I used to support the Glass team at Google. I felt so bad watching them destroy the team after Sergey influence plummeted after he was caught cheating. They just slowly moved everyone to different projects. They had super stars on that team.
I love that big tech was so arrogant they just plum forgot or choose to ignore why those died then.
And then above it they still chose the one thing everyone was mad about, a camera. All they had to do was not put a camera in there but they couldn’t resist.
I think the product that speaks the most about the camera was the Snapchat Spectacles. Snapchat did everything they could to position it strictly as a fun, party-oriented camera that didn’t try to hide what it was but leaned into the fun ways to use it.
And they still died out after the initial hype. Which I think is most telling because, like, here’s this product with the most positive take you could possibly have on “glasses with cameras” and people still didn’t want it. So wth makes Google think the creepy no-fun version will catch on?
Eh, even the guy in the video mentions the distribution being a factor in the hype dying down. I think with a bigger distribution they could’ve worked better, the main issue with the Meta ones is that they’re basically made to record stuff inconspicuously and that’s freaking creepy.
I honestly don’t think so. I think they’re up there, but tech “enthusiasts” (read, tech bros and people who think random gadgets are cool) probably are. They’re happy to waste their money and give money to meta. Creeps are definitely number 2 or 3 though.
Yeah, I’d consider myself a bit of a tech enthusiast but I’d never buy a closed source product like smart glasses. I have looked a little into Mentra glasses as it’s open source and it looks like you might be able to stand up your own backend.
It would in no way be an everyday wear for me though. I’d probably only ever wear it for outdoor activities. But honestly a GoPro or equivalent with a harness would probably be a better option for that.
Not for the first time. Metaverse failed for all the same reasons that Second Life did: it’s a solution to a problem that most people don’t have. Except Second Life - which still exists and supposedly is far more active than during its heyday - only cost the merest fraction compared to the Metaverse.
As for the Spybans, there were a couple of short films released around 2010 that predicted the privacy issues linking AR with realtime social networking would bring. So it’s not a new idea. Unfortunately, both films were taken down soon after because they were deemed too disturbing.
Needed the data, if you’re phone is always in your pocket then it’s really hard to get a live video. Better to model their AI to simulate human interactions
The trouble is, half the cool shit that AR can do requires some sort of optical sensor to pull off. If you want it to be anything more than just a smaller cell phone closer to your eye.
And if course they were compelled to hook it up to their mass surveillance network…
It wasn’t dumb and they didn’t forget. The frog has simply been sufficiently boiled. Meta sold millions of these. The people complaining are a very small minority.
It’s annoying how tech bros phrase products and services so that you don’t get to say no, it’s something like not right now or people aren’t ready. Lots of stuff from pop ups for OneDrive in windows to press releases about Google glass. It’s fascist.
No your product or service is unwanted and no means no.
True AR? Absolutely not a bad idea, are you kidding me?
Take out the ability to record stealthily and they’re a great idea. Overlay art on walls, place monitors in your real space, do work on a laptop with the screen off, put directions in the actual world so you’re not looking at a screen, and that just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Don’t let the tech conglomerates ruin an amazing tech concept.
Vision Pro is as close as we have come, and it is still overpriced, ugly, uncomfortable, and incapable of most basic AR tasks. It can’t identify and track objects in real time, which is the lowest bar for functional AR.
Their form factor still isn’t great from what I understand. The tech isn’t properly caught up to the idea. But once it has, it’s going to be a paradigm shift in the way we interact with the digital world similar to the smart phone.
For consumers yes, but an AR glasses for technical workers that (for example with an electrician), you could mark and highlight cables in AR that you are working on/ignoring or being able to auto search and send IC identifications on reverse engineering a PCB would be genuinely useful.
The problem with Google Glass is that had a form factor which limited what could be done. On top of that it was a beta product and you technically needed to be a developer with I think C language knowledge to be allowed to purchase one. Even if you could buy it the device was like $1,000+ because it wasn’t a consumer ready model.
Yeah the idea was so bad Apple stopped developing future Apple Vision products and pivoted to release an affordable alternative.
This thread seems to have a whole lot of hopefulness and not much actual data they are going off. If Apple actually launches a good usable pair for a decent price, it will all become “I wish manufacturers never made these” and people yelling pervert at someone on the street will result in them getting sued/arrested/baker acted.
It’s been 12 years since glass went public, I have to imagine someone figured out decent ways to work the upgrades in hardware since into them.
2013 version: 45nm Chip made by Texas instruments.
that make sense, why i only saw one person in public once using, so they had to be a tech dev. in any cause it was still considered as a perv glass too, because you could somehow watch porn on it.
i remember that, the first news of it was it was being used to WATCH PORN. and then i saw a person in a subway once with it, it looks silly and kinda perverty.
Reminds me of Google glass or whatever it was called. It’s not that people aren’t ready, it’s just a bad idea
“Glassholes”
I remember.
I used to run a comedy show during this era.
We straight up kicked those fucks out
I used to support the Glass team at Google. I felt so bad watching them destroy the team after Sergey influence plummeted after he was caught cheating. They just slowly moved everyone to different projects. They had super stars on that team.
I love that big tech was so arrogant they just plum forgot or choose to ignore why those died then.
And then above it they still chose the one thing everyone was mad about, a camera. All they had to do was not put a camera in there but they couldn’t resist.
I think the product that speaks the most about the camera was the Snapchat Spectacles. Snapchat did everything they could to position it strictly as a fun, party-oriented camera that didn’t try to hide what it was but leaned into the fun ways to use it.
