33 ms·

Orion, our first true augmented reality glasses

• apwell23 2y ago
  Is this the first original meta product ?
• iamronaldo 2y ago
  This is insane
  • dbuxton 2y ago
    Insane as in “how can Meta be so crazy as to commit themselves to AR still just because it’s in their company name” or as in “insanely good”? Genuine question!
• emdanielsen 2y ago
  Wow. Something seems to have really changed at Meta in the last few years. I really thought the company had run out of innovation juice during its peak evangelism of "the metaverse." And I know I wasn't alone in that sentiment. But they continue to impress across the board.
  • giancarlostoro 2y ago
    I mean. The #1 web framework is made by Meta... (React is one of the all time top repositories on GitHub) But that aside, the real issue is when they try to force users of unrelated products into Facebook. I'll likely never buy a Meta device because they bothered to try at all.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • PaulHoule 2y ago
    Their messaging has been really tone deaf. For instance, the media never seemed to get the point of Horizon Worlds in that if VR content is going to be like the web, there has to be authoring tools that make it possible for the ordinary Joe to make content. The persona I think of is the owner of a few Thai restaurants who is very savvy about SEO and SMO and developing relationships with DoorDash and such. That person has to see the value of having a VR or AR presence that is greater than the cost of developing. Horizon Worlds fell down in many ways not least in making you create everything with computational solid geometry and not letting you import image, video and 3d assets. Sorry but McDonalds has to put the Coca-Cola logo on the side of the drink cups. One trouble is the size of those assets has to be managed so that you don’t overload the rendering engine or the comm link. Another is that people are going to make worlds stuffed with porno images or theaters where you can watch pirated movies. As it is their authoring tools aren’t that good, people who know how to author 3-d content can’t use the tools and processes that are good at, and your world can only be so big. There are many good games that are developed with the expensive processes used to make 3d games and a huge number of Horizon Worlds competitors, I am sure Meta wants to see one succeed but it is not an easy problem. I like my MQ3 but for entertainment it competes with other options (sure it was fun to watch the last Star Wars movie in 3D and I like VR games but normal video and video games is hard to beat) and for creative work it is the same: in theory I could publish my stereograms in VR with A-Frame but there are so many other projects to work on.
  • baby 2y ago
    Not everyone considered the Metaverse a bad vision, I know a lot of people (including myself) who think it's brilliant.
• tony_cannistra 2y ago
  I have to assume there are folks out there for whom the maximum chonky appearance is appealing. I think we still have some room to grow there in terms of aesthetic for the majority though. undoubtedly a progressive achievement in the field, despite it all
  • rchaud 2y ago
    A preference for 1950s Buddy Holly glasses would be a fashion choice, because such glasses are rare today. It loses all of that appeal and becomes a commodity when it's the only choice for a product category.
  • ru552 2y ago
    "I think we still have some room to grow there in terms of aesthetic for the majority though." So does Meta and it's the reason they aren't actually releasing this as a product. They just showed us where they're at and gave us an idea on where they want to go in the next few years.
  • baby 2y ago
    Mark said they need to iterate to make it more cool, and that's why they won't release this just yet. It looks like it's going to be a dev kit
• rafram 2y ago
  "the look and feel of a regular pair of glasses" is... one way to describe it. They look totally goofy. But the tech seems amazing, assuming those videos actually reflect reality (which is hard to say, since this is not a real product, just a prototype announcement).
  • gs17 2y ago
    "the look and feel of a regular pair of glasses... as depicted on any cartoon caricature of a nerd". It's really impressive if they fit that much into the frame, but they're thick.
  • levocardia 2y ago
    I hate to knock the design when the tech is so cool but it seems like this would be exactly the occasion to go for a futuristic cyberpunk-visor look, as opposed to dork glasses.
• rvz 2y ago
  Say what you want about Zuckerberg. But once again you have witnessed the heavy investment in reality labs to create a new XR glasses platform that potentially ticks all the boxes that will take consumer XR glasses mainstream: * Looks very cool and more natural. (In comparison, look at Snap XR Glasses) * No wires sticking out. * Not a huge VR headset. * Can see what you see through the lenses for XR capabilities. * Controllable through eyes, hands and neural interface to cover almost all scenarios without looking awkward in public. * Integrates with an existing app ecosystem. Orion is very promising and appears to be in the lead for mainstream XR glasses so far. In general, it appears that everyone here misjudged and betted against Meta and Zuck when they were at $93 with calls for Zuck to be 'fired' when the stock crashed. [0] Now the stock is at all time highs. Remember. They didn't even mention Threads. At all. It is another way for them to monetize that if they want to. That is true founder mode and the death of Meta Platforms Inc. has been absolutely exaggerated. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452808
  • rchaud 2y ago
    I agree, founder mode in SV doesn't seem to be much more than creating something with good UX and proceeding to ruin it by attempting to turn it into a "platform".
  • regularfry 2y ago
    The "doesn't look too dorky" benchmark for me is the XReal Air line. They're a few years old now, and they aren't exactly AR glasses in the same way, but you'd expect the headline of this iteration of tech to be better looking. Not worse. I wonder what's actually in the frames. You wouldn't put bulk there if you had any other choice.
    • zmmmmm 2y ago
      XReals have no battery or standalone function and top out at 50 degrees or so field of view. So the fact Orion is doing all of those function at 70 degrees, self powered and wireless is stunning.
• gs17 2y ago
  > Orion has the largest field of view in the smallest AR glasses form to date. Did they say what it is, specifically?
  • prettymuchnoone 2y ago
    the verge's article says 70 degrees
    • gs17 2y ago
      Not bad, HoloLens 2 was only a 52° diagonal FOV. Not quite VR headset level, but the frames probably help a lot.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • ojbyrne 2y ago
    This article says 70 degrees: https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo-mark-zuckerberg-interview https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo...
