Live data from Hacker News

Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

theverge.com

31–40 of 55 posts

Re: Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

#31

It's interesting that people seem to have forgotten/gotten over the whole Glasshole "rejection/anger" against Google glasses ~10years ago. Maybe it would have been more socially acceptable even back then if they hadn't made them look sci-fi and instead like regular glasses. Or is it just that we haven't seen Scoble using these in the shower? :-D [1] [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jwherrman/yes-you-can-w...

It was 10 years ago. Today's preteens were infants then. Today's university students were preteens. Today's parents of infants were university students. Things change. Time destroys everything.

Re: Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

#32
post #12

Me: You know, these ugly creeper peepers could not possibly make me want them any less. A PM deep in the heart of darkness: Hold my creatine.

Hey, the sky's the limit. The next version can also shock the user!

Physically or psychologically?

This platform will allow new opportunities - previously it was just organising a genocide, now you can have a first person view.

Re: Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

#33
Why person in their right mind would voluntarily walk around with "meta" or Google or Apple or any other surveillance camera and pay for doing so is beyond me. It feels like something straight out of the initiation scene in National Lampoon's Animal House where the pledges bend over, get whacked in the arse with a cricket bat and say "thank you sir, can I have another one" upon which they get whacked again.

Re: Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

#34

Meta's survival is fascinating to me. They dumped money in VR, their AI is not as good as their competitors and now they are dumping money on this glasses thing. They keep on getting caught doing shady things too.

It's one of Microsoft under Ballmer biggest victory, and one that's proving to be harder than you would think for tech behemoth: when you have one product that's so overwhelmingly dominating and raking unlimited money, diverting into other product lines seems to be almost impossible, either they don't make enough money, or you don't have enough focus, or enough need for survival and such need for it to succeed.

Despite everything Google is still the Google Ads company, Meta is still the FB/Insta company, etc ... I would even add Intel in there, they're where they are in part because every new thing they made they killed off right away because it wasn't "a money printing large margin xeon with no competition".

Apple, Amazon and Microsoft are the big ones that got out of that trap. Though with Apple I would say it's more limited than it looks, it's just that their "product" is the ecosystem they build around, so while they have lots of lines they're all linked together and feed off each other with iPhone at the core.

On the other hand some would say, Ballmer decoupled Microsoft survival from Widnows survival so much that it leads to what's happening to windows those past 5-8 years, and that's not a plus for its users.

Re: Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

#35

It's interesting that people seem to have forgotten/gotten over the whole Glasshole "rejection/anger" against Google glasses ~10years ago. Maybe it would have been more socially acceptable even back then if they hadn't made them look sci-fi and instead like regular glasses. Or is it just that we haven't seen Scoble using these in the shower? :-D [1] [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jwherrman/yes-you-can-w...

It was 10 years ago. Today's preteens were infants then. Today's university students were preteens. Today's parents of infants were university students. Things change. Time destroys everything.

> Time destroys everything.

...which has not been declared taboo through religious or cultural institutions. Time for those institutions to step up and declare a ban on networked surveillance devices. As long as the processing is all local and none of the gathered intel is shipped out to the mothership or the highest bidder (viz. Gargoyles from Snow Crash) they're fine but it should be legal to punch anyone in the nose who wears corporate spy-eyes.

Re: Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

#36
post #20
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are actually selling really well. But sadly, they are selling because you can drill out the 'recording' indicator light and use them to secretly record people to make creepy TikToks.

Thats a good candidate for a closed fist falling at non-walking speeds at somebody's ugly face. Do that around my kids and you are automatically a pedo that will get adequate treatment. Also, where I live its against the law to record people without their consent so if I would be feeling very nice I would just hold you against the ground till cops come. You wear them = you film with them. Get your shit together kids,…

> Also, where I live its against the law to record people without their consent

In public? How does this work in practice? There are so many uses for cameras and avoiding showing people would be impossible.

Eg dash cams, security cameras.

Re: Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

#37
post #21

Meta's survival is fascinating to me. They dumped money in VR, their AI is not as good as their competitors and now they are dumping money on this glasses thing. They keep on getting caught doing shady things too.

> their AI is not as good as their competitors That's irrelevant because their AI was never a product they sold.

It is true that their AI is not their main product for sale, however they did spend more than 100 billions on AI.

Re: Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

#38

Why person in their right mind would voluntarily walk around with "meta" or Google or Apple or any other surveillance camera and pay for doing so is beyond me. It feels like something straight out of the initiation scene in National Lampoon's Animal House where the pledges bend over, get whacked in the arse with a cricket bat and say "thank you sir, can I have another one" upon which they get whacked again.

These companies are so unlikable, I don't understand why they think people want to permantly mount their data collection systems right in front of their eyes. You couldn't give me one of those for free. Its like someone breaking into my car and leaving 2 copilot licenses on the seat: a nightmare

Re: Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

#39

It's interesting that people seem to have forgotten/gotten over the whole Glasshole "rejection/anger" against Google glasses ~10years ago. Maybe it would have been more socially acceptable even back then if they hadn't made them look sci-fi and instead like regular glasses. Or is it just that we haven't seen Scoble using these in the shower? :-D [1] [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jwherrman/yes-you-can-w...

> Maybe it would have been more socially acceptable even back then if they hadn't made them look sci-fi and instead like regular glasses.

They literally couldn’t.

Glass cost $1,500 and had tech spilling out into separate modules attached to the (already too clunky) glasses.

It’ll be interesting to see how quickly the problem is dropped by society at large because the hardware has become too subtle to notice,

and the “superpowers” (or draw of entertainment) are too strong to ignore.

Re: Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

#40
Typical of any new product/service these days. The first few weeks/months are "free" (or included) and then they start locking up things behind a paywall (i.e.,. subscription).

I get that recurring revenue is needed for hardware development. It'd be easier to stomach if they flat out had that subscription pricing locked in early on instead of rolling it out after hundreds/thousands of unit sales. Yes, I know it's "smart business". I say it's anti-consumer practice.

Post reply on HN