
| down to "my kid wants a VRChat headset, who cares who makes
| it", I'm not sure that attitude will carry over to a product
| category with more social implications.
|
| I don't personally think that the Meta branding is distinct
| enough from Facebook to pull that trick off in the way that
| WhatsApp or Instagram does, but I'll admit I could be out of
| touch. And I think Facebook's continued success has a lot
| more to do with inertia and lock-in than a lack of general
| consumer privacy concerns, but I could be projecting there.
|
| I just think my instinct is that any of the social backlash
| that Google got over Glass is going to be hugely amplified
| for a Facebook product regardless of whether or not they hide
| behind the name Meta and that backlash seems likely to shape
| the narrative and how people find out about the product. But
| :shrug: maybe I'm wrong.
| TheHappyOddish wrote:
| I actually agree on all points, but still think Meta has
| the social capital needed to do this.
|
| Price point for VR is for sure a factor for VR uptake and
| would make a decision more difficult for a privacy concious
| parent. However critical mass is the key - same as
| Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp. If all of your 13 years
| friends are on the Quest, that's what they want. Just like
| many of us retain these awful messaging platforms as that's
| where our friends communicate.
|
| Glass did have a massive backlash. But 2013 was a long time
| ago. Big single ear bluetooth headphones were mocked, COVID
| hadn't happened, Netflix wasn't even around (or at least,
| not in any form recognisable).
|
| I think the Google Glass was a victim of being too early.
| We have adjusted rapidly to ubiquitous technology around
| us, people are embracing AR daily. Hindsight will tell, but
| now or very soon is the time for AR to be embraced by
| general users.
| 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]
| danskeren wrote:
| They look amazing but it feels like a huge mistake to even
| include a camera (unless it's only inward-facing).. they should
| focus on Audio + AR + AI.
|
| The camera quality will be terrible compared to what you can get
| from the phone that's already in your pocket, and it just going
| make a huge portion of the population feel creeped out by it..
| whereas there would be no real pushback against a HUD that
| provided real-time transcript (big win for deaf people) and
| translations powered by Llama.
| [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?
| CapsAdmin wrote:
| Surely that would be a PR disaster so I must assume they
| don't allow recording when covered.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Cameras designed for covert recording are sold without
| public outcry.
| 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.
| menshiki wrote:
| I would rather shoot myself than say "Hey Meta" in public.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| Just struggle to be interested in glasses that have no display at
| all. That is really the future I'm waiting for.
| [deleted]
| 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]
| wetpaws wrote:
| [dead]
| mvkel wrote:
| I got a pair of the original Stories and they are my most
| favorite device released in the past decade except for the
| AirPods.
|
| Countless times I've wanted to capture something with my kids, or
| on a drive, or on a bike ride. I can just tap the button on my
| glasses and that's it. I'm not taken out of the moment at all.
| It's great.
|
| as for the other stuff, Bluetooth speaker included, I wish they
| would rip it all out.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Is there anything that makes it clear to the people around you
| that they are being recorded?
| trollied wrote:
| Thanks for your review, Zuck :)
| aubanel wrote:
| This page has an original way to force the user to accept cookies
| : present the cookie banner in a way that blocks the content. If
| the user clicks "Refuse optional cookies", just reload the page
| and present them the same choice again. That is illegal in the EU
| now.
| [deleted]
| unsated wrote:
| Smart glasses + Video + AI => What's the social score of the
| person I am looking at?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| You missed + Global Social Database, which is of course
| Facebook.
| [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.
| CamelCaseName wrote:
| If these can be made prescription, and as a result, purchased
| with insurance, sales will be through the roof.
| 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)
| [deleted]
| 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.
| sneak wrote:
| Per bragr's comment, they are not doing their jobs now. What
| makes you think they will do their jobs in the future?
| 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.
| seydor wrote:
| Agents Smith walking all around
| 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.
| possiblydrunk wrote:
| So when Google Glass came out, people using them were
| "Glassholes" because of the ability to record surreptitiously,
| albeit for a very short period. And there was no mistaking Glass.
| Meta's look normal and I doubt the LED indicator will draw enough
| attention this time around. Plus as others have noted, by the
| time you notice it's already too late and anyway the onus is on
| you to ask the wearer to stop. And this is worse, as it streams
| directly to social media. There should be some (legal) way to jam
| these devices within a certain proximity radius.
| [deleted]
| tjpnz wrote:
| A punch in the face would work.
| 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.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| This specific product is backed by one of the largest
| corporations on the planet led by an absolute ruler who
| is at best amoral if not absolutely immoral, and has a
| long, long, long, long, long history of violating
| privacy, breaking promises regarding privacy,[1] and of
| refusing to accept responsibility of the consequences
| arising from doing so.
|
| There are other amoral and immoral players out there,
| certainly. Few have Facebook's resources, however.
|
| "The trust me, dumb fucks" still seems to be his guiding
| compass.
|
| As for hidden cameras and unauthorised video: regulation
| is required. I'd suggest attacking the trade, transfer,
| and publishing of such video, as well as a strong right-
| to-privacy legislation. I'm not holding my breath,
| however.
|
| ________________________________
|
| Notes:
|
| 1. "Why Zuckerberg's 14-Year Apology Tour Hasn't Fixed
| Facebook", Zeynep Tufekci,
| <https://www.wired.com/story/why-zuckerberg-15-year-
| apology-t...>
|
| 2. <https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-
| news/a19490586/mark-zucker...>
| 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.
| [deleted]
| pcdoodle wrote:
| Looks like e-waste in the dump in about 3...2....1
|
| Don't wear these around me.
| happytiger wrote:
| I wonder how much of wearables is going to evolve to be just a
| mechanism to collect training data for AI (without having to pay
| for it)?
|
| Pretty valuable data.
| 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.
| itissid wrote:
| They can but remember, having location always on, collected
| when the app is backgrounded, is a deeply buried permission,
| once turned off it's hard to turn it back on(or in apples
| case reminding user with a map to tell you "xyz app has
| collected your location"); Google is poised to make it more
| difficult to activate.
|
| Now the Thing is even though background collection is bad in
| principle because apps must indicate purpose of use for such
| a sensitive permission and it's hard to think how apps can
| make a case for it; Google and apple apps still do it for
| their own apps by default!(Apple does not even have a wifi
| scanning API)
|
| The only way to get any location based notif while
| backgrounded for 3p apps is Geofencing which is narrow and
| not workable for location targeting.
| 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.
| p3rls wrote:
| Eventually everyone in the trades is going to have to wear
| these things.
| euroderf wrote:
| I foresee a new subgenre of reality shows.
| krrrh wrote:
| At least a year ago when I was playing around with TikTok
| live it was amazing how much of it was machinists,
| lumberjacks, or assembly line workers live-streaming their
| entire shifts. Some of the most interesting content on the
| platform.
| euroderf wrote:
| Hmm. The medium is the message.
| 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.
| tsumnia wrote:
| It will absolutely get integrated sooner rather than later. The
| Microsoft Hololens is still bulky compared to these, but is
| getting tested out right now by the US military to view the
| insides of aircrafts [1]. After a few more size and cost
| decreasing iterations, it will get quickly adopted.
|
| Granted, I'm a tech luddite by modern standards, so as a retail
| consumer I still fear ads all over my FOV. But for businesses
| there's absolutely a need, use case, everything for it.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV4EQ1Ltujs
| wolverine876 wrote:
| A Microsoft product is also well along in testing for
| infantry.
| bilekas wrote:
| If they made these without the camera and just kept the call
| functionality I would definitely be interested! My only concern
| is do they require a facebook account ?
| amjnsx wrote:
| That will probably come much later, once they have sold enough
| units. It's what they did with Oculus
| fbnbr wrote:
| This is way better than google glasses and less nerdy as apples
| vision
| [deleted]
| jprd wrote:
| The company that delivers an ability for me to just randomly
| capture video/pictures "in the moment" has my VR/AR/Glass-hole
| vote from Day One.
|
| My kids will (and I approve, to be honest) REFUSE to repeat what
| they just did for the camera, and if they see it out, will
| sometimes shutdown whatever AMAZING thing they just re-invented.
|
| The supercomputer taking "T3h B3st P1ctur3 Ev@R" in my pocket
| cannot solve that problem, but some rando "glasses"/"contacts"
| solution that could has been _just_ out-of-reach for this use
| case for what feels like decades ;)
| [deleted]
| bentcorner wrote:
| On one hand it's creepy, on the other being able to "DVR"
| unique events is going to fill YouTube with some pretty wild
| videos.
| anyoneamous wrote:
| Any other company and I might be excited, but Meta can get in the
| bin.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| [deleted]
| lucasyvas wrote:
| I hate to bring Apple into this, but these are a lot less shitty
| looking than I expected - I wonder what Apple could produce
| without the Meta baggage.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Imagine the creepy stuff people will be doing with this and deep
| fake tech? Taking a bunch of video of the cute girl who works at
| the bar and converting that into whatever sick fantasy you like.
|
| Imagine all the intimate footage you're sharing and will lose
| when Facebook eventually gets hacked...
|
| Kind of keen for someone to develop a portable EMP device...
| [deleted]
| 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."
| ladzoppelin wrote:
| Can you post where it says that, all I can find is "you
| will be notified"?
| wildrhythms wrote:
| It's right on the linked page, but you're right it
| doesn't say anything about being 'required' to uncover
| it.
|
| >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.
| ladzoppelin wrote:
| Wow, that is so dirty. They are doing the 2009 "get
| people to share things privately and then do a settings
| refactor that now makes the private things public until
| you reset them to private" Wow, I am sure this ends well
| for Rayband. :)
| TheHappyOddish wrote:
| It's also fairly trivial to disable an LED physically.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| On a site called "hacker news" how is this not mentioned
| at the top-level to all of the "an led prevents people
| from silently recording you"?
| yosito wrote:
| I had the original version of these, which didn't know if the
| LED was covered, but it didn't matter because no one even
| noticed when the LED was on, or if they did, they didn't seem
| to realize that it was a camera. I tried it at a party to get
| some candid shots with my friends. But in the end, the quality
| wasn't good enough for the candid shots to actually be worth
| keeping.
| 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?
