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

701–710 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#701

Post by yard2010 »

Gh0stRAT wrote: post #356
toddmorey wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be so uncomfortable having lunch with someone wearing these. Am I alone in that?

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.

Facebook doesn't have to record the data to process it does it?

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#702

Post by adityathakurxd »

vinay_ys wrote: post #660

I seriously hope this doesn't take off and fails spectacularly like Google Glass. I don't want a society where the people I'm interacting with are always recording everything around and giving it to a private profit corporation who can change their minds about what they will do all that private data any time they like.

Privacy concerns would be paramount. Have they released anything on how they would address this?

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#703

Post by schroeding »

Saris wrote: post #414
knodi123 wrote: post #350

> 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. Wonder how that works. Maybe the capture LED has a light sensor next to it that detects reflections? It solves an interesting problem, although the prevalence of cheap spy camera glasses on amazon make it an uphill battle.

They could pulse the LED quickly and while it's off use it as a light sensor for ambient light.

I wonder if one could just replace the LED with a UV one, depending on the tolerances this kind of detection may still work while being visibly "off". :/

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#704

Post by mikelward »

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 would take no cameras, less creepy, and longer battery life, if I had the option.

Edit: I do love that they have a transition lens version, though. I haven't seen that elsewhere.

Bose had some Bluetooth glasses, but their website currently says "We'll be back soon". I also can't find them on Amazon, so I'm wondering if they were discontinued.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#705

Post by wolverine876 »

tsumnia wrote: post #598
loufe wrote: post #393

In my industry, mining, I can see this sort of integration into a miner's helmet working its way into sites as a sort of situation analysis tool pretty easily. It would make a lot of things so much easier for folks on the surface to be able to quickly see 3-D scans (lidar would be amazin) of broken rock, or new tunnel, or cracks, etc. I am with others for the desire for more opennness. I would never hop on this loade…

It will absolutely get integrated sooner rather than later. The Microsoft Hololens is still bulky compared to these, but is getting tested out right now by the US military to view the insides of aircrafts [1]. After a few more size and cost decreasing iterations, it will get quickly adopted. Granted, I'm a tech luddite by modern standards, so as a retail consumer I still fear ads all over my FOV. But for businesses t…

A Microsoft product is also well along in testing for infantry.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#707

Post by saberience »

somsak2 wrote: post #468
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you be just as uncomfortable eating lunch with someone who had their phone in their hand? the entire time? of course - and I'd question my decision to invite them unless they're sharing their screen with everyone (showing pics, etc) or taking a group pic, having their phone out and pointed at you for more than a few moments would be both uncomfortable and rude

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

What? No you can’t at all. Unless you got some mythical alien phone which doesn’t exist.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#708

Post by wolverine876 »

ActorNightly wrote: post #657
esafak wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, and people do have expectations, albeit reduced, of privacy in public too. Moreover, this expectation is thankfully backed by the law in various jurisdictions. I would very much like to see those rights beefed up for the machine learning age, after reading all these comments. Or would you like to live in a panopticon like the Chinese? Hey, you're on PUBLIC property, citizen! Smile for the camera, and don't t…

First, just because China did it doesn't mean its necessarily wrong. The real bad part of Chinese system are the laws that govern what is bad and what the punishment - the surveillance in itself alone is neutral at worst. More information never hurts. Secondly, this would be "society filming society", without the government being involved. I really see only positive with the mass adoption of these things. When I go o…

> More information never hurts.

How do you reach that conclusion?

> this would be "society filming society"

It would also be a corporation filming private citizens on a very large scale (and government can obtain data from corporations).

> If someone needs the fear of being recorded, and put online and losing their job to not act like asshole, then so be it.

People are attacked and shamed for many things that are private or harmless or even good things.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#709

Post by Snoddas »

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)

I learned about Ray-Bans in the early 80s because that was what Jake and Elwood Blues wore.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#710

Post by wolverine876 »

vunderba wrote: post #438
esafak wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, and people do have expectations, albeit reduced, of privacy in public too. Moreover, this expectation is thankfully backed by the law in various jurisdictions. I would very much like to see those rights beefed up for the machine learning age, after reading all these comments. Or would you like to live in a panopticon like the Chinese? Hey, you're on PUBLIC property, citizen! Smile for the camera, and don't t…

I'm surprised you're not already aware that this is already the norm. The number of cc style cameras in London alone should give you pause. If we're already dealing with ubiquitous recording in public , I'd rather give some of that power back to individuals rather than the government.

> I'd rather give some of that power back to individuals

You'd be giving it to Facebook, though I suppose Zuckerberg is an individual.

Post reply on HN