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

901–910 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#901

Post by CodeWriter23 »

seventytwo wrote: post #480
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…

I bet these smart glasses have basically zero profit margin, or even negative. The real value to be made here is to get facebook’s data vacuum into a new aspect of our lives.

Not zero, negative margin.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#902

Post by Crosseye_Jack »

bArray wrote: post #877
Crosseye_Jack wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just thinking out loud. 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. Depending on the construction of the device you can rely on the heat from doing that work to warm the battery up so not so bad (think your smart phone, which also spends most of its time in your pocket wh…

> 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 battery life cycles".

>The other thing I thought about is some movable part of the device, such as a lens that has some actuation. You might just refuse to work at near freezing temperatures to prevent damage to that?

Very possible.

EDIT: However, if it was mechanical, why doesn't there seem to be such a restriction while taking photos?

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#903

Post by euroderf »

krrrh wrote: post #685
euroderf wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I foresee a new subgenre of reality shows.

At least a year ago when I was playing around with TikTok live it was amazing how much of it was machinists, lumberjacks, or assembly line workers live-streaming their entire shifts. Some of the most interesting content on the platform.

Hmm. The medium is the message.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#904

Post by OrangeMusic »

andreyk wrote: post #670

Incidentally, I just bought the Gen 1 of these before departing on a trip to Japan a week ago. I gotta say, I'm very happy with the purchase - being able to take photos/videos for memory-capture type stuff (ie I don't care a lot about it being the best quality) without taking out my phone and pointing it at stuff has been great, and the speakers are surprisingly nice to use when I don't want to block out the sounds o…

In the promo content, all videos and photos are in portrait mode. Is it really the case? Can you do landscape?

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#905

Post by wolverine876 »

ActorNightly wrote: post #893
wolverine876 wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pri…

>How do you reach that conclusion? Because the hypothetical damage a bad member of society could do outweighs the potential risk of private life details leaking (and any effect resulting from this) for good members of society. Say you live in a neighborhood with 50 people, and nobody knows anything about each other. Then one day, a hacker comes in an publishes a lot of private details about every single resident - gr…

> However, it turns out that one of the residents is a serial rapist, while another one deals drugs.

Hypotheticals are easy to populate with supporting examples, but also in the neighborhood are the political enemies of the government, minorities, targets of oppression (e.g., LGBTQ), etc.

> I get the whole "government bad" liberterian sentiment

Spare me your bullshit dimissal. Do you have anything substantive or is that all you have?

> this never really plays out in reality

I think cracking open any history book or reading the news will show the horrors inflicted by dictators. I'm glad you were ok.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#906

Post by capableweb »

freedomben wrote: post #885
capableweb wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's true. But it's not excluding display stuff. How many product landing pages talk about what you cannot do with the product or what it doesn't include? That'd be a very strange landing page for a product...

I think you're technically correct, it definitely is unusual to talk about what you cannot do. However, do you really think the marketing team didn't get together and recognize the major limitation of not having a display, and carefully craft the marketing so as to minimize that?

> However, do you really think the marketing team didn't get together and recognize the major limitation of not having a display, and carefully craft the marketing so as to minimize that?

Probably a bunch of people wished it was Google Glass 2.0 because it'd make the marketing people jobs easier/more interesting, but I don't think they'd craft the message to trick people, it'll impact the amount of returns and they'll probably lose more handling that than people not buying it because it doesn't have a screen.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#907

Post by seabass-labrax »

Spare_account wrote: post #797
seabass-labrax wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sunglasses aren't a particularly good investment when there will only be a couple of weeks bright enough to want them :) But awareness of raincoat brands in Britain, now you're talking!

I wear sunglasses for driving every day of the year in the UK. Your optician will also encourage you to wear sunglasses year-round, UV damage can occur even in overcast conditions.

That's a good point; roads can certainly have a strong glare.

I see an independent optician who is fairly old. Although they sell sunglasses, the optician has never suggested that I should wear them. Do you think this is perhaps newer guidance that is shared by more recently-graduated opticians, or maybe something promoted by a major chain of opticians?

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#908

Post by jacobsenscott »

huytersd wrote: post #509
jacobsenscott wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never had lunch with someone who was sitting there pointing their phone camera at me.

Nonsense. If someone is sitting in front of you and they are texting, the camera is pointing at you.

They don't sit there and point the camera at you for the entire lunch. I don't know what kind of people you have lunch with, but nobody holds their phone vertically and in your face when texting unless they have a serious social skills deficit. They tend to hold it a few inches above the table at a 45 degree angle, or even under the table.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#909

Post by seabass-labrax »

gnicholas wrote: post #738
seabass-labrax wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 had never heard of 'Rayban' before this Apple announcement! Apple? Or do you mean Meta? It would be understandable if you had never heard of them, given the recent rebrand!

Oh, right - sorry for any confusion. I find it difficult to work out who owns who nowadays :D

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#910

Post by tjpnz »

freedomben wrote: post #111
esafak wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Smart" glasses erode everyone's privacy unlike any other technology. Cameras and cell phones have to be held up to record. Glasses can stream effortlessly and continuously, without anyone's consent. If that is not reason enough to object what more do you want, my fist in your face?

I think your point would be a lot better without the threat of physical violence at the end (which seems both silly, uncalled for, and unnecessary). I'm very deeply concerned about privacy, but a simple thing like an "on" or "recording" light on the glasses could alert people that recording is on.

But there will be physical violence if that light goes on infront of the wrong person. Make no mistake.
Post reply on HN