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| Right, but only if you know what to look for, and are
| actively looking.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| The counter is to put on your own pair of glasses that have
| mirrored lenses, a laser beam scanning back and forth and a
| prominent shotgun microphone pointed at the other person.
| 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.
| ladzoppelin wrote:
| Wow you are right, does anyone know if this still records
| with the light off or covered?
| 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.
| justinclift wrote:
| By the time you've seen that led, it likely _far_ too late. :(
| 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]
| lannisterstark wrote:
| You have 0 expectation of privacy in public anyhow.
| sneak wrote:
| This is a USA doctrine, and fewer than 4% of people live
| there.
|
| Just because this is a fact of life in the USA doesn't mean I
| want ALPR devices on every street corner telling Zuckerberg
| et al every time I go out of my driveway and where.
| mempko wrote:
| Security cameras are everywhere. You are always being watched.
| 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.
| sheepscreek wrote:
| Have you heard of rewind.ai? It does exactly that but for your
| computer screen. I find it incredibly useful. Combined with
| this, the future looks very promising!
|
| [1] https://www.rewind.ai/
| darau1 wrote:
| This seems seriously cool. I wonder if its constant recording
| is going to fill up my HDD.
|
| edit: found the storage option. It defaults to keeping _all_
| data, but I 've changed that to one month retention -- they
| say they use around 14GB a month.
|
| It reminds me of having to use screen recording software for
| a previous remote job. I wished I could use that recording to
| do something exactly like this. Now, if only one could flip
| the script, and make the employer request that recording,
| instead of forcing one to share it.
| Varqu wrote:
| My biggest disappointment is that the product seems to be
| centered around recording/taking pictures and no AR features
| are advertised.
|
| The big question is what kind of development platform will it
| provide.
| danielvaughn wrote:
| Or imagine that you've got an AI taking in your video and
| giving you instructions, like while you're cooking or
| something.
| bacon_waffle wrote:
| At times in my life, I'd have paid good money to disable that
| feature of some NIs.
| danielvaughn wrote:
| NIs?
| bacon_waffle wrote:
| Natural Intelligences, it was an attempt at humor.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Imagine if you could take a picture of anything, add a little
| note, have it filed away.
|
| that's the plan, but for facebook's benefit instead of yours.
| We're not allowed to have cool new tech that doesn't exploit us
| in some way for the benefit of some one else.
| herbst wrote:
| A good start to make the tech more approachable for real
| hackers and nerds would be removing the Meta account
| requirement.
|
| But it's obvious they don't want that community.
| 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.
| herbst wrote:
| If meta had their own mobile OS, taking into account how
| they have little to zero care for European privacy laws or
| any privacy really, I highly doubt most people would feel
| comfortable having conversations with the device nearby.
| 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.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| As someone in that cohort, the number of people that feel
| the same way as me is nearly non-existent. The only
| people that seem to share the sentiment are my parents
| and my older colleagues. I have an Apple Watch primarily
| to avoid having to take my phone out while still being
| able to see important notifications (I love the focus
| mode stuff) so I'm not some kind of anti-tech ideologue
| either. Most other people are not only used to phones
| being out and around but the vast majority have no qualms
| about it.
| phyrex wrote:
| I got an Apple Watch for this reason when they first came
| out and found out that people constantly thought I was
| bored or had to leave because I kept glancing at my
| watch. Looking at the phone never got a negative
| response.
| euroderf wrote:
| As field anthropology, this is an interesting
| observation.
| JohnFen wrote:
| The vast majority of people I know, of all ages, consider
| this rude and unacceptable behavior.
| notJim wrote:
| It would be a rare thing that someone would actually be
| streaming or recording on them, unless you agreed to make a
| video. Technically someone could record your every
| conversation with their phone in their pocket or on the
| table, but no one worries about that, because it goes against
| the social contract. If one of your friends did that
| regularly, everyone understands it would likely be the end of
| that friendship, and others they shared that with would shun
| them. I think it's the same with these glasses.
|
| Another similar example is reading your SOs text messages. In
| the past this would be impossible because normal people
| didn't have a "paper trail", but now most everyone does. But
| it's not a huge concern for most people, because we know it's
| socially unacceptable to look at someone's messages without a
| very good reason.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| > It would be a rare thing that someone would actually be
| streaming or recording on them, unless you agreed to make a
| video.
|
| I'm not sure how you believe this.
|
| > Technically someone could record your every conversation
| with their phone in their pocket or on the table, but no
| one worries about that, because it goes against the social
| contract.
|
| Even if the social contract prevented this (I don't believe
| it does), there's little to no risk of someone being caught
| recording your conversations with them. No risk means no
| worry about the social contract.
|
| > But it's not a huge concern for most people, because we
| know it's socially unacceptable to look at someone's
| messages without a very good reason.
|
| I'm assuming you truly believe this, but to me, this is
| really starting to feel like parody.
| 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.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| > I mean, the light makes it VERY apparent when it's
| recording or taking a picture.
|
| Surely no one will figure out how to disable that light,
| right?
| _flux wrote:
| The page says it detects if the light is obscured and
| notifies the user in thatacse. That's doesn't sound quite
| the same as disabling camera in that case, but I imagine
| this is also one bit of metadata they collect and that
| could change in future versions..
| JohnFen wrote:
| Honestly, if someone is using their phone when I'm having
| lunch (or any social activity) with them, I'd be unlikely
| to have lunch with them again. They are clearly not
| interested in being social with me in the first place.
| yard2010 wrote:
| Facebook doesn't have to record the data to process it does
| it?
| 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
| somsak2 wrote:
| if you place a phone face-down and have the macro lens
| recording, you could pretty easily see both people at a
| table.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| I am not aware of a commonly used phone with a 180 degree
| FOV macro lens, but regardless of how a phone on the
| table makes me feel, someone holding a phone up, pointing
| at me for all of lunch, would be rude and discomforting.
| Gh0stRAT wrote:
| They could be pointing it mostly at the table (<45deg
| angle) and you'd still be in frame without realizing.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| I don't see how I could fail to notice that my fellow
| diner was rudely and discomfortingly holding or using
| their phone for the entire meal, or that they carefully
| balanced one end of their phone on top of stuff on the
| table at a 45 degree angle pointing towards me for no
| apparent reason
| saberience wrote:
| What? No you can't at all. Unless you got some mythical
| alien phone which doesn't exist.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| I'm sure this will be the first unhackable product in tech
| history. /s
| euroderf wrote:
| I vote for a flip-cover that visibly shows that the camera
| lens is covered. Like clip-ons, taken to the next level of
| dork.
| sentimentscan wrote:
| In some techno clubs they put a sticker to your camera
| lens, so you know that you aren't recorded
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| I've never had lunch with someone who was sitting there
| pointing their phone camera at me.
| amethyst wrote:
| With modern wide angle lenses, it doesn't even need to be
| pointed directly at you to get you completely in the
| frame.
| pests wrote:
| I don't know. Its weird. Kind of like how people have the
| "someone's staring at you" sense.
|
| > The biological phenomenon is known as "gaze detection"
| or "gaze perception." Neurological studies have found
| that the brain cells that initiate this response are very
| precise. If someone turns their gaze off of you by
| turning just a few degrees to their left or right, that
| eerie feeling quickly fades.
|
| I 100% beleive we also do this with smartphones. You can
| 100% detect when a smartphone is looking at you or just
| being held in your direction. It might not be proven
| scientifically yet but I know this in my soul.
|
| Similar to our ability to determine what someone else is
| looking at. We can watch someone's purpils move, and then
| immediately look at the exact area they looked at.
| huytersd wrote:
| Nonsense. If someone is sitting in front of you and they
| are texting, the camera is pointing at you.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| They don't sit there and point the camera at you for the
| _entire_ lunch. I don 't know what kind of people you
| have lunch with, but nobody holds their phone vertically
| and in your face when texting unless they have a serious
| social skills deficit. They tend to hold it a few inches
| above the table at a 45 degree angle, or even under the
| table.
| 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.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| With the macro lens mode on iPhones now, you can take a
| video of what's directly in front of you while pointing
| the camera at a downward angle. There's no way to tell a
| person doing that apart from a person who's texting,
| other than looking at their screen.
| pests wrote:
| I posted elsewhere in this thread but I think we can
| still detect this. There is a framing/tracking motion
| people do when recording that's not present when just
| texting or using the phone.