• largest_hippo 2y ago
  This is the form factor that I always wanted from HoloLens (which I own). The release is very light on details of field of view and resolution (other than "best ever" puffery), that's where we'll get a better sense of actual use cases. The ball game shown looked very rudimentary in terms of only taking place in a small directly-in-front-of-user sense. This is also where HoloLens games fell flat -- you'd turn your head slightly to the left or right, and suddenly key game elements would vanish. Edit -- the home page says 70-degree FoV. Not bad, better than HoloLens (45-degree FoV if I recall), but perhaps not enough to turn your head to the person next to you while still having game elements persist in vision
  • baby 2y ago
    apparently they did something weird with the glasses to bend the light and increase your FOV, I'm not sure what that means but it looks intriguing.
  • noneeeed 2y ago
    What do/did you use your Hololens for? I tried out the first gen version at a meetup and it was really nifty (the latency was fantastic), but I just couldn't work out what anyone would use it for in real life, it seemed too limited to be useful.
• Jyaif 2y ago
  What's the display tech?
  • drjasonharrison 2y ago
    They only say "holographic." Based on other products/projects (Intel's Vaunt), I assume projectors/lasers are on the sides, and a holographic reflector is on the back surface of the lens.
  • bbor 2y ago
    There's a link above with much more details: https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo-mark-zuckerberg-interview https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo... [The display] features Micro LED projectors inside the frame that beam graphics in front of your eyes via waveguides in the lenses. These lenses are made of silicon carbide, not plastic or glass. Meta picked silicon carbide for its durability, light weight, and ultrahigh index of refraction, which allows light beamed in from the projectors to fill more of your vision. This 2022 paper seems like a good explainer of the tech, def download the PDF for the Figures: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-09680-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-09680-1 Through careful dispersion control in the excited propagation and diffraction modes, we design and implement our high-resolution full-color prototype, via the combination of analytical–numerical simulations, nanofabrication and device measurements... Our MOE waveguide utilizes only a single glass layer for the whole RGB spectrum, reducing unwanted diffraction and with higher efficiency. Our single-layer implementation also brings compactness and lightweight operation, while simplifying the MOE fabrication and yield. Sooo this layman is reading it as "used fancy ML workflows to fabricate extremely precise hologram guides." Pretty damn impressive and exciting! It's a good day/year/millennium to be nerd, no doubt about it.
• Twirrim 2y ago
  I know it's a prototype, but yikes those are large and goofy looking. Reminds me of the old 80's NHS glasses in the UK (which you could get for free if you couldn't afford otherwise). Or for those of you old enough, Brains from the old Supermarionation versions of the Thunderbird show (https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8451975.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/GL1149271.jpg https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8451975.ec...)
  • roughly 2y ago
    In the army, they were BCGs - Birth Control Glasses.
  • Gracana 2y ago
    Yup. My first thought was that they look like "BCGs". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_glasses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_glasses
    • barbecue_sauce 2y ago
      The 60s-era designs don't look all that different from some of the fairly popular current Warby Parker designs.
      • squeaky-clean 2y ago
        I bought a pair of glasses last week that look exactly like the 60's photo, but with a brown frame. Wasn't familiar with GI Glasses before, I just think that design looks cool.
    • meindnoch 2y ago
      The GI on the Wikipedia page looks straight out of some 2010s urban fashion lookbook with these glasses.
      • globular-toast 2y ago
        That's how fashion works. If someone is indifferent about what you wear today then expect them to be indifferent about it in 5-10 years too. But if someone makes fun of it today expect it to be fashionable within 10 years. I hate owning too many socks so I would wear "long" socks with everything, including shorts. I would also tuck my trousers into my socks when cycling. This was considered a massive faux pas 10 years ago. Guess what the youth do today? Yep, long socks are in!
• sieste 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • talldayo 2y ago
    I genuinely don't think it's possible to do worse than the digital-eye passthrough on Vision Pro. Nothing will ever be a funnier waste of money than that feature, especially in hardware that consumers were expected to want to buy.
• HL33tibCe7 2y ago
  Note that the first image in the article is taken as far away from the glasses as possible, to the extent where you can barely see them
  • HL33tibCe7 2y ago
    Another comment on Meta advertising and marketing: I, and everyone else I know, do not want to live in world Meta advertises. It’s awkward, sterile, and not believable. Even the images in this article have the “Meta flavour” which I find very offputting. Their video marketing is even worse. Contrast with Apple, who do this perfectly. I’m convinced that this is impacting their sales. The Meta Portal was an excellent product for example, but the marketing was dreadful, so it flopped.
• dcchambers 2y ago
  Still kinda dorky looking but 10x better than what Snap unveiled last week.[^1] Software looks miles ahead of the AR glasses competition as well. Nice job FB engineers...keep cooking! [^1]: https://www.spectacles.com/ https://www.spectacles.com/
  • jlund-molfese 2y ago
    I was going to say that Snap's offering was probably cheaper or designed for mass marketing because their page looks like something you could actually buy. But that isn't the case! Snap will only rent them to you at $1200/year [0], can't imagine what the BOM is like for either of these products. [0] https://www.spectacles.com/lens-studio https://www.spectacles.com/lens-studio
    • prettymuchnoone 2y ago
      don't know about spectacles but the verge's article about it quote someone saying it's about 10k to make this: > As Meta’s executives retell it, the decision to shelve Orion mostly came down to the device’s astronomical cost to build, which is in the ballpark of $10,000 per unit. Most of that cost is due to how difficult and expensive it is to reliably manufacture the silicon carbide lenses. When it started designing Orion, Meta expected the material to become more commonly used across the industry and therefore cheaper, but that didn’t happen.
    • homefree 2y ago
      Snap's design is really awful looking - to the point I can't see how it doesn't just damage the brand. Plus Snap's core business is a mess I don't see how they could really compete with Meta on this they'll run out of money first. It's cool to see Meta's continued work/focus in this space - a polished internal prototype is probably the right place for this hardware.
