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

501–510 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#501

Post by amethyst »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #423
Gh0stRAT wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've never had lunch with someone who was sitting there pointing their phone camera at me.

With modern wide angle lenses, it doesn't even need to be pointed directly at you to get you completely in the frame.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#502

Post by danShumway »

phkahler wrote: post #499
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.

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#503

Post by TheHappyOddish »

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.

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#505

Post by flockonus »

gascoigne wrote: post #494
MrMetlHed wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where did you get 720p from? On the website it says 12MP, which i believe is equivalent to 4k resolution.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#506

Post by Lorenzo45 »

notJim wrote: post #493
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.

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#507

Post by braislan »

Gud wrote: post #191
addicted wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

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.

"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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#508

Post by karaterobot »

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#509

Post by huytersd »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #423
Gh0stRAT wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've never had lunch with someone who was sitting there pointing their phone camera at me.

Nonsense. If someone is sitting in front of you and they are texting, the camera is pointing at you.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#510

Post by danShumway »

TheHappyOddish wrote: post #503
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. 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 u…

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.

Post reply on HN