|
| > Brain imaging has shown that the brain cells which are
| activated when a test subject can see that they are being
| stared at are distinct from the cells activated when the
| starer's eyes are averted away from the subject by just a
| few degrees
|
| From Wikipedia[1], but I admit the claim is needing a
| citation but I feel strongly for the gaze detection
| argument at least.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_staring_effect
| Gh0stRAT wrote:
| Well in this hypothetical scenario, you are stationary
| (sitting across from each other) so there would be no
| tracking to notice.
| baby wrote:
| Just take them off when you have lunch? That's what I do with
| my sunglasses
| pmontra wrote:
| People don't do that with their prescription glasses. They
| also don't take off their sunglasses if they are having
| lunch outside in a bright place.
| baby wrote:
| My sunglasses are prescription glasses and I do that.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Maybe I haven't gotten far enough in the thread, but it seems
| like most people have forgotten that when Google came out
| with these, the people who were wearing them were called
| "glassholes".
| specproc wrote:
| Let's see how it runs with a decade's worth of water under
| the bridge. A lot of norms have changed since then. Still
| gives me the creeps.
| 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.
| [deleted]
| yard2010 wrote:
| Facebook loves to spy on other people and businesses without
| their consent and target its opponents like that, I've worked
| in a firm in which that happened. After a while the whole
| Cambridge Analytica fuck up came out and it was an A Ha moment
| for everyone involved.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Once battery life is solid and all bugs are worked out
| smart glasses will be as ubiquitous as smart phones
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _smart glasses will be as ubiquitous as smart phones_
|
| This reminds me of the difference between Apple and
| Google: a sense of style. I have no doubt smart glasses
| will find their niche in industry and among techies. But
| what people put on their faces is deeply tied to
| identity. Until the technology can exist virtually
| unseen, it's not going to compete.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Once smart glasses run solidly and can run mind blowing
| innovation / apps solidly too they are the next smart
| phone. Such innovations will sell smart glasses like apps
| drove smart phone sales.
|
| I think my argument is helped by the billions both
| Facebook and Apple are putting into smart glasses.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _my argument is helped by the billions both Facebook
| and Apple are putting into smart glasses_
|
| I accept the latter, though discard the former: they were
| trend following VR. I also think Apple, savvily, doesn't
| brand the Vision Pro as a pair of glasses. And it doesn't
| look like that's the vision (no pun intended). It's
| something that's put on and taken off. Not kept on
| continuously.
|
| By the way, I accept the vision. Just not the form factor
| of a pair of glasses. Those are closer to another Apple
| Watch than an iPhone killer.
| paul7986 wrote:
| In zuckerberg's speech he shows one of many innovations
| that will drive all current sunglass wearers to switch to
| smart sunglasses which is the glasses keeping score of
| your tennis, ping pong ..card game ..whatever game and
| displaying the score in your view.
|
| Though His example really just shows the glasses telling
| the player the tennis or pickle ball was out of bounds.
| I've just expanded it to keeping score of whatever game
| and or counting things in front of you to counting how
| many in a room to etc etc etc ones imagination can think
| of. The glasses will make life easier and in a magical
| way that drives all sunglass wearers (about 75 to 90
| percent of the entire global population) to switch to
| smart glasses.
| herbst wrote:
| What about Google? They realised years ago that the
| market doesn't really want their product and found other
| niches to build their glasses for. If it's so obvious why
| would Google not care and only meta (which has a bad
| track record in finding trends) and apple follow that
| 'trend'
| paul7986 wrote:
| Google isnt much of an innovator they will just copy or
| steal from the market leader who finally gets it right
| like they did with Android and like many of their other
| products ..Siri first then Google assistant ...Alexa
| smart speaker then Google home products and etc, etc, etc
| phkahler wrote:
| >> 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
|
| I was hoping to just say "Hey Meta, start recording". Totally
| hands free, even while driving or carrying stuff. I thought
| the whole point is to not have to mess with a phone.
| Gh0stRAT wrote:
| I'm sure you'll be able to use voice commands to take
| pictures/videos hands-free with these. jperras just said
| that THEIR ideal workflow would rely on a button.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| They still need the phone pairing to do all the tracking
| and telemetry data feeds back to the mothership.
| 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.
| theptip wrote:
| Not teaching your kids to be glued to a phone is actually a
| fairly compelling usecase here.
|
| I also like the idea of being able to remain mostly in the
| moment vs putting a phone in between me and the scene.
|
| Still not sure these justify wearing this device,
| particularly all the time. But perhaps it could be cool to
| wear for family outings or whatever, when you expect to
| want to take lots of photos?
| 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 ?
| pj_mukh wrote:
| Absolutely not. The application in mind only works when
| smart glasses and prescription/sunglasses are the same.
|
| This is not today, but no doubt where Meta's (and
| Apple's) major engineering effort is getting pushed into.
| 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.
| dmd wrote:
| Easy! At least on iphone, photos you delete are saved in
| the trash for 30 days. So - take the photo, and
| immediately delete it.
|
| Assuming you're not parking for more than a month, your
| photo will be in the trash if you need it, and will be
| automatically deleted if you don't!
| dave7 wrote:
| > This is on some android phones, double tapping power
| will open the camera.
|
| Holy... wow, thank you!
| 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.
| fragmede wrote:
| Or a smartwatch or Bluetooth remote. with a giant button that
| you can hit with gloves on. Like snowboarders use for music
| on the slopes.
| 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!
| scrumper wrote:
| I am currently in the middle of rebuilding a pair of 6.2L
| small block Chevrolet engines. By a factor of six these are
| the largest engines I've ever worked on, and the rebuild is
| far more extensive than anything I've attempted before too.
|
| During the teardown, part of my process (let's not dignify it
| with "workflow") has been photographing the incredible amount
| of crap that's been bolted to the engines as I remove pieces
| to help me with later reassembly. Sometimes I say a couple of
| words because the Live Photo captures some context.
|
| I have come to loathe my phone as a camera. Yes it works with
| gloves on, but every day it ends up covered in oil and
| grease. Holding it is awkward, you have to do a bunch of
| swipey things to make the camera work, the 3D Touch (or
| whatever it's called now) is somewhat random with gloves, and
| I've lost count of the number of times it's got itself stuck
| in portrait or panorama mode. Those of you with daughters
| will understand this ultimate critique - it was worth it to
| me to bribe my grumpy pre-teen to operate the camera rather
| than fighting it myself.
|
| All of this is to say, I could _really_ use a pair of camera
| glasses. That little bit of friction taken out of the process
| would make a massive difference to me. And if I could record
| video, I'd be able to add another middle aged man's amateur
| mechanics channel to YouTube - something that I am certain
| the world is desperate for.
| djtango wrote:
| FYI at least on my Android power key can be configured such
| that double press takes you straight to camera bypassing
| lock screen and volume down takes a picture.
|
| But I fully take your point that there is a need and use
| case for hands free cameras. The market for GoPros and to
| an extent drones highlights this
| bombela wrote:
| For what is worth, on my phone double click on the power
| button located on the side jumps into camera mode (even if
| locked). And pressing the volume down takes the photo. Then
| one click on the power button to turn off.
|
| click-click, click, click.
|
| And assuming the Google software doesn't decide to lag too
| much, it's quite quick to, and it reduces how much you
| touch the phone with dirty gloves.
|
| edit: I should add that you still need one hand free to do
| so of course.
| qup wrote:
| FWIW it sounds like you have a pixel. Other androids
| aren't quite the same, but often have similar shortcuts.
|
| The pixel is very quick to get the camera open, as you
| say.
| mildchalupa wrote:
| What is there to remember about tearing down an LS motor
| it's like Lego. It's also completely poka-yoked so it's
| idiot proof.
| scrumper wrote:
| Not a lot, but the snake orgy of wiring harnesses and the
| three or four plates of accessories bolted to each end of
| the heads and block and the specific order they're
| attached is a different story. Also, a monkey can tear
| down; putting it back together takes a human.
|
| I had to look up poka yoked. I thought it was some
| regional colloquialism but no, it's Japanese.
| elif wrote:
| Do you really want to bloody your knuckles wrenching with
| sunglasses on? I would last maybe 20 minutes before
| frustratedly throwing them at a wall... unless of course
| you are doing engine teardown out in the driveway.
| jonasdegendt wrote:
| There's models in the lineup with clear lenses.
| ilyt wrote:
| Gopro mount gonna be far cheaper than those
|
| > I have come to loathe my phone as a camera. Yes it works
| with gloves on, but every day it ends up covered in oil and
| grease. Holding it is awkward, you have to do a bunch of
| swipey things to make the camera work, the 3D Touch (or
| whatever it's called now) is somewhat random with gloves,
| and I've lost count of the number of times it's got itself
| stuck in portrait or panorama mode. Those of you with
| daughters will understand this ultimate critique - it was
| worth it to me to bribe my grumpy pre-teen to operate the
| camera rather than fighting it myself.
|
| Yeah, I wish my phone was like 3x thicker and just had a
| row of buttons on the side apps can use. Then just bind
| them to few common camera features rather than fidding with
| fucking touchscreen.
| pests wrote:
| What will the GoPro mount solve?
|
| > and just had a row of buttons on the side apps can use.
