Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#181

Post by cvccvroomvroom »

netsharc wrote: post #134
maxwell wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#182

Post by cvccvroomvroom »

toyg wrote: post #59
operatingthetan wrote: post #7

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.

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 pric…

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#183

Post by kstrauser »

callalex wrote: post #150
samtheprogram wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 you…

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...

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#185

Post by cvccvroomvroom »

trey-jones wrote: post #89

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 t…

Except they're not Quest or phones. They're glorified BT speakers with a GoPro.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#186

Post by Gud »

SantalBlush wrote: post #149
Animats wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Then how do they deliver ads?

They deliver ads to the people being filmed with the glasses, once they're identified and tracked by facebook.

I wonder if Zuckerberg one day will wake up and realize what he's doing to the world.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#187

Post by nerdjon »

cvccvroomvroom wrote: post #169
nerdjon wrote: post #35

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 q…

They're voice assistants with a button on the glasses. It's a half-baked idea that lacks utility.

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#188

Post by cvccvroomvroom »

7moritz7 wrote: post #62

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

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#189

Post by dredmorbius »

Eji1700 wrote: post #84
sp3000 wrote: post #8

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.

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 ph…

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 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>

Post reply on HN