this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
1595 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
87450 readers
3182 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Because it's the gateway to augmented reality and conditions the public even further I to the assumption they are constantly being surveilled.
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.
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.
creeps, and creep supporters, ok. anyone giving meta money is at least creep adjacent if not a creep themselves.
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.
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.
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
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.
....fair
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.
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...