| Then just bind them to few common camera features rather
| than fidding with fucking touchscreen.
|
| That would be amazing.
| maroonblazer wrote:
| > What will the GoPro mount solve?
|
| Hands-free video recording, ala J Kenji Lopez Alt.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdFjuglEAds
| pests wrote:
| Totally different use case though. That's chest mounted
| pointing down. Sure, useful for some. Perfect for
| something like cooking.
|
| The benefit here I think is a more literal WYSIWYG - what
| you see is what you get. You see it, you get the photo of
| it.
| maroonblazer wrote:
| Nope, head-mounted.
|
| https://media.gq.com/photos/621e6cade2354d618c84380a/mast
| er/...
| pests wrote:
| Its still offset. If I turn my head sideways to look
| between something or under a car or anything close to the
| face really is out of focus or not even in view.
| bigbluesax wrote:
| Just do this ;)
| https://www.instagram.com/reel/BLO7_P_jIcR/
| therein wrote:
| Doing this especially while jumping around is an
| excellent way to injure your teeth.
| z2h-a6n wrote:
| > Yeah, I wish my phone was like 3x thicker and just had
| a row of buttons on the side apps can use. Then just bind
| them to few common camera features rather than fidding
| with fucking touchscreen.
|
| Surely this part is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Digital
| cameras still exist.
| xarope wrote:
| did you miss typing /s at the end
|
| but in all seriousness, I do still bring an olympus tg5
| "brick" for my climbing/mountaineering trips, because
| phones are just too cumbersome to take pictures with,
| when hanging off the side of a cliff, wearing gloves, at
| below freezing temps etc.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Or a smaller action cam like the Insta360 Go. It even has
| a water resistant body with a single somewhat
| configurable body button you could hit to start recording
| the clip. It's a third the size and weight of a GoPro
| though the video is definitely inferior.
| xp84 wrote:
| I'm with you man. Touchscreen reliance is cancer.
| eludwig wrote:
| Sounds like a perfect use-case for a GoPro?
| dharmab wrote:
| Headband mounted GoPros are awkward. A helmet mounted
| GoPro works better, but you're either not wearing a
| helmet, or if you are you probably need to keep it clear
| of protrusions for safety reasons.
| Robdel12 wrote:
| Take comfort in one thing: you're rebuilding one of the
| most popular and prolific platforms for hot rodders in the
| last 20 years. You can probably throw a rock and hit
| someone who can legitimately help you, haha.
|
| Rebuilding a junkyard ls (okay yours isn't a 5.3 ) is like
| the rite of passage
| qup wrote:
| I used to know a robdel.
|
| Does 312 mean anything to you?
|
| Edit: it's you--I stalked your comments. Emacs? Christ, I
| thought I showed you a better example.
| scrumper wrote:
| Yes it's been very easy to get advice, that's for sure,
| and it's made me want to go find a junkyard core and see
| if I can salvage it. Not that I have anything to put it
| in. This is a marine application so not everything
| applies (or applies differently) so the complexity is in
| navigating what's legitimately different vs. what's
| Mercruiser taking advantage of the ignorant.
|
| For example. The engine has EV6 Bosch injectors, a
| completely standard off-the-shelf part. A seal kit (i.e.
| a bunch of o rings) for the injectors is maybe $20 from
| Fel Pro. If you go by the Mercruiser part number for the
| kit it's - get this - $297. Two hundred and ninety seven
| dollars for sixteen tiny rubber o rings.
|
| The photographs (just to keep it on topic) are basically
| all around the accessories bolted to the heads and block.
| A remote oil filter, the heat exchanger, the particular
| fuel boost pump it uses, all with weird brackets and
| spacers and eight different types of bolt.
| gizajob wrote:
| Now your glasses will be able to get covered in oil and
| grease!
| scrumper wrote:
| Only if I touch them. And a single button I can cover
| with a bit of painter's tape.
| lsh123 wrote:
| I have exactly the same problem with dirty hands when I
| take boroscope photos of the engine on my plane. I would
| love to just see it in my glasses and say blink twice to
| take a photo.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| I'm pretty sure industrial processes are one of the only
| areas that smart glasses have achieved any real success,
| and for pretty much the reasons you're describing here.
| taf2 wrote:
| "Damn it Siri where did I leave my hammer?"
|
| "At 8:32, you were in the basement and left it on your work
| bench, it was very close to the edge of the table and possibly
| fell"
|
| Ah the easy life...
| baby wrote:
| I was waiting for them to say "hey Meta, who is this person
| again?" But that might have been too creepy for some people
| :)
| Snoddas wrote:
| I'm terrible at remembering names. This would be so useful
| on when attending workrelated functions.
|
| Privatly I only hang out with the same 5 people or so, so
| there I manage
| aaronharnly wrote:
| > Imagine if you could take a picture of anything, add a little
| note, have it filed away.
|
| This is more or less what Vanevar Bush imagined in his 1945
| article "As We May Think", which many consider the origin of
| hypertext [1].
|
| "On a pair of ordinary glasses is a square of fine lines near
| the top of one lens, where it is out of the way of ordinary
| vision. When an object appears in that square, it is lined up
| for its picture. As the scientist of the future moves about the
| laboratory or the field, every time he looks at something
| worthy of the record, he trips the shutter and in it goes,
| without even an audible click. ...
|
| And there is provision for direct entry. On the top of the
| memex is a transparent platen. On this are placed longhand
| notes, photographs, memoranda, all sorts of things. When one is
| in place, the depression of a lever causes it to be
| photographed onto the next blank space in a section of the
| memex film..."
|
| [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-
| we-m...
| 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.
| xarope wrote:
| The UX for the page is terrible, or else I'm too used to reading
| reference manuals. I can't figure out if the glasses can be used
| standalone, or need constant connection to a smart phone, nor
| battery life.
|
| Why? I actually think they might be quite useful for e.g. sports,
| where the athlete doesn't have a hand free for camera/smartphone.
| Kiro wrote:
| I get stuck in an infinite cookie popup loop so I can't even
| see the page.
| [deleted]
| xarope wrote:
| OK I found it, not in Specifications, but in the FAQ section
| (sigh).
|
| So looks like you need a smart phone, WIFI, and a meta account.
|
| So much for being useful for sports.
| tamimio wrote:
| What's needed?
|
| >A valid Meta account
|
| Pass.
| [deleted]
| thomasfl wrote:
| You may be a "glasshole" wearing this glasses. But you'll be a
| "glasshole" in timeless RayBan style.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| itissid wrote:
| I mean meta's first gen(they had glasses last year but they
| were not that good and were more of a test run).
| elif wrote:
| As a google glass early adopter, I must say that these glasses
| are 10x creepier because they are totally inconspicuous, higher
| quality camera, directly configured for immediate and even live
| internet upload, lets you cover the capture LED, has AI built
| into it, and is built by Facebook,
|
| Yet society will treat these as 10x less creepy because fashion.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| jcims wrote:
| Totally agree.
| [deleted]
| Lich wrote:
| Hm, might be useful when capturing fishing videos. Instead of
| strapping a gopro or insta 360 to your body, just wear these and
| you get the added plus of polarized glasses. The video doesn't
| seem to have any stabilization yet though, so maybe a few
| generations later would be better.
| fragmede wrote:
| That's just a software thing though. Not sure why they didn't
| run it through a stabilizer.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Hardware stabilization is superior to pure software
| stabilization. Software (aside from real fancy neural nets)
| can't fix pixels which are blurred from the camera rapidly
| moving while the shutter was open. My Panasonic GH5 has
| optical stabilization in the lens as well as a five axis
| linear motor system to move the camera sensor, and these
| systems work together to keep the image pipeline frozen in
| space even when the camera is physically moving. Makes a huge
| difference in image quality and overall camera system
| capabilities.
|
| I was curious if this is in use in smartphones. This
| reference [1] suggests that all iPhone 13 models have sensor
| shift stabilization, and I assume they have continued with
| this trend on newer releases.
|
| So yeah, proper stabilization is a hardware thing.
|
| [1] https://www.mysmartprice.com/gear/sensor-shift-
| stabilization...
| fomine3 wrote:
| Hardware stabilization is better but it takes space. For pure
| software stabilization, it can be done by PC or powerful
| smartphone so it's better to not to have on glass frame for
| saving battery.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| How is this any less creepy than a common shirt button spycam? If
| you are going to mention the led, think how fast this will be
| bypassed.
|
| https://gadgetsspy.com/button-camera/
| [deleted]
| mosselman wrote:
| Because it is RayBan and your aren't spying for yourself, but
| for Meta. /s
| pdntspa wrote:
| The relentless surveillance state marches ever onward...
| [deleted]
| Animats wrote:
| Camera sunglasses are available from others, and the others are
| better looking. How did Luxottica produce something so ugly?
| [deleted]
| rafaelmn wrote:
| Mention some ? I googled quickly and could only find cheap crap
| stuff - nothing in this class ?
| 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.
| [deleted]
| backtoyoujim wrote:
| I can't believe that people think that they need to give META yet
| even more access to human life.
|
| I just don't believe in the upside being reality.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| pxmpxm wrote:
| This - having an actual display that doesn't look gaudy would
| be great. For pictures and video, Google already tried the
| glasshole thing.
| devmor wrote:
| Yeah I don't really consider these "smart glasses" - they're a
| sunglass frame with built in airpods and a go pro.
|
| If someone could take the epson moverio and make it cordless,
| that's more like what I want from smart glasses.
| 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...