      • bhouston 2y ago
        > Plus Snap's core business is a mess Snap is worth $20B, Meta is worth $1.5T. No comparison.
• 1270018080 2y ago
  Why would you want to wear these? I don't care about the way it looks, but why would you want actaully AR glasses?
  • _kidlike 2y ago
    don't you want it to tell you that you're looking at a pineapple?
• momoschili 2y ago
  A few major elements to this that I'm really interested in: 1. wireless data transfer and how that affects the performance 2. EMG: this is alright, but seems to be a bit overhyped 3. MicroLED: clearly the best display technology available, but how close is color display to consumer price levels? 4. silicon carbide: great material, interested in seeing it at scale 5. magnesium frame: super awesome to see this being pushed as wel
  • camus_absurd 2y ago
    For #4, I don’t think scaling should be a major issue as the tooling industry has been manufacturing at scale for decades now. The only real difference is the customer
    • momoschili 2y ago
      I think the requirements at the semi level are quite different than what the tooling industry will be able to produce. The silicon carbide layer thickness probably needs to be controlled at least to the 10 nm level and the film quality will need to be quite high for optical applications. There is some use of silicon carbide in semi in high power electronics, but I don't know how well that transfers to optical quality either.
    • stevage 2y ago
      The Verge article said silicon carbide was too expensive and they were moving away from it.
  • TiredOfLife 2y ago
    1. Quest has had a wireless connection to PC for 3+ years and it's fine for fast paced games like Beat Saber.
• jarbus 2y ago
  Everyone was crapping on Zuck for his pivot from FB to Meta, and I was generally in the minority for supporting it. I even bought a quest 3, even though I refuse to use instagram. This turnaround for the company has been legendary. I think there’s something to say on “betting on people”. I didn’t believe in Meta or the technology, necessarily - for some reason, I believed in Zuck. He was willing to put his entire empire on this massive bet and stuck it out, despite the backlash and negative PR
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • ojbyrne 2y ago
    Maybe? This isn't a product, it's a prototype. It costs $10k to build. https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo-mark-zuckerberg-interview https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo...
  • baby 2y ago
    The engineers and the engineering culture at Meta is also incredible
  • regularfry 2y ago
    Worth pointing out, possibly, that it hasn't actually paid off yet.
    • zmmmmm 2y ago
      If they stopped forward investment today, Reality Labs would be profitable just selling Quest hardware and software and Meta Ray Bans. The reason it loses money hand over fist is because they are not nearly done yet with where they want the tech to be.
      • mucle6 2y ago
        Source?
• dvh 2y ago
  In third video (conference call) I see black t-shirt atop of background. How is it physically possible?
  • svnt 2y ago
    Assuming the video is real, it is conceivable the display is a combination of light screening and light emitting.
  • aaron695 2y ago
    [dead]
• SeanAnderson 2y ago
  > While Orion won’t make its way into the hands of consumers harumph. This tech is cool, but there's a worrying trend of important tech companies creating larger than life PR announcements without anything I can actually get my hands/eyes on
  • kfarr 2y ago
    Yes this is buying them time, not an actual product announcement but press treats it as though it were a consumer available product.
  • aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Well, the announcement is necessary because Snap has a similar product that's out now, and ostensibly Google is making one also. Apple probably will be 2-3 years behind perfecting their version, as is their MO. It also invigorates current devs for Quest by showing them what their apps could run on in the future
  • LoganDark 2y ago
    > This tech is cool, but there's a worrying trend of important tech companies creating larger than life PR announcements without anything I can actually get my hands/eyes on Funny thing is a company called Micronics actually recently launched an actual Kickstarter campaign for something they planned to ship to consumers, then they decided to sell to some enterprise company instead and cancel the campaign. So even stuff that was advertised as for consumers isn't safe from never actually happening
• froidpink 2y ago
  I can't wait
• greener_grass 2y ago
  Glasses that offer you an AR experience / HUD? Pretty cool Glasses that let you record people without their awareness / consent? Downright creepy I think the best play here would be to release them without any camera functionality at all, or the connotations will be that weird, sweaty guy that no one wants to sit next to on the subway (see: Google Glass).
  • candiddevmike 2y ago
    > Glasses that let you record people without their awareness / consent? I think in this instance it's probably "let Meta record people and associate the data to their shadow profiles". Doubly creepy.
  • prettymuchnoone 2y ago
    well they're not going to be sold to consumers (apparently they cost like 10k-ish to make)...but i'm curious how they'd do motion tracking without cameras though...
    • baby 2y ago
      they have two tiny insects inside the device that are attracted and trying to bite the pupil in your eyes, by measuring their orientation they can figure out where you're looking
    • squeaky-clean 2y ago
      I think they mean the cameras shouldn't be available in user-space / app-space. But I still bet there would be some sort of jailbreak tutorial available a couple days after the retail launch.
    • jazzyjackson 2y ago
      WiFi 7?
  • wlesieutre 2y ago
    If they do it like their current Ray Ban glasses, there's an LED on the front that lights up when it's recording. People will no doubt disable it though.
• wilsonnb3 2y ago
  Decent hands on article from the verge with more info https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo-mark-zuckerberg-interview https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo... Wireless compute puck. 70 degree FOV. Resolution high enough to read text. Wrist band detects hand gestures and will be used in another product.
  • prettymuchnoone 2y ago
    the wristband reminds me of the Myo armband, this thing you could wear to control a computer did meta buy them out?
    • dmarcos 2y ago
      Yes, they did https://www.roadtovr.com/facebook-acquires-ctrl-labs-develop-wrist-worn-input-device/amp/ https://www.roadtovr.com/facebook-acquires-ctrl-labs-develop... I had the first myoband sdk and didn’t work for me. I imagine tech is much improved now
      • asadm 2y ago
        Thalmic (makers of Myo, later renamed to North) was acq. by Google actually.
