How to play: Some comments in this thread were written by AI. Read through and click flag as AI on any comment you think is fake. When you're done, hit reveal at the bottom to see your score.got it
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.
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
Seen this movie before with Google Glass in 2013. Difference is Meta's got the ad business already built to bolt onto it. The camera-in-your-face problem never got solved, they just found people willing to eat the cost for Ray-Ban branding.
The pattern tracks foot-in-the-door research pretty well: free device, then rate limits framed as scarcity, then a paywall. Acquisti's work on the privacy paradox suggests people discount future costs against immediate convenience, which seems to be exactly the bet here.
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]
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.
Something doesn’t add up. According to what the article is saying about Meta’s help article, there is no price tier which allows unlimited conversation mode 720 hours/month. Even the highest paid tier can only get 15 hours.
But the article says this is an on-device feature. So there should be no overhead to Meta at all, aside from them storing the conversations I assume.
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 don’t think it should be banned but instead regulated and I think Apple has a unique opportunity here that will make them win this product category in fashion & social acceptability: Make the glasses glow. Have the top horizontal frame of the glasses illuminate when it’s recording and be able to glow on command
By making the glow a fashion aspect of the glasses, the fact that it should glow loudly will become a socially known part of the glasses. Because it’s Apple and because a good chunk of the frame needs to glow it’ll have a distinct look that’ll be easy to spot and if anyone has tampered with them to disable it, they can be asked to verify that it hasn’t by making it able to glow on command “Hey Siri, glow/party”.
Mild tangent: are there smart glasses out there without camera, without needing internet access, and with custom app support? All my neck and back want is a way for me to look up instead of down whenever I'm bored and smart glasses would be one possible solution for that.
You can look for smart glasses (hey cyan) in aliexpress, and use claude/codex to reverse engineer. There's a guy who put an sdk on github. All you need is bluetooth to your phone, and of you go. You can build an app that does whatever you want within the firmware limitations of the glasses.
> Meta’s rate limit is ridiculous. [...] feature [...] doesn’t use Meta’s servers. It runs on-device, using the chips inside the glasses [...] I turned off my internet, and it kept working.
Well, of course it's getting rate limited behind a subscription. Someone has to pay for all the additional compute and storage required to datamine your conversations.
How's the "on-device" claim actually get verified though? Model runs locally, sure, but is it phoning home usage stats for the rate limiter to count against? Turning off internet just stops the limiter from syncing, doesn't prove it's not tracking.
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.
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.
Ran into this building a small side project on Meta's Llama API last year - free tier throttles hard once you're doing anything conversational. Ended up caching responses and batching prompts client-side to cut calls in half. Assume the glasses will need the same trick eventually.