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| This technology creeps me out. I can't imagine interacting with
| someone who's wearing a pair of these, much less have a
| conversation. It would be like trying to talk with someone who's
| sticking their smartphone in your face.
|
| Better looking and more refined tech, but fundamentally Glasshole
| 2.0. Zuck is the perfect ambassador after Brin.
| [deleted]
| kbrannigan wrote:
| [flagged]
| zyang wrote:
| I hate everything about this tech. It invades people's privacy
| in-exchange for monetization and there's no way to opt-out.
| People made this happen should take a long walk and think about
| what they are doing with their lives.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| Just to clarify the cameras are very well fit into the profile
| of the glasses, so it doesn't look like "camera" glasses in
| person. Ray ban did a good job here.
|
| But on the flip side it's _very_ obvious when you're filming
| (bright white light comes on), so it's less creepy.
|
| Oh and obviously unless you're an influencer and streaming the
| camera aren't always active. I agree it's weird to hang out
| with streaming influencers.
|
| The way this + my Apple Watch has reduced my phone usage when
| on the go I _truly_ appreciate. I wish Facebook sold it with
| that point in mind but they won't for obvious business
| cannibalization reasons.
| dzonga wrote:
| anyone remember "snapchat is a camera company" ?
| andreyk wrote:
| Incidentally, I just bought the Gen 1 of these before departing
| on a trip to Japan a week ago. I gotta say, I'm very happy with
| the purchase - being able to take photos/videos for memory-
| capture type stuff (ie I don't care a lot about it being the best
| quality) without taking out my phone and pointing it at stuff has
| been great, and the speakers are surprisingly nice to use when I
| don't want to block out the sounds of my surroundings. To me the
| benefit is not being able to constantly or secretly record stuff,
| it's just a nicer way to use a camera to record memories on a
| trip that does not involve staring at a screen half the time.
| tjpnz wrote:
| Operating such a device in Japan puts you in a legal gray area,
| and depending on your behaviour could result in unwanted police
| attention. They will respond to reports of such devices being
| used near spaces frequented by women or children. Act
| responsibly.
| gumballindie wrote:
| As it should be. I am not comfortable with the idea that
| creeps are just walking around taking photos of me or my
| family.
| amrocha wrote:
| Don't worry nobody wants photos of you and your family
| CursedUrn wrote:
| Facebook does. They make billions of dollars a year from
| that kind of data.
| amrocha wrote:
| Facebook aren't "creeps", which is what the original
| comment was about
| JohnFen wrote:
| Facebook are absolutely "creeps".
| gumballindie wrote:
| They are, actually. It's a company that makes money off
| of people's photos among other things. I get it that
| _you_ have no issue with it, but why would I, having
| never given consent to that company to store images of
| me, be monitored by them? They don't have a right to
| monetize people that don't give consent. That's creepy.
| Draiken wrote:
| Are we forgetting that we live in cities with cameras
| literally everywhere?
|
| Where arguably the real creeps (cops and random security
| people) are actively watching you all the time.
|
| I get it, if a person takes out his phone to do this it
| feels more intrusive (if it is or not is up for debate),
| but let's not kid ourselves here: we're already being
| recorded at almost all times (at least in most cities).
| barrysteve wrote:
| Why would he be forgetting _that_? He 's allowed to be
| aginst both glasses and city-wide survelliance.
|
| This knee-jerk attempt to annul judgment has been so
| heavily bred into online discussions, since roughly 2018.
|
| Our current state of recording is not a counter argument
| to the concept, it's a stating of the facts.
| Draiken wrote:
| I cannot tell you why, or if in this specific instance
| they are forgetting or not.
|
| My point is more of a general one. The hypocrisy of the
| masses is real. Most only really care about the instances
| they can perceive and accept all other ones as long as
| they aren't inconvenient.
|
| I'm not trying to annul any judgements, merely point out
| that this is, in my view, no different than the already
| existing surveillance we live under. At this point having
| a camera in your glasses is merely a more convenient way
| to take pictures.
|
| And it's not like there aren't already glasses with
| cameras, for example. If a creep wants to creep, they
| will do it whether we want it or not. I simply don't
| understand how this product changes anything in relation
| to what already happens.
|
| We are already surveilled and creeps already take
| pictures.
| M4v3R wrote:
| This lowers the barrier to take unwanted photos/videos
| significantly. Yes, surveillance cameras are everywhere
| but your everyday person does not have access to their
| feed (and the publicly accessible ones are not that
| common and usually very far away). This is different from
| possibly being recorded by anyone you pass by in high
| resolution, for their own personal use.
|
| Also, today when a person takes a photo of you it's
| usually very apparent, hence most people hesitate just
| pointing a camera at you to shoot a picture. Tomorrow,
| when these become more and more popular, just a glance at
| someone will be enough and no one will hesitate.
|
| Finally, this argument is basically: "oh well, we live in
| a crappy world already, so making it even more crappy is
| not a problem".
| JohnFen wrote:
| > merely point out that this is, in my view, no different
| than the already existing surveillance we live under.
|
| Just because a Bad Thing is already foisted on us to the
| point where it's impossible to avoid doesn't make it OK
| to make that situation _even worse_.
| boffinAudio wrote:
| Well, don't go out into public then .. because others have
| every right to record what you are doing in public.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Sorry - I am confused. Are you saying that we should
| accept creeps lurking around taking photos of people?
| boffinAudio wrote:
| You should accept the fact that, while out and about in
| public, you have no expectation of privacy.
|
| In your own home - sure.
|
| Such is the price of freedom.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Such is the price of freedom.
|
| No. This is an example of reducing the freedom of some in
| order to increase the liberties of others.
| gumballindie wrote:
| > Such is the price of freedom.
|
| I am confused again. How am I free if my own persona is
| up for grabs by a business?
| boffinAudio wrote:
| You have the freedom to be outside and also record
| everything you perceive.
|
| You can't deny others that freedom and expect to attain
| it yourself, too.
|
| That you don't exercise that right is immaterial and has
| no bearing on whether I should be able to freely exercise
| that right as well.
| gumballindie wrote:
| But you are not a corporation?
| blagie wrote:
| .... somewhat ....
|
| In the US specifically, there are protected first
| amendment rights.
|
| However, plenty of people have genuine reason to be
| concerned. Stalkers. Witness protection. Etc. Having
| managed large datasets, these things come up fairly
| often. There's an incredible diversity of potential
| problems.
|
| It's not reasonable to tell everyone who has an issue
| like this: "Well, don't go out into public then"
| boffinAudio wrote:
| >somewhat
|
| Its a universal human right, actually, to be able to
| record anything you can perceive in public ... without
| that right we cannot exercise political freedom or our
| rights as individuals for redress.
|
| >It's not reasonable to tell everyone who has an issue
| like this: "Well, don't go out into public then"
|
| Of course it is. They have equal rights - and equal
| opportunity, therefore, to express - or not express -
| these rights.
|
| It is entirely up to the individual to make the decision
| to exercise those rights and to not deny them to others
| for any reason, as it is a fundamental, universal human
| right to record others in public.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Its a universal human right, actually, to be able to
| record anything you can perceive in public
|
| I completely disagree that this is (or should be
| considered) a universal human right at all.
| barrysteve wrote:
| Political freedom is exercized at the ballot box, not in
| photos of my wife.
| blagie wrote:
| > Its a universal human right, actually, to be able to
| record anything you can perceive in public ...
|
| No. It's not. Here: https://www.un.org/en/about-
| us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
|
| If you believe something is a right, and most other
| people don't, it's definitely not a universal right.
|
| What is an established universal human right is: "No one
| shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
| privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks
| upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to
| the protection of the law against such interference or
| attacks."
|
| > without that right we cannot exercise political freedom
| or our rights as individuals for redress.
|
| Yes. We can. We've done it since long before cameras
| existed, even. Where I live is moving towards a balance
| where, very grossly oversimplified:
|
| - Government officials have very little privacy
| protection, and first amendment trumps privacy
|
| - Private individuals have a lot of privacy protection,
| and privacy trumps first amendment
|
| That seems reasonable.
|
| I'd like corporations to have no privacy either, but
| that's not where we're landing.
| 34679 wrote:
| The founding fathers didn't record any video, publicly or
| privately. They were still able to "exercise political
| freedom".
|
| There's no such thing as a "fundamental, universal right"
| that requires the possession and use of a product.
| amrocha wrote:
| There's nothing illegal about these as long as you're not
| doing anything illegal. It's not illegal to take pictures of
| people in places where there's no expectation of privacy.
| graeme wrote:
| Are you commenting based on knowledge of Japan? To my
| knowledge they have laws against secret cameras in public
| places.
|
| From a quick search it is complicated and varied by
| prefecture and type of place.
| amrocha wrote:
| I live in Japan and see Chinese livestreamers walking
| around all the time. Stores are allowed to refuse their
| business, but it's not illegal to record others in
| public. Whether this counts as a hidden camera isn't up
| to me, but since it has a glowing LED indicating when
| it's recording I wouldn't think it would be a problem.