        • dmarcos 2y ago
          Ctrl-labs bought Myo band IP from North (formerly Thalmic) https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/27/ctrl-labs-scoops-up-myo-armband-tech-from-north/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/27/ctrl-labs-scoops-up-myo-ar...
          • deleted 2y ago
            [deleted]
        • PierceJoy 2y ago
          And funnily enough they were working on smart glasses when they were acquired by Google
• Etheryte 2y ago
  While I understand that this is a prototype, it's unfortunate that they've outlined no specs of any kind. How long is the battery life, how heavy are they, what's the resolution, field of view, etc? As is, it's impossible to really say if this is a dud or a truly remarkable piece of tech.
  • prettymuchnoone 2y ago
    the verge's hands on has more info: 2 hours, 98g, 70 degrees https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo-mark-zuckerberg-interview https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo...
• perihelions 2y ago
  [flagged]
• 4fterd4rk 2y ago
  How many more millions are these companies going to flush down the toilet before they get it through their heads that normal people do not like wearing technology on their face? 3D TVs failed. VR gaming failed. Even Apple isn't really pulling off AR. They test and develop these products on their techie early adopter employees and are shocked shocked shocked when normal people who care what they look like aren't willing to look like an idiot in front of their friends.
  • wilsonnb3 2y ago
    According to Zuck people actually do like wearing tech on their face if it has the right form factor, hence the Meta Raybans selling well.
    • popcalc 2y ago
      I would wager that Meta RayBans are primarily used by men to discreetly document their one night stands.
  • baby 2y ago
    reading this comment with my Meta glasses on
  • theshackleford 2y ago
    >VR gaming failed. It may be niche, but it's not a failure to me and I appreciate the market. Most of my gaming is in VR and has been for years. I treat it like my steering wheel and pedals or anything else. I have a dedicated room for VR/my simrig. For the market that want's it, it works incredibly well. Could be better, but I get being a niche developments are going to come slowly. I'm in the lucky minority I suppose in that I have no issue using it. None, not so much as a hint of nausea even far back as the original devkits. I slip the headset on in under 5 seconds, I play for anywhere from 15 minutes into the hours and I slip it off again in the same amount of time. I understand not everyone is willing to entertain that, but it's no skin off my nose. It's still one of the LESS involved hobbies I have in terms of effort honestly. I'm probably more willing to entertain wearing technology on my face because i'm a motorcyclist and my headsets are sure as all get out lighter than my helmet is. And then after the helmet I gotta get into my personal oven aka leathers etc etc. So im probably just used to engaging in less passive activities requiring more than the bare minium I suppose. Different strokes for all us different folks I suppose.
• entropicdrifter 2y ago
  Reminds of the anime Dennou Coil. I hope someday AR becomes boring tech and we'll be able to buy devices from less-sinister companies that won't be monitoring our eye positions and iris dilation in order to manipulate our attention for profit. Better yet, an AR device that integrates with your PC rather than a cloud-based anything.
  • saagarjha 2y ago
    Is Megamass more or less sinister than Meta in this scenario
• manofmanysmiles 2y ago
  Is it just me, or are the videos that look like they're shot through the glasses extremely jerky and at a low frame rate? For me, buttery smooth animation and synchronization of the physical and projected world are table stakes.
  • commakozzi 2y ago
    It's a prototype...
• tootie 2y ago
  It's impressive hardware and some nifty demos, but I'm holding fast with AR just being a deadend. No matter how many pixels you can jam into these things, there just isn't a compelling case for using them. Nothing that isn't easier to do with a touchscreen or a keyboard. Those midair gestures just aren't ergonomic. And there's no way to balance the transmissivity of the lenses and the overlayed images without getting crummier visuals than a screen. AR experiences on headsets and on phones have been bouncing around for years. There was a big push with new XR toolkits from Apple and Android a few years ago. Yet no one has ever produced anything more than a demo of something nifty. The one and only "killer app" remains Pokemon Go which is really just a clever gimmick. I think this is a classic solution in search of a problem.
  • zmmmmm 2y ago
    I'm really curious for people with your point of view, if you could put on glasses like that which actually looked normal and have a 4k monitor in front of you as good as your real monitor - would you not get it purely for that function? For me this is such a no brainer that I always just wonder how people hold the point of view that they can't see a use for it no matter how good it gets.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• Sanzig 2y ago
  On one hand - if the demos are representative, this looks like a very cool product right out of science fiction. On the other hand, Meta is one of the very last companies that I would trust to operate a fleet of network connected always-on cameras attached to everyone's faces. The privacy implications are pretty horrifying. Imagine if Meta decided to run facial recognition on-device and upload the results to their advertising services. Your position could be easily tracked any time you walk into the field of view of someone wearing Meta glasses without your consent. Not to mention for users that choose to use these things voluntarily, you are giving Meta an intimate look into every waking moment of your life. You think data brokers have too much on you now, just wait. EDIT: Looks like most innocuous comments expressing privacy concerns on this post are getting flagged. That's not how HN is supposed to work, folks.
  • throwup238 2y ago
    Especially after the whole Occulus Facebook account fiasco. The technology looks great but I have zero interest in owning a Facebook product because they can't be trusted, full stop.
    • Handy-Man 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • baby 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • criddell 2y ago
      Are you saying you don't want to walk around your home wearing a camera connected to Facebook?
  • mandibles 2y ago
    Don't forget the internal data pipeline to the security state apparatus in the various FB operating jurisdictions.
  • jachee 2y ago
• w10-1 2y ago
  I agree with the business model of focusing on vertical integration with specific partners instead of DTC. There will be inevitable product quality trade-offs, but if you can select the partner context where those trade-offs work you can make progress and perhaps build in some price discrimination.
• roughly 2y ago
  The older I get - and the older Facebook gets - the less I want these.
