121–130 of 967 posts
> 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.
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…
I already do this with mine using audio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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?
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.
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.
Interesting that the price is only around $100 more than regular Ray-Bans
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.)
the only people who will buy these are creeps who want to secretly record other people in public
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
lol, facebook can barely get the glasses to play sound reliably, they aren't spying on you with these glasses.
Compare Windows 1.0 (https://winworldpc.com/product/windows-10/101) with Windows 10/11.
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.
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…