| ahmedfromtunis wrote:
| I'm curious about the quality of the footage -- not the video
| itself, but in terms of stability and clear (re)watchability.
| OrangeMusic wrote:
| In the promo content, all videos and photos are in portrait
| mode. Is it really the case? Can you do landscape?
| napo wrote:
| For me it says "unavailable" on all items. Is it the case for
| everyone? I'm wondering if it's because I'm based in France or if
| it's sold out.
| chmod775 wrote:
| Same in Germany. However since they're advertising it in both
| French and German, likely not for long.
|
| Not that I was going to buy that.
| octatrack wrote:
| Doesn't seem to be available in the EU.
| neom wrote:
| When you load the page it says right at the bottom in a banner
| "Available now for pre-order in the United States, Canada and
| the United Kingdom"
| 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.
| vidarh wrote:
| There are several glasses that allows live-streaming over
| wifi to your phone, and that _will_ give you access to
| the raw footage.
| 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.
| vidarh wrote:
| The _very cheapest_ don 't, but there are several who do,
| so again the only "new" thing is here is the branding.
| 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?
| CommitSyn wrote:
| In the jets, are all parts of the HUD always visible and
| they train to work around them as if it weren't part of the
| window but rather a permanent obstruction, or does the text
| pop up unexpectedly while they're flying?
|
| > Are you saying riding a motorcycle requires more
| concentration than flying an FA/18 Hornet?
|
| Are you saying that building strawmen is more important
| than the visibility of an FA/18 Hornet?
| sterlind wrote:
| the BMW motorcycle HUD doesn't have text that pops up
| unexpectedly, as far as I can see from the demo video.
| quite the opposite: the HUD stays in one place, and it
| only displays speed and navigation info, and it doesn't
| seem very obstructing.
|
| maybe we're talking about different smart glasses?
| [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.
| happytiger wrote:
| Am I the only one that finds the idea of live streaming from a
| pair of glasses utterly dystopian?
|
| You don't control the platform, and *everything you generate
| becomes irrevocable property of Meta forever*.
|
| Seems so very, _very_ unwise to me.
| [deleted]
| 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.
| [deleted]
| 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]
| docmars wrote:
| Amazing, after scrolling 75% down the huge-a$$ page, they finally
| show you what they look like after all the nearly useless
| features were showcased. Neato!
| 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.
| metadat wrote:
| Fuck Luxottica. One of the jerkiest and most abusive companies on
| Earth. They bought Ray-Ban and every other glasses company, and
| then enshittifyied each and every one. The worst.
|
| It's unfortunate FB has chosen to bed together with such a trash.
| expertentipp wrote:
| Yeah I was wondering how come every sunglasses cost north of
| EUR 150, and then learned about Luxottica.
| [deleted]
| 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]
| barrysteve wrote:
| Smart glasses are obviously a massive security threat for
| industrial espionage. You can ask people to keep their phones
| with security. Getting people to switch to contacts out of the
| blue, is much more difficult.
|
| James Bond's job is trivial with these. Elon Musk would lose his
| legs, if his nation-state competitors (whom probably build these
| glasses) walked into SpaceX and copy pasted the billion dollar
| plans to his rockets.
|
| American tech is the leakiest abstraction.
|
| If a President's daughter is caught doing something
| diplomatically controversial with these (or caught because of
| these)... they won't last long!
| derangedHorse wrote:
| It's kind of underwhelming as a product. I don't see the average
| individual desiring this so they can take pictures or livestream
| to Instagram and Facebook. It could've been a cool tool for
| streamer if it allowed streaming to Twitch, Kick, etc, but Meta
| technologies limits its viability for that.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Think it's pretty clear that they're trying to make AR glasses
| in this form factor, like Apple has been trying to both are
| hitting up against technology very hard limits.
|
| Apple's approach seems to be now, make a VR headset with
| extremely high quality passthrough and hope they can solve it
| down to glasses over the next decade.
|
| Meta's approach seems to be make a really good stand alone VR
| headset (already done) and now make a glasses form factor with
| whats possible today and hope to make them meet in the middle
| some how eventually.
|
| Both these product roadmaps are from a pre-ChatGPT world and
| seem strange now especially Vision Pro. I fully expect Meta to
| move more into trying to retool the glasses into a AI assistant
| led product and slowly move the full AR Glasses to the
| backburner.
| anotherevan wrote:
| And here I just got my Vocalskull bluetooth audio glasses a few
| weeks ago.
|
| https://vocalskull.com/
| pierat wrote:
| Why should I care about any technology of a company that was
| founded to nonconsenually rate the fuckability of Harvard
| undergrads, and then a whole lot worse?
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| > designed for living in the moment while expressing yourself to
| the max.
|
| Why would they write copy like this? Surely it causes a visceral
| cringe reaction in anybody over 35, say.
|
| Is Generation Z a clean slate for 1980s vague hyperbolic ad-
| speak?
| [deleted]
| 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.
| [deleted]
| Snoddas wrote:
| Besides any privacy issues, a someone that wears glasses full
| time the 4hour battery limit makes this a no starter
| arnonejoe wrote:
| Didn't Google already try this with Google Glass?
| [deleted]
| chrischen wrote:
| No, but Snapchat did. Also Facebook did too.
| asah wrote:
| for prescription, visit the ray-ban website
|
| ==> no way to order prescription glasses
| nikolay wrote:
| No Rx?
| Taniwha wrote:
| Gargoyles!
| yayr wrote:
| Video: Vertical default/1440 x 1920 pixels at 30 fps is
| disappointing. Future VR headsets will have a much higher
| resolution.
| vinay_ys wrote:
| I seriously hope this doesn't take off and fails spectacularly
| like Google Glass. I don't want a society where the people I'm
| interacting with are always recording everything around and
| giving it to a private profit corporation who can change their
| minds about what they will do all that private data any time they
| like.
| dmje wrote:
| Agree. And the hilarity of selling this as "being in the
| moment"...
|
| Urgh.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| adityathakurxd wrote:
| Privacy concerns would be paramount. Have they released
| anything on how they would address this?
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| Actually I find the idea of recording everything (or maybe not
| everything, but seamlessly recording whenever I want) quite
| attractive. I have a bad memory and would love to be able to
| rewatch good moments of my life.
|
| The part about all that data being in control of powerful
| corporations, though... that's what makes me thing that I'd
| prefer it to fail as well.
|
| I wish we could have this sort of tech outside of the framework
| of modern capitalism.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| For personal use I kind of agree with you but I would be very
| concerned about the stalking potentials. We're already seeing
| huge issues of women being targeted by guys making and
| distributing "creepshots" and now deepfake based harassment.
| Constant recording is both a tool to increase access to women
| in public places as well as to separate the user's feelings
| from the world they're inhabiting.
|
| Edit: I note that someone else is in the thread already
| saying "It's going to be awesome for amateur porn" without
| any caveats about the rampant consent issues of amateur
| pornography, revenge porn or age verification.
| cm2012 wrote:
| It's going to be awesome for amateur porn
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| For some definitions of awesome.
|
| Amateur pornography already has huge issues with consent
| and age verification, and is also more and more being
| weaponised against women as revenge pornography.
| merlincorey wrote:
| You should look into something called "Sousveillance".
| repeekad wrote:
| Also "The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling" by Ted
| Chiang
|
| Less about the panopticon of surveillance, but about the
| ramifications of having perfect memory in your daily
| personal interactions.
| vinay_ys wrote:
| I wonder if using less of memory-recall capabilities of the
| brain will lead to loss of other important capabilities. So,
| I worry if using too much tech crutches is going to be
| detrimental.
| Kiro wrote:
| Shouldn't the first step be to find out if your speculation
| has merit before you start worrying about it?
| plugin-baby wrote:
| All the bad moments would be recorded too, and many of the
| recordings would be outside of your control.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| I would choose what to play, but of course, the "outside my
| control" part is the problem.
| plugin-baby wrote:
| Many may be unable to resist the temptation to watch
| things that won't make them happier.
| alt227 wrote:
| Apple have done all the hard work here by releasing the vision
| pro and convincing all normal people that AR is 'cool' instead
| of 'wierd' now.
| 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]
| marsknight wrote:
| There...
|
| https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_99521193833...
| [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.
| ladzoppelin wrote:
| How are they allowed to legally do this?
| https://www.meta.com/help/smart-glasses/articles/assistant/h...
| [deleted]
| rockemsockem wrote:
| It'd be great if I could get these and _not_ have to login to any
| account.
| [deleted]
| anonu wrote:
| Wearing Google Glass made you a glasshole. Snapchat Spectacles
| spectacularly never took off. I hope these Smart Glasses make you
| look dumb and nobody buys them. I think the major issue is the
| camera, for me ...
|
| What i would pay for is minimalist eyewear with a heads-up
| display. That would be useful
| [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.
| [deleted]
| standardly wrote:
| The same selling points are reiterated over and over again
| without much detail.
|
| It has a camera. It has speakers. It integrates with social
| media.
|
| I guess there isn't a HUD or anything AR-related? It's just a
| smart watch, except glasses? That is...marginally useful, but not
| that interesting considering what google glass was doing like 10
| years ago. I just don't see a use for these.