  • baby 2y ago
    usually the older you get the more you need glasses :o)
  • yard2010 2y ago
    The older I get, the less I want Facebook to get older
• Fabricio20 2y ago
  Wow these look huge, I was expecting it from the comments but it still managed to surpass my expectations. I wonder if they managed to squeeze a battery in it and that's why it's so thick. Assuming it's light enough to not cause pain after some extended use it's a huge step up from the Quest series (and other VR headsets that cover your entire head pretty much!) and a completely different class of product compared to other AR Headsets like the Apple Vision Pro which require an external power brick.
  • baby 2y ago
    Quest 3 is 515g, Orion is <100g, so pretty good! But 3-4x a normal pair of glasses
  • phyrex 2y ago
    100g, has a battery, but still a power puck
    • ahahahahah 2y ago
      It's a compute puck, not a power puck.
  • alasdair_ 2y ago
    It has a battery in it (the puck is compute). It lasts 2 hours at the moment.
  • not_good_coder 2y ago
    While we don't know who is making the components, check out https://www.enovix.com/ https://www.enovix.com/ for batteries. Samira is from Meta and previously worked on XR... https://ir.enovix.com/management/samira-naraghi https://ir.enovix.com/management/samira-naraghi
• Fordec 2y ago
  Maybe not exactly the iPhone moment, but may be the AR PalmPre. A further slimmer, less goofy version of this may actually have potential.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• linhns 2y ago
  While the tech looks cool to me as I do not understand AR that much, this will be another headache inducer.
• dyauspitr 2y ago
  Why doesn’t Meta do those Apple style releases. It would build so much more hype than a random press release like this.
  • phyrex 2y ago
    It's happening literally right now? https://www.meta.com/connect/ https://www.meta.com/connect/
    • jazzyjackson 2y ago
      There's a Watch Now button that just brings me to a Facebook page with nothing to watch. Can't watch any of the posted videos without logging into Facebook. I guess they're not trying to win any new converts at this point.
      • phyrex 2y ago
        That's not true you can just close the login modal and watch the presentations without logging in
        • jazzyjackson 2y ago
          Weird. It works for me now. Previously I would get the login modal every time I tapped the unmute icon.
• baby 2y ago
  Looking at all the reactions from first time users, it really made me want to try those. Quite large and apparently under 100g (to compare, the average weight for prescription glasses is 20-40g). That being said, nothing compared to a Quest. I would use this just for being able to see avatars when I talk to someone (I already take my calls walking using the Meta glasses).
  • dylan604 2y ago
    Why do you need, er want, to see an avatar while talking to someone while walking?
    • Philpax 2y ago
      Being able to see their facial expressions and gestures. The usual reasons.
      • rnk 2y ago
        But if someone calls you on the phone, they are just sending their voice to you, there's no Avatar from them, except for one your software invented. The one that you're looking at is disconnected from the actual person.
        • Philpax 2y ago
          They could be video-calling you or using their own pair of glasses with their own avatar. It doesn't necessarily have to be audio-only, especially when it will get easier and easier to do this.
• fidotron 2y ago
  Facebook get one step closer to blurring out real ads and overlaying them with FB ads. It is incredibly clever, and you have to respect the technology, but the endgame here is horrific.
  • wilg 2y ago
    The "horrific" end game you mention here doesn't even result in seeing more ads.
    • CursedUrn 2y ago
      I take it you've never seen HYPER-REALITY? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs
      • wilg 2y ago
        that’s not what the person i’m replying to said
  • baby 2y ago
    It must not be fun to see every new technological improvement as a horrific thing
    • jerf 2y ago
      It isn't. I miss when I didn't have to examine every new device to see what data about me it's going to Hoover up to some mothership to see how it can manipulate me to do things against my interest. But to the extent you're pitching it as some sort of reactionary lashing out against the bright glorious shining future... sorry. It's not me. It's tech. There has been a real change in the tech space. I used to just be able to take nearly for granted that tech is going to benefit me. Now I can't. I phrased it as I did on purpose; to do things against my interest. If you are not actively guarding yourself against that, you're a victim of it, probably a great deal more than you realize. To ignore that aspect of tech is sheer foolishness and getting more dangerous by the year.
• beardyw 2y ago
  Looking at the example I immediately thought of warehouse staff. AI knows what the thing is and where it is to go. Human is a machine to put it there. Humans as an extension of AI. Welcome to the future
• SeanAnderson 2y ago
  some interesting bits from the Verge article: > Micro LED projectors inside the frame that beam graphics in front of your eyes via waveguides in the lenses > [requires] wireless compute puck that resembles a large battery pack for a phone > [glasses weigh] 98 grams > the battery only lasts about two hour > Orion was supposed to be a product you could buy. > $10,000 per unit [to build]
• tambourine_man 2y ago
  I know meta (ha) discussions are frowned upon on HN, but I never really understood why, so here it goes: This link weights in 115MB. It loads a 30MB GIF for its hero image. That's from a company that was born on and from the Web. The people that brought you React.
  • __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    They brought you React so that there'd be plenty of bloat at runtime for their trackers to hide in. Seems consistent to me.
  • paxys 2y ago
    The "GIF" is a video. You are watching a bunch of advertising videos. 115 MB isn't really very much in that regard.
    • tambourine_man 2y ago
      No, it's a GIF, in the file format sense. Se for yourself: https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/01_Why-AR-Glasses_Carousel-01.gif https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/01_Why-AR-Gl... They have since optimized it and it now weights 23.5MB. Yey. I just converted it to MP4 and it's 1.7MB. Hire me Meta, I can make your videos load 10X faster with a single ffmpeg command.
      • thehappypm 2y ago
        Is mp4 a drop-in replacement in practice for gif?
        • tambourine_man 2y ago
          In most cases, yes. But even when it's not, I'd be hard pressed to justify 10X the size while having worse fps, colors, battery life, etc.
