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

571–580 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#571

Post by baby »

taf2 wrote: post #531
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…

“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…

I was waiting for them to say “hey Meta, who is this person again?” But that might have been too creepy for some people :)

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#572

Post by baby »

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.

When I was younger I would have totally bought that for partying :D now perhaps for sightseeing and tourism or just general fun

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#573

Post by baby »

deanCommie wrote: post #420
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.

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)

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

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#574

Post by Gh0stRAT »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #558
somsak2 wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you place a phone face-down and have the macro lens recording, you could pretty easily see both people at a table.

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.

They could be pointing it mostly at the table (<45° angle) and you'd still be in frame without realizing.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#575

Post by Gh0stRAT »

pests wrote: post #522
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 f…

Well in this hypothetical scenario, you are stationary (sitting across from each other) so there would be no tracking to notice.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#577

Post by wyclif »

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…

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.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#578

Post by wyclif »

KarlKode wrote: post #385
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…

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…

Luxottica cannibalized and cheapened Ray-Bans a long time ago; see my comment above.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#579

Post by aaronharnly »

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.

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...

Post reply on HN