| 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
| PeterStuer wrote:
| I'm sure you are paying meta more than enough by all the wealth
| of data they will get on you from this.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Take into account that the regular Ray-Bans are about 99%
| margin
| polar8 wrote:
| Source?
| 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.
| syndicatedjelly wrote:
| Facebook/Meta isn't a member of FAANG for nothing
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| They're a surveillance company, not an audio company.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| > lol, facebook can barely get the glasses to play sound
| reliably, they aren't spying on you with these glasses.
|
| Based on what do you assume playing sound reliably is a
| harder or more priority problem than spying on you?
| KaiserPro wrote:
| based on engineering a product that has a power capacity
| of <2 watt hours, to work reliably and is able to play
| and stream audio correctly.
|
| To spy on someone using these glasses would mean decent
| audio stack that can actually reconnect by its self,
| rather than having to power cycle the entire device.
|
| Not only that, but a level of attention to detail that
| means that what ever spying it does can happen reliably
| and inside a _tiny_ power envelope.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying _don 't_ be suspicious
| of facebook, What I'm asking is to actually interrogate
| their level of skill.
|
| facebook are frankly shite at software, just use _any_ of
| their supporting apps.
|
| o Portal, great hardware, shame that it never connected
| reliably.
|
| o oculus: They have the power of
| facebook/instagram/social graph, yet its _impossible_ to
| join your mate in game. Something Steam nailed in the
| days of dialup
|
| o Rayban: cannot play audio reliably, pretty tricky to
| download pictures.
|
| o Advertising: fuck me, its like oracle had a baby with
| SAP, and force fed it MS access forms.
|
| Yes, yes its an advertising giant. But have you tried to
| get any usable and accurate data out of it?
|
| Stop building them up like they are an unstoppable genius
| factory. Its basically a bunch of confused cats trapped
| under a duvet. The difference being those cats can drive
| advertising clicks.
| 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.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Windows 1.0 was release 38 years ago, microsoft has
| changed persona at least three times since then.
|
| Not that we _shouldnt_ be suspicious of facebook, but we
| really must actually seek evidence rather than just decry
| them as witches. It lets other companies get away with
| loads simply because they are well liked.
| 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.
| maxwell wrote:
| Sounds a bit like Tony Hsieh, who got us all out to the
| bars in downtown Vegas in 2013 in the first place. Does
| seem like Zuck has healthier hobbies and a different sort
| of discipline.
|
| That said, yes, the first time I met Tony he was sitting
| at a bar with a meat grinder, yes I spotted him swinging
| around Slim Jims in a mariachi suit atop a mecha
| grasshopper shooting flames out its mouth one time, but I
| guess I don't image he ever killed a mammal for no reason
| and served it cold to a vegetarian (he loved his llamas!
| RIP)
| 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.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| > You could hip-shoot accurately from a dead sprint. It's gonna
| be pretty rad.
|
| Sounds pretty terrifying to me. A real life aimbot, that any
| human being can use for 1 shot 1 kill.
| MilStdJunkie wrote:
| Honestly the idea of some asshole dead-dropping an armed
| sentrybot is far, far scarier to me. A couple of giggle-
| switch Glocks with drum mags, hooked up to a "Blast Anything
| That Moves" gimbal, would probably be deadlier than the same
| weight/volume of high explosive. Bullets don't care about the
| inverse square law.
| 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?
| marsknight wrote:
| There...
|
| https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_99521193833...
|
| Is my opinion about it.
| Coryodaniel wrote:
| Least cool thing I've ever seen.
| washywashy wrote:
| We need to invent something that does the opposite now where
| individuals could wear something that prevents them from showing
| up in someone else's content without explicit digital consent
| (some sort of personal scrambler). I don't think the LED feature
| listed on this product page will often be honored by most people
| who will use these shades
| world2vec wrote:
| In the sci-fi novel "The Mountain in the Sea" (highly
| recommended btw) there is a piece of tech called "abglanz"
| which is an identity shield mask that flickers in iridescent
| blurry patterns to protect a person's privacy from camera
| surveillance.
| joshstrange wrote:
| I seem to recall a similar device in. "Fall; or, Dodge in
| Hell". I think it was a collar-type device you wore but maybe
| it was closer to a helmet.
| FloayYerBoat wrote:
| Similar necklace in Daemon / Freedom by Daniel Swarez.
| washywashy wrote:
| Also gevulot in Quantum Thief - mentioned in nested comment
| above
| dblangford wrote:
| A similar device is central in Philip K Dick's "A Scanner
| Darkly" too.
| iammjm wrote:
| I saw some such wearables during the Hong Kong demonstrations
| couple of years back
| sentimentscan wrote:
| Do you have a link to that?
| rollcat wrote:
| > some sort of personal scrambler
|
| We're nearly at the "Foundation" levels of surveillance tech,
| but with no countermeasures in sight to oppose that. Even
| resisting web browser fingerprinting is difficult.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| A Halloween costume that changes the shape of the body and
| face should suffice. Let's all dress up as "V" from V for
| Vendetta. Some would say a persons _gait_ can give them away
| so we can all walk or _sashay_ like a runway model. The
| costume needs an RF blocking pocket for fondle slabs. I can
| picture this happening. Low tech, affordable, concept can be
| applied to any costume. Optional platform boots to balance
| peoples height.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| An old, low-tech way to change gait, is to put a small
| pebble in your shoe.
| barrysteve wrote:
| Nobody with an effective countermeasure is going to share it,
| or even let you know it exists.
|
| The days of open communication about privacy (lol) are long
| gone!
| washywashy wrote:
| It's not so much having a countermeasure but having
| countermeasures be built in to the system. Similar to a
| concept called gevulot in the book Quantum Thief.
| rollcat wrote:
| There are strong incentives for secrecy (military
| applications), hence encryption which provides solid
| foundations for private communication in civilian tech. I
| wonder if counter-surveillance tech could take the same
| route (e.g. ordinary soldiers can no longer afford to not
| carry a smartphone -> strong incentive to protect them from
| tracking; maybe I'm extrapolating too far).
| autoexec wrote:
| It's more likely that the military would provide soldiers
| with phones using a special version of Android with less
| tracking than it is that they'd mandate Google stop
| snooping on everybody for national security reasons. They
| take advantage of the data Google collects, the fact that
| everyone is carrying a mobile wire (mic and camera)
| filled with radios collecting and broadcasting location
| info, and that for many people a single device they carry
| acts as a treasure trove of information on them, who
| they've been talking to, and what they've been doing.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| There are no "hard" countermeasures possible, not
| technological ones - you're fighting _against_ the laws of
| physics here, which mandate that everything constantly
| radiates information about what it 's doing, in every
| direction, at the speed of light. Advancement of surveillance
| is advancement in being able to discern that information. You
| can try and introduce noise, but you're still fighting
| uphill, against the whole fields of signal processing and
| information theory.
|
| The only "countermeasures" we can have are "soft" ones -
| social, political and legal. Convince people to treat privacy
| as core value, and surveillance as repugnant. Make forms of
| surveillance illegal. Mandate by law to have surveillance
| capabilities in devices handicapped by design. But this, at
| best, only solves the problem for regular people and some of
| the time, while governments stay stable and sane - the
| possibility of deeper surveillance is still there, just the
| choice to perform it seems unattractive at a given moment.
| curation wrote:
| They Live! (1988) - we need to invent these glasses that lay
| bare our unknown knowns.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Thinking out loud:
|
| This sounds like legislation. Mandate (with stiff penalties for
| violations) that any recording in the presence of a certain BLE
| advertised value (that's anonymized) means that all people
| should be removed from the scene with current image generation
| AI tooling? Not sure what to do about in frame vs out of frame,
| but perhaps this sparks something.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| Something like the scramble suit from A scanner darkly? It's
| based on Philip K. Dick's novel published in 1977.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aS4xhTaIPc
| [deleted]
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Like that suit in A Scanner Darkly.
| cypherpunks01 wrote:
| Check out Adam Harvey's "CV Dazzle" and other related design
| efforts. CV Dazzle is from 2010 but still very cool, the
| concept is generally to design cyberpunk clothing and headware
| that is adversarial to face detection algorithms. Algorithms
| are always changing, but I'm sure there will always be attacks
| of this nature. We could see them pop up in military
| applications in addition to personal privacy.
|
| https://adam.harvey.studio/cvdazzle
|
| https://yr.media/tech/guide-to-anti-surveillance-fashion/
| rijoja wrote:
| So that you can't use them to protect yourself against people
| stalking you, or to collect evidence in the case of potential
| crime?
| mmaunder wrote:
| Glassholes all over again?
| [deleted]
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| Lol. These are just headphones with a creepy camera attached.
| spaceprogrammer wrote:
| no display? too bad
| [deleted]
| EMCymatics wrote:
| Google hurt me before. Please dont hurt me meta.
| cik wrote:
| Adversarial clothing startups could very easily become more
| important.
| [deleted]
| leros wrote:
| I looked at these at RayBan the other day. They're pretty cool
| especially for the price, but requiring a Meta account and Meta
| app ruined it for me.
| baby wrote:
| What's wrong with that?