  • dtdynasty 2y ago
• ang_cire 2y ago
  This is cool from a technical standpoint, but ultimately just feels like another gimmick. This feels like it's doing stuff that I could do faster or better (and definitely, more safely) on a computer or phone. I don't personally see the appeal of hands-free as a paradigm in most cases. Do we really want people talking on and looking at Zoom as they walk around the office? Or as they drive? Or as they are out shopping? I also see ESPN and YouTube, so yeah... this thing better detect when you're moving at speed and disable video apps. I'm just struggling to see when you would be in a setting where you should use these, that you shouldn't be using a device you already have. It's like trying to sell me on using a smartwatch to take voice calls: sure, there is exactly 1 situation I can think of where that's useful, which is getting a call when I'm out running and don't want to "lug" a whole phone with me. But I sure don't want to be wearing glasses when I otherwise don't need to (and these aren't prescription, so you are), just in case someone tries to Zoom me unplanned. Can you imagine how goofy you'd look sitting at a coffee shop and just sort of staring into the middle distance and talking, as you take a Zoom call?
  • baby 2y ago
    If you get the opportunity to try the Meta glasses, you will quickly see that it's more than just a gimmick, and they don't even have any display
    • TiredOfLife 2y ago
      Orion is a see through device with screen. Something like Hololens.
      • baby 2y ago
        that's what I said, the Meta glasses don't even have a display and they're insanely useful (through the AI assistant, the speakers, the microphone, the camera). I can't imagine how game changer something that also has a display will be.
        • svnt 2y ago
• anonzzzies 2y ago
  So when can we order?
  • prettymuchnoone 2y ago
    you might be able to order hypernova, a slimmed down version of this, next year heavy on the might
• rglover 2y ago
  Is there a term for tech companies rushing toward the future? It seems like there's this cultural rushing toward a future that isn't quite here combined with a tendency toward gaslighting that it is. Not for the sake of planting a flag and iterating toward it, but almost like there's a grasping at a sci-fi reality that current tech can't meet and what we're seeing are a series of commercial-grade Veruca Salt tantrums.
• paxys 2y ago
  I can see why it isn't a consumer-ready product, but the tech is nevertheless amazing. AR/VR getting smaller and moving away from bulky headsets is clearly the future. Hopefully we'll see it in Ray-Ban form in the coming years.
• bbor 2y ago
  1. "The name Nazaré is the Portuguese version of Nazareth" ok y'all, I know you're working on edge tech, but lets cool the rhetoric down a little bit. Can't believe the PR-minded execs approved this choice. 2. "It was so challenging that we thought we had less than a 10% chance of pulling it off successfully." Definitely a targeted message to the activist investors urging FB to stick to social media haha. Love it, and believe them 100% on the specific claim! Supposedly Apple Vision came about when they finally gave up on traditional AR (for now). 3. "Zuckerberg imagines that people will want to use AR glasses like Orion for two primary purposes: communicating with each other through digital information overlaid on the real world — which he calls “holograms” — and interacting with AI." I hope to god "AI" as a term looses steam -- basically all he's saying is that this computer will be used for computing. Yes, indeed. 4. "To demonstrate how two people wearing Orion together could interact with the same holograms, I played a 3D take on Pong with Zuckerberg... Zuckerberg beat me, unfortunately." I find it somewhat hilarious how Zuckerberg, Bezos and Elon are simultaneously some of the most powerful people to ever live, and at the same time mascots for multinational conglomerates bigger than they could ever hope to truly understand or control. Zuckerberg is obviously the best mascot out of the bunch, and this is only further proof of that. 5. Wow, the Neural Wristband is insanely cool. Just... wow. I haven't seen anyone even hinting at that, but it seems incredibly obvious in hindsight. See this exploratory paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12652-020-01852-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12652-020-01852-z Hilariously, it seems that the initial consumer usecase was a $200 powerpoint remote -- props to the free market! https://wearabletech.io/myo-bracelet https://wearabletech.io/myo-bracelet . 6. I feel like calling EMG "neural" is a stretch, it seems to be monitoring muscle contraction events only... Is anyone else convinced that they're intentionally using the word to prepare consumers for upcoming non-invasive EEG BCI tech, now that LLM approaches like DeWave have unlocked it? They've certainly got an uphill battle ahead of them to separate it from a) scary scifi and b) scary invasive EEG BCI like Neuralink. But it's just the obvious next step; the glasses already touch your frontal cortex, even!
  • escapecharacter 2y ago
    Context: I'm a former CTRL Labs & Meta employee. "neural" was a somewhat contentious term to academics, but it's the easiest way to describe to consumers. Academics consider neural interfaces to be directly touching the neurons, whether an invasive BCI, or an invasive device touching part of the peripheral nervous system. Technically this is a "neuromotor" interface, motor meaning detecting muscle, rather than neuron, activity. This makes academics happy but confuses some people, so neural it is.
• wilg 2y ago
  IMO, AR/VR remains mostly a software and UX problem, in that there's nothing particularly useful to do with it. Yes, you can keep improving the hardware, but you'd think we would have figured out something that is better enough in VR or AR on current hardware. Even gamers, who are notoriously interested in buying silly peripherals, care almost zero about VR gaming. Even with huge games like Half-Life: Alyx that are universally praised and part of huge franchises from AAA developers.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• raldi 2y ago
  Cmd-F battery (no results)
  • prettymuchnoone 2y ago
    2 hours, according to the verge
    • raldi 2y ago
      For what kind of use?
• SirFatty 2y ago
  A solution looking for a problem.
  • siquick 2y ago
    I don’t know a single person who is interested in anything like this, including massive gadgets nerds. Who’s the target market? The Verge reporters?
    • walthamstow 2y ago
      I am strongly interested but I would never buy the first iteration of anything like this
    • t-3 2y ago
      AR has a ton of mostly-work-related uses - think about warehousing, quality control, maintenance and repair, recording first-person views for tutorial videos or live seminars, identifying plants, HUD during surgery, schematic displays while working with electronics or mechanical parts, and many more. For leisure the only thing I'd want a display on my face for is reading books and news.
    • CaptainFever 2y ago
      I want it, if it's cheap enough. Now you know a single person.
