Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–55 of 55 posts

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

#51

Post by JKCalhoun »

DANmode wrote: post #39
tushar-r wrote: post #23

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…

I think it was an old issue of National Lampoon (and I have no idea what they would be parodying) that showed an old-timey cathedral-style radio in a child's pull-wagon, like some kind of advert from the 1920's. "Portable Radio is Here!" or similar for the caption…

(Sometimes you have to recognize that the tech is not ready for the intended form factor.)

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

#52

Post by cool-amazing »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #50
khurs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Meta's survival is fascinating to me Their ad revenue is $243.46 billion annual, so not sure why you mention survival. If a company making money spends that money internally on projects that is ok, it's when they borrow money that survival becomes a risk. It's not Meta's survival that is fascinating, it's Zuckerberg's ongoing survival as CEO!!

"Their ad revenue is $243.46 billion annual" That is remarkable. Who is spending this kind of money on FB ads?

millions of small businesses

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

#53

Post by khurs »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #50
khurs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Meta's survival is fascinating to me Their ad revenue is $243.46 billion annual, so not sure why you mention survival. If a company making money spends that money internally on projects that is ok, it's when they borrow money that survival becomes a risk. It's not Meta's survival that is fascinating, it's Zuckerberg's ongoing survival as CEO!!

"Their ad revenue is $243.46 billion annual" That is remarkable. Who is spending this kind of money on FB ads?

Along with small Indies as stated, a lot of the ad market is controlled by large agencies like WPP.

State departments are also one of the biggest spenders (some say that's how the 'deep-state' maintain control of the media...). All those 'stop smoking' and other health ads all add up!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPP_plc

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

#54

Post by hamburgererror »

nickthegreek wrote: post #49
khurs wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like all things, there can be positive use cases. For example, a musician would probably rather have the audience wearing recording glasses and actually watching then recording on phone and watching the phone screen. The 'creepy pick up artists' and other social media types have become synonymous with it unfortunately

I'm sure many vision impaired people find these to be life changing. Very ableist mindset to ban these, instead of establishing stronger privacy protections around data and usage.

IIRC there exist already systems based on an equivalent of sonar for blind people

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

#55

Post by 66yatman »

buzzwords wrote: post #37
sofixa wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That’s toilet paper money for them.
Post reply on HN