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Yup after what they forced us with oculus quest I'm never
| buying a meta device again. Also they are very poor on repairs
| and parts. I broke one of the quest controllers and never got a
| replacement.
| 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.
| surfingdino wrote:
| Vloggers will love it.
| bArray wrote:
| > Live-stream*
|
| > *Feature requires 5G Wi-Fi or mobile data and minimum ambient
| temperature condition of at least 5degC. Performance varies based
| on user location, device battery, temperature, Internet
| connectivity and interference from other devices, and many other
| factors.
|
| Connection is understandable (although in some cases 4G will
| actually be faster). But that temperature requirement for
| operation is actually quite strict. Any idea why that might be?
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| Just thinking out loud. Battery damage at a guess. Video
| streaming can be pretty power hungry (you're running the
| camera, encoding the video, and flinging those bits over the
| air) on a device that sits on your face.
|
| Depending on the construction of the device you can rely on the
| heat from doing that work to warm the battery up so not so bad
| (think your smart phone, which also spends most of its time in
| your pocket while outdoors so doesn't get "that cold" to begin
| with), these glasses could have their battery further away from
| the electronics (thinking out loud prob battery in one arm,
| electronics in the other) and are probably more prone to be
| uninsulated form the elements while out and about.
| bArray wrote:
| > Battery damage at a guess. Video streaming can be pretty
| power hungry (you're running the camera, encoding the video,
| and flinging those bits over the air) on a device that sits
| on your face.
|
| I thought about that, but surely internal battery resistance
| would be lower at lower temperatures?
|
| The other thing I thought about is some movable part of the
| device, such as a lens that has some actuation. You might
| just refuse to work at near freezing temperatures to prevent
| damage to that?
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| Its been a while since I did any major research on the
| matter (Thankfully I only deal with batteries indoors these
| days) but iirc when I used to build homemade RC airplanes,
| the internal resistance does start increasing the lower the
| temp gets and that the anode starts getting damaged (at
| least it wears quicker) discharging the battery at lower
| temps.
|
| My guess as to why they do it, is to maintain the "expected
| battery life cycles".
|
| >The other thing I thought about is some movable part of
| the device, such as a lens that has some actuation. You
| might just refuse to work at near freezing temperatures to
| prevent damage to that?
|
| Very possible.
|
| EDIT: However, if it was mechanical, why doesn't there seem
| to be such a restriction while taking photos?
| bArray wrote:
| Wasn't aware of the battery chemistry involved, thanks!
| [deleted]
| RagnarD wrote:
| Did Facebook (er, Meta) completely overlook the extreme backlash
| to the same concept 10 years ago with Google Glasses? Just look
| up articles from that time, e.g.
| https://nypost.com/2014/07/14/is-google-glass-cool-or-just-p...
| What makes them think it's different this time?
|
| From 2014:
|
| ""Glasshole" has become the term du jour, and outrage has
| spiraled so out of control that San Francisco has seen a series
| of reported attacks on users.
|
| New York City's not immune to the backlash, either.
|
| Gottfried chased down a man who had stolen his Glass right off
| his face. (He also had an incident at a San Francisco bar where
| drunken patrons accused him of recording them. He insists he
| wasn't.)
|
| In April, a techie war erupted when East Village restaurant Feast
| kicked out Glass-user Katy Kasmai after she refused to remove her
| device. Kasmai vented online, and hundreds of Glass groupies
| rallied against Feast on Google, accusing the eatery of
| discriminating "against people who are into new technology."
|
| Feast co-owner Brian Ghaw is unapologetic. He says Feast's no-
| Glass policy is for guests' peace of mind. "They just felt
| uncomfortable about having somebody who could potentially
| videotape them," explains Ghaw. "If someone were sitting at a
| table with their smartphone constantly pointing in a certain
| direction and you didn't know what they were doing with it, you'd
| feel pretty uncomfortable as well.""
| [deleted]
| atoav wrote:
| I cannot view the contents of the page as declinging the optional
| cookies sends me... back to the page where I need to decline
| optional cookies.
|
| True professionals at meta.
| [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.
| [deleted]
| 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
| crakhamster01 wrote:
| It sounds like they have that planned in the short-term, and
| from the presentation, multi-modal AI "sometime next year"
| (e.g. answering "What is this building that I'm looking at
| right now?").
| 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
| Agentlien wrote:
| For some reason this really doesn't work for me. I have also
| enabled the extra feature of locking the touch screen when in
| dark places, too. I still regularly get my pocket navigating
| my browser and my ear starting songs on Spotify mid-call.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| That wouldn't work with all materials that could be used to
| cover the camera. The proximity sensors that you describe are
| designed specifically to measure the change in capacitance
| due to proximity _to a human_ ; they can't detect something
| like a blob of glue that causes no change in capacitance.
| 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.
| schroeding wrote:
| I wonder if one could just replace the LED with a UV one,
| depending on the tolerances this kind of detection may still
| work while being visibly "off". :/
| DistractionRect wrote:
| Probably this. Doing so would allow one to check for
| agreement between the video feed and the light sensor.
| 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.
| wilg wrote:
| > Either way the moment that light comes on you're getting
| punched if you point it at the wrong person.
|
| Seems not worth worrying about.
| 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.
| duxup wrote:
| Glasses seem pretty good route. Normal things people wear...
| [deleted]
| adbutterfield wrote:
| Welcome to the era of true pov porn!
| nidnogg wrote:
| I much preferred Google Glass's futuristic but minimal look that
| could fit into a bunch of different models.
|
| Personally I've never liked Wayfarers/Headliners (they also fit
| atrociously), so it's disappointing to see them take center stage
| here. At least the pricing is ok I guess? Fingers crossed for
| future models.
| karaterobot wrote:
| What I hope happens is that a few people with actual power are
| caught on camera by one of these things, and feel their privacy
| was violated, and then consent laws around recording in public
| change as a result. The ones we have are pretty old, and not
| ready for the future that is already here, let alone the one that
| is coming. I'm not holding my breath for this, it's just what I
| can imagine being the best outcome.
| aemreunal wrote:
| The issue with that is that it's a very slippery slope. Same
| laws could be used against people recording police interactions
| in public, for example, or other interactions where a private
| citizen is harassing another private citizen. It really needs
| to be carefully worded to avoid those pitfalls and I have a
| feeling that a lot of lawmakers would want to keep it
| intentionally vague.
| [deleted]
| jejeyyy77 wrote:
| lol
| sschueller wrote:
| Ignoring the fact that I don't like this kind of product due to
| privacy implications especially in places like Switzerland and
| Germany.
|
| What I find sucks here is that meta is able to create such
| products but no one else can because instagram and facebook live
| are locked down. There is no way for me to live stream to either
| platform without using meta's proprietary apps.
|
| At least over at google and twitch I can send my live stream from
| any device.
| [deleted]
| jhugo wrote:
| Both Instagram and Facebook Live support receiving your live
| stream over RTMP.
| sschueller wrote:
| Thanks, last time I checked it was not possible but it
| appears there is now something since Nov 2022.
|
| https://about.instagram.com/blog/tips-and-
| tricks/instagram-l...
| 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.
| Andi wrote:
| The website is not usable. The cookie dialogue is shown again and
| again.
| ChicagoDave wrote:
| Can't wait to see casinos banning these things.
| coolandsmartrr wrote:
| You remind me of Edward Thorp, who counted Blackjack cards and
| later became even wealthier with his hedge fund. He has
| envisioned of wearables making counting easier.
| 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.
| notJim wrote:
| What would you use it for? I kind of like it conceptually, but
| hard to imagine how I'd actually use it.
| goodoldneon wrote:
| Would be great while driving. Better than a dash cam
| r0fl wrote:
| Useful when travelling so you don't have a phone in your hand
| at all times.
|
| Few things are more enjoyable for me than looking at photo
| albums from trips I took years ago with loved ones.
| baby wrote:
| When I was younger I would have totally bought that for
| partying :D now perhaps for sightseeing and tourism or just
| general fun
| Lorenzo45 wrote:
| I bought a pair last year and have taken it on a few trips.
| It's been great for certain activities where I want to take
| pictures/videos but don't want to have a phone in my hand
| (like on a boat or parasailing).
|
| Another thing I noticed is that it allows me to record videos
| while staying in the moment. I took some videos with my wife
| and captured some cute interactions and conversations that I
| wouldn't have been able to record with my phone.
|
| Most of the photos and videos don't turn out great because of
| the camera/mic quality and because you can't see what's in
| frame but I got some fun videos from them.
| deanCommie wrote:
| Honestly my biggest beef with this isn't the quality but the
| field of vision.
|
| It's so incredibly narrow and not at all how we imagine a
| "first person perspective" looks like for a human. (I know we
| lie to ourselves, and think that our peripheral vision is
| better than it is, but it doesn't matter)
| baby wrote:
| I think they did this so that it's compatible with
| instagram/phones. But I expect that you'll be able to take
| normal videos too
| parentheses wrote:
| Yes. I think this was a conscious choice. The field of view
| allows for a more compelling AR/VR projection.
| rychco wrote:
| I like the idea, as long as I can use it 100% independently of
| Facebook/Meta services (which I don't use).
| rado wrote:
| That wonky carousel breaks the whole page:
| https://i.imgur.com/TkTKE06.png I wonder how many more millions
| of $ and megabytes of frameworks it would take to just make a
| decent web page which isn't broken.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-28 23:03 UTC)