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

491–500 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#491

Post by [deleted] »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #427
api_or_ipa wrote: post #70

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…

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]

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#492

Post by danShumway »

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#493

Post by notJim »

haunter wrote: post #140

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.

What would you use it for? I kind of like it conceptually, but hard to imagine how I'd actually use it.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#494

Post by gascoigne »

MrMetlHed wrote: post #386
api_or_ipa wrote: post #70

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…

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 conside…

> 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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#495

Post by phyrex »

dkonofalski wrote: post #462
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#496

Post by ilyt »

scrumper wrote: post #425
jperras wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 as…

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 piec…

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#498

Post by phkahler »

jperras wrote: post #277
ianbicking wrote: post #259

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 s…

> 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 as…

>> 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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#499

Post by phkahler »

danShumway wrote: post #492

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…

>> 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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#500

Post by koube »

MrMetlHed wrote: post #386
api_or_ipa wrote: post #70

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…

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 conside…

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.
Post reply on HN