    • theshackleford 2y ago
      On the other hand, I know plenty who are. Anecdotes, fun for the whole family!
    • zmmmmm 2y ago
      And yet people who try it instantly want it. The Meta Ray Bans are a hit, they couldn't make enough for a long time. Sometimes upfront demand isn't the only indicator that matters.
  • aierou 2y ago
    I disagree with this sentiment. Form factor has been the driving force behind the adoption of computing devices throughout history—look at the PC or the smartphone. Each one marked a new era. Glasses seem like the preeminent form factor for a computing device, short of a direct neural interface. The smartphone enabled always-available computing. Glasses will enable always-on computing.
• TheAceOfHearts 2y ago
  One minor detail that stands out to me is that the UI looks way smoother than what Snap recently showed off in their demos. The Snap glasses were jittery and icons jumped around a bit from the few videos I saw. This Orion demo video look very smooth in comparison. To me this highlights an attention to detail.
• kaycebasques 2y ago
  For a long time it nagged at me that I was sleeping on VR/AR/XR. Couldn't bring myself to spend hundreds of dollars on something I may not use consistently, though. A few months back my wife was restoring a mural and one of the artists brought their Quest headset with Kingspray Graffiti loaded up on it. My wife tried it and loved it so I finally had enough excuse to buy a headset. It's pretty great. The first experience is quite memorable. My "killer app" is Xbox Cloud Gaming. I love laying on the couch with a gigantic, very high-quality screen immersing me in Starfield. Although two nights ago I think I got serious motion sickness. Haven't found any killer/sticky apps beyond that. But it's mission accomplished in the sense that I have crossed the gateway into the world of XR/VR/AR.
• sergiotapia 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • jazzyjackson 2y ago
    Sorry what are they doing in the social media space? As far as I can tell they are THE cookie cutter by which all other platforms cut themselves.
    • sergiotapia 2y ago
      just go on reels comments and tell me that's cookie cutter. there's a deliberate choice to allow raunch, and i love it.
• wg0 2y ago
  So product managers in these companies really think these products will make money and would become sustainable produc lone? Or it's just muscle flex and show off?
  • pnw 2y ago
    Zuck has invested billions in this idea over the course of a decade. I think it's way beyond some "product managers".
  • jazzyjackson 2y ago
    They know that they don't want to be empty handed and scrambling to acquire when someone stumbles upon a killer app
  • mattlondon 2y ago
    They backed the wrong horse RE "The Next Big Thing", and they're being stubborn about admitting it IMHO. Sunk costs and all that. I think everyone was obviously aware that "the metaverse" and VR was obviously not what the world needed, yet they pivoted the whole company to it while they totally missed AI taking over ~everything else. Yes yes llama leak/release etc, but I am not really seeing them making any product efforts in the AI space (e.g. no ChatGPT competitor). Apple fell for it too somehow and spent gazillions on a VR headset that no one will even remember in 18 months, which is interesting how two parts of FAANG totally totally totally predicted the market completely and entirely wrong. Group think? Corporate sabotage? Corruption/fraud? It beggars belief, really it does - this was so obvious to anyone yet these two huge huge tech companies went all-in on dorky VR that will go the same way as 3D TV/movies (remember that?). Amazing really.
    • ac29 2y ago
      > no ChatGPT competitor See www.meta.ai
      • mattlondon 2y ago
        > Meta AI isn't available yet in your country Meanwhile I can use ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, Midjourney, Gemini, Huggingface...
• JoshTriplett 2y ago
  Yet another nice piece of hardware hampered by attempting to lock people into a proprietary ecosystem. (And an AI-centric one at that.) I would love to have a set of AR glasses. I would love to have a wide variety of features that they could enable. I'd like them to be at least as open as an Android phone is, or as open as a 2D monitor is. Standard ports / standard wireless interfaces. Install your own software, not from an app store. Ability to use with any ecosystem.
  • diyftw 2y ago
    I wish I was surprised that you're getting downvoted for, quite literally, asking for open standards in new tech. I would have thought HACKER news would be more receptive when, on the first page, there are stories about having trouble getting young people to maintain open source projects and linux distros.
  • shiroiushi 2y ago
    >I would love to have a set of AR glasses. I've been wanting this for a long time now, but really just for cycling. It would be incredibly handy to have some AR glasses connected to Google Maps, showing a moving map in my field of view as I'm biking through the city and telling me where to turn. Even if it's really nothing more than a separate screen (sort of like Android Auto) for my phone, that's all I need for this. If I need to interact with the UI, I can pull over and get out my phone; I just want the glasses so I can see the moving map (along with changes when I take a different turn than prescribed).
• ben_w 2y ago
  When they say "holographic display", do they mean "wave interference patterns" (true hologram) or just "Pepper's ghost" type stuff?
  • teraflop 2y ago
    It's hard to say for sure because this write-up is much more marketing than technical, but they probably mean it uses holographic optical elements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_optical_element https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_optical_element These are more or less "true" holographic elements, because they rely on wave optics and interference. But the pattern is fixed at manufacturing time, not varying with the image that's being displayed. And the image being displayed to each eye is still 2D, not 3D. Basically, an HOE can act like a system of lenses and mirrors for collimating the image from each eye's display and making it appear at a comfortable viewing distance -- but is much smaller and lighter.
    • ClassyJacket 2y ago
      Thankyou, I was wondering how the hell the screens could possibly be in focus without lenses.
  • dmarcos 2y ago
    No true hologram afaik. They mentioned waveguides. Looks same tech lineage than hololens / magic leap. I think Microsoft was first using holographic buzz word for these non-holographic displays https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens “holographic device”
  • modeless 2y ago
    The displayed images are not light fields, just regular stereo 3D. However, the waveguides are holographic. So it's technically correct. And the displayed images will look like the hologram projectors seen in popular movies like Star Wars, so it's not misleading either.
