CEO Mark Zuckerberg remains convinced that smart glasses will eventually replace the smartphone.
If they didn’t have a camera, I think they’d stand a better chance. I think they should just be a screen that links to your phone and peripherals. Honestly the little wrist typing input seem pretty cool to me. If I could type with them onto like a low-res glass ink display it’d be fine. I’m not gonna wear a camera on my face nor am I going to wear some bulky nonsense, just no chance. If they could look like slim glasses and take wireless power from something on my neck or headphones, I think they’d be a viable peripheral input product.
Zuckerberg wants wants to put the compute on your face, for some reason. Even turning the phone into a brick you interact with through the peripherals seems unrealistic since the glasses would need to have multicolor display without being bulky. Dude needs some people with basic sense to tell him no and guide him to something more realistic.
Not true. I’ve had my eye on a pair for awhile that has no camera, only microphone, but has a HUD. Having navigation, an irl minimap, without having to keep your phone out is nice and has some actual positive safety implications. Also, this might mean less to Americans, but as someone living in Europe, having in line translation is really, really cool. Could almost sell it on that alone. I’ve heard some deaf folks are also using it to help understand people by augmenting their lip reading (which usually doesn’t get all of the information across by itself) with summaries that the mic picked up.
I’ve only held off because the pair I was looking at seem like it isn’t quite there yet in reliability, but there are definitely some pretty big use cases I can think of. I would 100% get some of these without a camera.
So there are certainly some valid use cases. They could be useful for surgeries, engineering design work, surveying, etc. None of these have you wearing them all the time or in social areas through. It’s a niche product they need to focus on those markets and stop trying to force mass adoption. It’s the same as AI.
I don’t see the issue if there’s no camera. I’m big on privacy, but if they made a version with no camera that was just a screen I don’t see the issue. Are you upset about the possibility of bluetooth being easy dropped on?
If they didn’t have a camera, I think they’d stand a better chance. I think they should just be a screen that links to your phone and peripherals. Honestly the little wrist typing input seem pretty cool to me. If I could type with them onto like a low-res glass ink display it’d be fine. I’m not gonna wear a camera on my face nor am I going to wear some bulky nonsense, just no chance. If they could look like slim glasses and take wireless power from something on my neck or headphones, I think they’d be a viable peripheral input product.
Zuckerberg wants wants to put the compute on your face, for some reason. Even turning the phone into a brick you interact with through the peripherals seems unrealistic since the glasses would need to have multicolor display without being bulky. Dude needs some people with basic sense to tell him no and guide him to something more realistic.
If they didn’t have a camera they’d be pointless, there’s really no reason to have a screen on your face if it wasn’t to help AR the world.
Which is why it’s going to need an extremely valid reason to use them aside from being a creeper.
Not true. I’ve had my eye on a pair for awhile that has no camera, only microphone, but has a HUD. Having navigation, an irl minimap, without having to keep your phone out is nice and has some actual positive safety implications. Also, this might mean less to Americans, but as someone living in Europe, having in line translation is really, really cool. Could almost sell it on that alone. I’ve heard some deaf folks are also using it to help understand people by augmenting their lip reading (which usually doesn’t get all of the information across by itself) with summaries that the mic picked up.
I’ve only held off because the pair I was looking at seem like it isn’t quite there yet in reliability, but there are definitely some pretty big use cases I can think of. I would 100% get some of these without a camera.
Look around. People have a screen on their face 24/7. Currently they need their hand to hold it there.
Maybe you mean there is no need for a camera on your face. That I agree with.
Lidar, rather than a camera. Allows it to create a 3d model of what’s in front of it without being able to take pictures itself
I’d use them to subtitle everything because i’m deaf
Yeah I’ve long said these could be a useful accessibility tool for those of us who can’t hear
So there are certainly some valid use cases. They could be useful for surgeries, engineering design work, surveying, etc. None of these have you wearing them all the time or in social areas through. It’s a niche product they need to focus on those markets and stop trying to force mass adoption. It’s the same as AI.
Get away with watching YT at work? Reclaim hours of my life, that’s my end goal.
deleted by creator
funny, I see it as a privacy nightmare and a tool for the worst kind of creep.
I don’t see the issue if there’s no camera. I’m big on privacy, but if they made a version with no camera that was just a screen I don’t see the issue. Are you upset about the possibility of bluetooth being easy dropped on?
There’s a YouTube guy that made his own and uses it as a teleprompter during his videos. Certainly a niche use case.
Not these devices but Zach Freedman of Voidstar Labs uses a single eye display as a teleprompter.
There is no market for such niches.
deleted by creator