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

911–920 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#911

Post by mgrund »

bbor wrote: post #759
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…

Omnipresent video input is going to be essential for Artificial Self-Instantiation AGIs early next year. Your personal assistant can’t help you if you need to tell it what you’re doing all the time!

Sounds interesting, any reading material you could point to about this?

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#912

Post by tjpnz »

possiblydrunk wrote: post #564

So when Google Glass came out, people using them were "Glassholes" because of the ability to record surreptitiously, albeit for a very short period. And there was no mistaking Glass. Meta's look normal and I doubt the LED indicator will draw enough attention this time around. Plus as others have noted, by the time you notice it's already too late and anyway the onus is on you to ask the wearer to stop. And this is wo…

A punch in the face would work.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#913

Post by standardly »

The same selling points are reiterated over and over again without much detail.

It has a camera. It has speakers. It integrates with social media.

I guess there isn't a HUD or anything AR-related? It's just a smart watch, except glasses? That is...marginally useful, but not that interesting considering what google glass was doing like 10 years ago. I just don't see a use for these.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#914

Post by ladzoppelin »

wildrhythms wrote: post #811
ladzoppelin wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you post where it says that, all I can find is "you will be notified"?

It's right on the linked page, but you're right it doesn't say anything about being 'required' to uncover it. >Bystander privacy >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.

Wow, that is so dirty. They are doing the 2009 "get people to share things privately and then do a settings refactor that now makes the private things public until you reset them to private" Wow, I am sure this ends well for Rayband. :)

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#915

Post by bArray »

Crosseye_Jack wrote: post #902
bArray wrote: post #877

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Battery damage at a guess. Video streaming can be pretty power hungry (you’re running the camera, encoding the video, and flinging those bits over the air) on a device that sits on your face. I thought about that, but surely internal battery resistance would be lower at lower temperatures? The other thing I thought about is some movable part of the device, such as a lens that has some actuation. You might just refu…

Its been a while since I did any major research on the matter (Thankfully I only deal with batteries indoors these days) but iirc when I used to build homemade RC airplanes, the internal resistance does start increasing the lower the temp gets and that the anode starts getting damaged (at least it wears quicker) discharging the battery at lower temps. My guess as to why they do it, is to maintain the "expected batter…

Wasn't aware of the battery chemistry involved, thanks!

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#916

Post by MichaelZuo »

throwaway837367 wrote: post #648
wyclif wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hi…

I work in the optical industry. I do R&D/quality control for a lens manufacturer and agree Luxottica is an awful company, but your comment is way off base. It's actually quite wrong. Your "zyl" acetate frames aren't higher quality. Modern acetate is stronger, lighter, less brittle, less subject to warping from temperature change, and more resistant to UV damage which impacts brittleness and color. 40 years of materia…

> They are heavy and the only advantage over plastic is less chromatic aberration which is a non issue unless you are comparing to an extreme prescription using high-index plastic.

This isn't true, even the best plastic lenses of 2023 are nowhere near as scratch resistant as the best glass lenses of 1993.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#917

Post by pseudalopex »

CapsAdmin wrote: post #539
pseudalopex wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could. But why would they not say it will?

Surely that would be a PR disaster so I must assume they don't allow recording when covered.

Cameras designed for covert recording are sold without public outcry.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#918

Post by majikandy »

throwaway689236 wrote: post #293
majikandy wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d say “comfort”. Glasses aren’t comfortable for many people and neither are contact lenses. I have a mild prescription but the discomfort of the glasses (arms, nose bridge, turning head more) is greater than the discomfort of my vision not being ultra sharp (for me). So a future of putting on glasses for the tech really isn’t for me.

Same could be said about headphones, yet here we are.

Yep, I don’t use headphones that much either.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#919

Post by esafak »

ActorNightly wrote: post #897
esafak wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not the norm everywhere and, in any case, we should push back. It gives me no joy to walk past video surveillance cameras. They stick out like sore thumbs to me and make me feel treated like a potential criminal. I believe we reclaim no power by recording our fellow citizens going about their daily lives. We merely augment the corpus of corporations and governments. My beef with these smart glasses is that whil…

In case my top level comment was not clear: if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy outside of physical interaction in your immediate space outside your body (and even then, on crowded public transport, this is not the case). If someone can see what you are doing, there is no difference between that and them recording it. If someone can hear what your are saying, there is no difference between that a…

> If someone can see what you are doing, there is no difference between that and them recording it. If someone can hear what your are saying, there is no difference between that and them recording it.

There is all the difference in the world. This is what we're debating here. According to your binary logic, everyone is within their right to record and retain in perpetuity all public activity, with arbitrary high fidelity. And if that's fair game, I suppose you'd be okay with unifying them into one view and mining it? Like China, but even worse. I would be disgusted and ashamed to live in such a society. Fortunately, the law does not say this.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#920

Post by brightstep »

ianbicking wrote: post #328
toddmorey wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As long as the activation is overt I don't think it's a big issue. Overt as in taking a picture or recording requires the user to do something that is noticeable to the people around them. The wake word is quite obvious; the button on the stem is a bit less, but together with the light I think it's fairly clear something is happening.

Activation via Pegasus spyware will not be overt
Post reply on HN