The see-through display is a big downgrade from last year's "Orion" prototype demo.
See full article...
See full article...
Meta’s $799 Ray-Ban Display is the company’s first big step from VR to AR
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
The YouTube channel Tested has a very good long-form video on these if you're interested..
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jDorDsi9JM
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jDorDsi9JM
Upvote
32
(38
/
-6)
This device looks like it hasn't really advanced all that much in terms of usefulness than Google Glass from a decade ago.
Upvote
146
(150
/
-4)
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple present their version of this product in the near future, this form factor makes much sense to me than what the Vision Pro was.
Upvote
26
(31
/
-5)
Upvote
178
(186
/
-8)
300*300px is pretty poor but better than nothing.
I would be happy to save some weight by cutting out the pervert-cam, but the only reason Meta made these things is to get the ride-along data feeds.
Edit: seems I wasn't wearing my glasses last night
600*600 is decent!
Thanks Kyle
I would be happy to save some weight by cutting out the pervert-cam, but the only reason Meta made these things is to get the ride-along data feeds.
Edit: seems I wasn't wearing my glasses last night
600*600 is decent!Thanks Kyle
Last edited:
Upvote
38
(40
/
-2)
Just wear a camera and microphone on your face at all times, and stream your entire life to Zuck’s servers! I’m sure he has your best interest in mind!
Upvote
126
(127
/
-1)
I'm starting to see videos from these pop up on Strava where someone normally would have used an action cam like a DJI or Insta360. I can see the advantages for getting a rider's perspective and not having to deal with figuring out where/how to mount a normal action camera.
The video quality, however, is still significantly lacking compared to a DJI Osmo Action 4 or 5 which sell for less than half the price of these things and you can get a similar perspective, albeit with some bulk, by mounting the osmo directly under the helmet visor.
The video quality, however, is still significantly lacking compared to a DJI Osmo Action 4 or 5 which sell for less than half the price of these things and you can get a similar perspective, albeit with some bulk, by mounting the osmo directly under the helmet visor.
Upvote
18
(20
/
-2)
So will these end up with an official notice of discontinuance, or will they just "pivot to enterprise" and silently sputter out once nobody is paying attention?
Upvote
36
(36
/
0)
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
$799 seems pretty bad for these. Xreal has (IIRC) cheaper glasses with real-world anchoring. They’ve been shipping better products than this Facebook thing for years.
And we all basically expect that any Facebook product is subsidized by privacy violation, right?
And we all basically expect that any Facebook product is subsidized by privacy violation, right?
Upvote
59
(60
/
-1)
They're not going to do anyone's vision any favors, either.
If you don't wear glasses, you don't realize how restrictive those hugely thick earpieces are to your peripheral vision. Not to mention the thickness of the frames in reducing your forward vision. It's like putting on blinders and expecting to still be able to sense what's going on around you.
I mean if someone wants to be a Facebook glasshole, fine. Their money, and their risk. But for people who don't wear glasses to actually see clearly with, this is going to be like wearing a couple of paper towel tubes on your face, not to mention marking them as morons from the start.
Which, come to think of it, may actually be a public service for the rest of us.
Upvote
51
(54
/
-3)
Darren Stephens
Seniorius Lurkius
They honestly couldn't afford to pay me to wear that utter abomination, let alone get me to spend money on it.
(disclaimer: I did actually try out Google Glass in the wild for a period back in 2014, so it's not an unknown quantity to me)
(disclaimer: I did actually try out Google Glass in the wild for a period back in 2014, so it's not an unknown quantity to me)
Upvote
23
(24
/
-1)
Upvote
57
(57
/
0)
Aside from the obvious privacy concerns and the dubious utility, I think there's something that Meta hasn't publicly contended with that has been dogging them, and will definitely kill this product if they try to move into anything resembling fashion:
The branding problem. Meta is not cool. Meta is the opposite of cool. Meta is so un-cool that you could use association with it to insult people. In the public perception, Meta is Facebook, which is for grandmas, shunned by everyone under 50. The public face of the company dines with the current president on the regular and has been a punch line for 20 years. It is extremely profitable, but not loved. They're not making bank on subscriptions to the Meta Fan Club. Nobody wants to be seen as a Meta customer publicly.
People walk around proudly wearing apple branded devices or Nvidia tshirts. Nobody would wear a Meta T shirt in public unless they work for Zuck and they're on the clock. Nobody will wear glasses with a Meta badge on the side.
The branding problem. Meta is not cool. Meta is the opposite of cool. Meta is so un-cool that you could use association with it to insult people. In the public perception, Meta is Facebook, which is for grandmas, shunned by everyone under 50. The public face of the company dines with the current president on the regular and has been a punch line for 20 years. It is extremely profitable, but not loved. They're not making bank on subscriptions to the Meta Fan Club. Nobody wants to be seen as a Meta customer publicly.