And they still died out after the initial hype. Which I think is most telling because, like, here’s this product with the most positive take you could possibly have on “glasses with cameras” and people still didn’t want it. So wth makes Google think the creepy no-fun version will catch on?
This is meta not google, but same difference
Not everything.
They should have gone full OG instagram and make the glasses look like a pair of old school Polaroid cameras that even spit out the picture.
Eh, even the guy in the video mentions the distribution being a factor in the hype dying down. I think with a bigger distribution they could’ve worked better, the main issue with the Meta ones is that they’re basically made to record stuff inconspicuously and that’s freaking creepy.
Because it’s the gateway to augmented reality and conditions the public even further I to the assumption they are constantly being surveilled.
90% of the point of these things is having AI analyze what you are looking at (and also monetize it with ads etc).
creeps are the #1 target demo for these devices
I honestly don’t think so. I think they’re up there, but tech “enthusiasts” (read, tech bros and people who think random gadgets are cool) probably are. They’re happy to waste their money and give money to meta. Creeps are definitely number 2 or 3 though.
Yeah, I’d consider myself a bit of a tech enthusiast but I’d never buy a closed source product like smart glasses. I have looked a little into Mentra glasses as it’s open source and it looks like you might be able to stand up your own backend.
It would in no way be an everyday wear for me though. I’d probably only ever wear it for outdoor activities. But honestly a GoPro or equivalent with a harness would probably be a better option for that.
creeps, and creep supporters, ok. anyone giving meta money is at least creep adjacent if not a creep themselves.
They used to say that porn was the real driver of technology for home video.
The porn industry makes like three times as much money as Hollywood. They were right.
it was one of the things that decided vhs vs betamax.
betamax (sony) wanted licensing fees from everyone and VHS (everyone else) wanted to win.
these are the same people who would unironically make the torment nexus, firmly believing that they will do it right and it will be good this time
Not for the first time. Metaverse failed for all the same reasons that Second Life did: it’s a solution to a problem that most people don’t have. Except Second Life - which still exists and supposedly is far more active than during its heyday - only cost the merest fraction compared to the Metaverse.
As for the Spybans, there were a couple of short films released around 2010 that predicted the privacy issues linking AR with realtime social networking would bring. So it’s not a new idea. Unfortunately, both films were taken down soon after because they were deemed too disturbing.
And yet, here we are.
Needed the data, if you’re phone is always in your pocket then it’s really hard to get a live video. Better to model their AI to simulate human interactions
The trouble is, half the cool shit that AR can do requires some sort of optical sensor to pull off. If you want it to be anything more than just a smaller cell phone closer to your eye.
And if course they were compelled to hook it up to their mass surveillance network…
It wasn’t dumb and they didn’t forget. The frog has simply been sufficiently boiled. Meta sold millions of these. The people complaining are a very small minority.
deleted by creator
…fair
It’s annoying how tech bros phrase products and services so that you don’t get to say no, it’s something like not right now or people aren’t ready. Lots of stuff from pop ups for OneDrive in windows to press releases about Google glass. It’s fascist.
No your product or service is unwanted and no means no.
They are not that keen on obtaining consent. In every regard.
They spike terms of service with no ethical opt out and call it a day.
🙄
This is so infuriating.
True AR? Absolutely not a bad idea, are you kidding me?
Take out the ability to record stealthily and they’re a great idea. Overlay art on walls, place monitors in your real space, do work on a laptop with the screen off, put directions in the actual world so you’re not looking at a screen, and that just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Don’t let the tech conglomerates ruin an amazing tech concept.
These do exist and they are pretty amazing apparently.
Vision Pro is as close as we have come, and it is still overpriced, ugly, uncomfortable, and incapable of most basic AR tasks. It can’t identify and track objects in real time, which is the lowest bar for functional AR.
Their form factor still isn’t great from what I understand. The tech isn’t properly caught up to the idea. But once it has, it’s going to be a paradigm shift in the way we interact with the digital world similar to the smart phone.
Someone shouted “GLASSHOLES!” and died.
For consumers yes, but an AR glasses for technical workers that (for example with an electrician), you could mark and highlight cables in AR that you are working on/ignoring or being able to auto search and send IC identifications on reverse engineering a PCB would be genuinely useful.
lol and that was 5mp, genuinely low res compared to the pervert specs
By “not ready,” they mean, “not complacent enough.” Fuck the tech bros.
Bad enough that Tesla’s are mobile surveillance nodes. Definitely don’t need cameras going indoors everywhere too.
The problem with Google Glass is that had a form factor which limited what could be done. On top of that it was a beta product and you technically needed to be a developer with I think C language knowledge to be allowed to purchase one. Even if you could buy it the device was like $1,000+ because it wasn’t a consumer ready model.
Yeah the idea was so bad Apple stopped developing future Apple Vision products and pivoted to release an affordable alternative.
This thread seems to have a whole lot of hopefulness and not much actual data they are going off. If Apple actually launches a good usable pair for a decent price, it will all become “I wish manufacturers never made these” and people yelling pervert at someone on the street will result in them getting sued/arrested/baker acted.
It’s been 12 years since glass went public, I have to imagine someone figured out decent ways to work the upgrades in hardware since into them.
2013 version: 45nm Chip made by Texas instruments.
Any chip from 2026/7 will run laps around it
apples approach seems to be wait and see.
that make sense, why i only saw one person in public once using, so they had to be a tech dev. in any cause it was still considered as a perv glass too, because you could somehow watch porn on it.
Remember that documentary about them? https://youtu.be/6PY8C1KmNwM
i remember that, the first news of it was it was being used to WATCH PORN. and then i saw a person in a subway once with it, it looks silly and kinda perverty.