People walk around proudly wearing apple branded devices or Nvidia tshirts. Nobody would wear a Meta T shirt in public unless they work for Zuck and they're on the clock. Nobody will wear glasses with a Meta badge on the side.
Upvote
66
(71
/
-5)
Google is an ads company with the exact same policies and behavior. Most of FAANG are revolving doors of the same people.
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
A question I like asking people is "What would you pay for a cybernetic enhancement superpower?". I give examples like being able to run 20mph for hours without getting tired, basically anything from Cyberpunk 2077. If you handwave away negative effects on the body, cyber security concerns, etc. for the sake of argument people seem to land at roughly the price they'd pay for a nice car for their socioeconomic level.
My take on these glasses? If they did literally nothing except let me read a street sign from 100m away using the camera zoom and rubbing my fingers together, they'd be worth $800. Everything else is gravy.
My take on these glasses? If they did literally nothing except let me read a street sign from 100m away using the camera zoom and rubbing my fingers together, they'd be worth $800. Everything else is gravy.
Upvote
6
(14
/
-8)
These are too clunky and expensive. Although its a first gen device.
I just want anyone to release something that can add "subtitles" in a HUD when traveling abroad. Live translation with headphones just doesnt work the same as subtitles because its as distracting as a random person interrupting a conversation with any information even if its relevant
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Lol.
Aaand loller. Sub-SVGA resolution that can't even manage rudimentary 3D projection, and you use a jumped-up Slap Wrap to control the thing. I can't wait.
Honestly, it's not that I'm worried that smart glasses won't catch on, it's that I'm worried that they will, if the powers that be decide that it's the best way to keep us all even more distracted and stupefied. The XREAL website is doing their darndest to make the things look cool, but we can't all be hip youngsters looking like bit parts in a Matrix reboot. Then again, nobody looks cool walking around with their face buried in their smartphones, and most of us do it anyway.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I like where you're going with this, but I think the tape would be better used wrapped around the temples and covering up the Meta logo.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Remind me, did we develop any laser defence against the first wave of glassholes? I distinctly remember some discussions about that happening.
Upvote
8
(10
/
-2)
I'm withholding judgement until I see how Robert Scoble looks in the shower with them.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
ubercurmudgeon
Ars Tribunus Militum
Instead of glasses that the poor can put on and see reality, we're getting $799 glasses that the rich can put on and be lied to by AI.
It figures it'd be something like this.
It figures it'd be something like this.
Upvote
16
(20
/
-4)
I actually have use cases where glasses like these or the existing Meta Ray Bans would be extremely useful - mainly video recording stuff where you want an actual POV but don't have the option for something as obtrusive as like mounting an action camera to your head or even a hat.
But am I buying such a product from fucking Meta? The "it's okay to call queerness a mental health problem on our platforms" company? Helllllllllllllllllllllll the fuck no.
But am I buying such a product from fucking Meta? The "it's okay to call queerness a mental health problem on our platforms" company? Helllllllllllllllllllllll the fuck no.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
faultedgeologist
Smack-Fu Master, in training
Those glasses make you look like a classic dork! Do they come with white tape to put in the middle? DR, #DorkReality, is a bleak future.
Upvote
-10
(1
/
-11)
I can see some usefulness in AR-enhanced vision for things like repairing and installing parts onto devices large and small devices, but these are not them.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Everything else that is sketchy aside. You know what Id want?
How about an assistant that could tell me why I just walked into the room Im currently standing in? Im only 40-ish and Im already having those episodes. Like if these companies want to help, give me that. Thatd be a big timesaver.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Bagging on the resolution is fun and all but people are missing that this is effectively a first gen product.
And I say this as someone who hates the concept of everyone in the public having a camera on their face, and doubly so one feeding data to Zuck.
But man, this stuff gets iterated on. Look at the first iphone - a luxury gimmick for a premium price - and compare it to an affordable android even five years later. It's a premium priced product with limited uses now, but if they keep developing they'll become much more feature rich and become far more ubiquitious once price comes down.
Which sucks, yes.
And I say this as someone who hates the concept of everyone in the public having a camera on their face, and doubly so one feeding data to Zuck.
But man, this stuff gets iterated on. Look at the first iphone - a luxury gimmick for a premium price - and compare it to an affordable android even five years later. It's a premium priced product with limited uses now, but if they keep developing they'll become much more feature rich and become far more ubiquitious once price comes down.
Which sucks, yes.
Upvote
-16
(3
/
-19)
As much as I'd love to say that these looking ridiculous will kill them I think this is the real kicker (although I'm sure the ridiculousness doesn't help).
If I picture something like this coming out from another tech firm with a better reputation, perhaps even some generic hardware maker like HTC/Acer, I still wouldn't buy it but I'd appreciate it as a kind of cool nerdy toy.
As a product from Meta though? Anybody I see wearing this is instantly classified as a complete tool.
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
They're hoping to offset it with the RayBan label on the glass
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)