• edflsafoiewq 2y ago
  The two "thumbnails" in the Featured News sidebar on this page are two 720p GIFs, totaling about 32MB. There is another 7MB GIF that I don't even see used anywhere. The result is 40 MB burned on peripheral junk and I never get to see how goofy the glasses look because the pictures in the main article never manage to load. edit: Oh wait, they are actually animated WEBPs, just renamed to .gif.
  • 0x00000000 2y ago
    Showcasing a product where visual fidelity is the entire experience with embedded 12fps gifs is definitely a decision.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• epolanski 2y ago
  Lol, if it was Apple announcing a similar prototype HN would be crazy and this thread would have 3000 comments already. But since it's meta, it's mostly negative.
  • barbazoo 2y ago
    > But since it's meta, it's mostly negative. Same with other companies actively damaging the world around us. Tobacco, Weapons, etc.
    • epolanski 2y ago
      Yeah, Apple meanwhile makes it better.
  • hightrix 2y ago
    There’s a good reason for that. Ad companies don’t get much love from HN.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• timeon 2y ago
  Interesting that Meta is using Wordpress.
• LarsDu88 2y ago
  Just remember, these are $10000 prototypes. Two more silicon nodes (36 months 2027) and these will be the same size as regular sunglasses
  • hightrix 2y ago
    I’ve heard this promise so many times that I’m just a bit skeptical.
    • LarsDu88 2y ago
      Is it so unimaginable today that a 2x shrinkage is possible?
      • rnk 2y ago
        But we keep seeing these devices after multiple generations and they keep using more and more silicone so they're not shrinking that much.
  • zmmmmm 2y ago
    The $10k figure is interesting because if they wanted to I'm sure they could sell these to tech elites and celebrities for that much (essentially, the Tesla approach). Presumably the software isn't there yet, but it seems like a missed opportunity to me - imagine getting all the A and B list celebs wearing them. Perhaps it's just not realistic until another iteration but it seems tantalisingly close.
• apitman 2y ago
  I'm hopeful that ubiquitous AR can be a good thing. I remember being inspired many years ago by the book "Rainbows End" about the possibilities. I am a bit concerned to see advertising companies at the forefront. This is a great video that demonstrates some of the risks: https://youtu.be/YJg02ivYzSs?si=KOQD8RtLR1Il1ZQl https://youtu.be/YJg02ivYzSs?si=KOQD8RtLR1Il1ZQl
• tippytippytango 2y ago
  I've been trying some of the smart glasses on the market and the optics don't agree with me, almost instantly they cause me severe eye strain and eventually headaches. Which is strange because I'm alright with VR for 45-60 minutes. I really want to use these devices for portable productivity but they are so far from that in their current state. I hope Meta can solve these issues.
• modzu 2y ago
  cant wait for face ads. ubiquitous ar would be cool, but not from these companies
• aaroninsf 2y ago
  Giving power to Meta to track what you are attentive to, where, with whom, is about the worst conceivable decision a consumer could make, technology and oo ahh notwithstanding. They have not only proven durably resistant to even their own tepid self-constraint, hostile to oversight, entirely willing to violate the law, and disinterested in basic moral restraint, the story—literally today—is about Zuckerberg's now open disregard for ethical action, under the tutelage of Thiel.
• kirykl 2y ago
  Great now its even easier to join video meetings from my desk at the office
• nathias 2y ago
  I just want glasses to replace screens, so I can make a proper cyberdeck.
• fudged71 2y ago
  I notice the gesture armband in the last product photo, great way to offload some of the sensing of the device.
• smileson2 2y ago
  It’s a cool concept, I do like the idea of something like this as a sort of hud for some tasks I also wanted that from HoloLens and hololens2 which I worked with for a bit but both of those were just painful for me to use and I wasn’t a fan of the display
• m3kw9 2y ago
  Complete ass move by Meta to use OpenAIs next gen models
• wslh 2y ago
  Technically, it's impressive, a real evolution in the field. However, from a business perspective, it's impossible to predict who the winners will be in this space. Companies like Apple, Samsung, and others could enter the AR/VR market with a similar device when the time is right. I assume they want to build a more appealing brand for software engineers.
• KoolKat23 2y ago
  Even Realities pair of glass seem like the right compromise at the moment.
• CapeTheory 2y ago
  One day someone will create an AR/VR product which doesn't look ridiculous - but it is not this day.
• sharpshadow 2y ago
  It's been 20 years since they're promising me a naked scanner app.. it's almost here.
• Jayakumark 2y ago
  Getting Amazon Fire Phone Pre release Vibe with those users comments who were wearing it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcLBzZuovo8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcLBzZuovo8 While the tech is great, It should be affordable and usable, On the Interface Voice - More and more, i feel like Voice is not a good interface as not many wants to speak aloud to get things done (see Alexa and Google home - only used as timers mostly) except for dictation. Hand Tracking - We all know usable how touch screen on a laptop or big screen monitor is , the time and distance for travel with hand is too high compared to a mouse. Eye Tracking - Seems to Lacks precision Neural Link - Not sure how neural link is for using keyboard and stuff. Until we get neural link to read our thoughts, we may rely on keyboards and using multiple fingers are the fastest way.
• mrbonner 2y ago
  Does Mark Zuckerberg just look like he is in the healthiest stage of his life? Fit, less pale from late night overwork, smiles a lot more. He must be doing something right after let the Metaverse go.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• dmitrygr 2y ago
  Does not seem to properly address the fact that with this kind of design you cannot do occlusion of brighter real world objects. This makes me SERIOUSLY doubt their "usable outside" claims. Maybe on a moonless night... The lack of any fast head movement in all the demo videos also makes me think that they did not at all solve the latency problem, and all the slow deliberate movement is to hide that. CTRL+F-ing for "occlusion" or "latency" has zero results, further compounding the worries
• jzacharia 2y ago
  meta redemption arc incoming
• eximius 2y ago
  Still feels like Intel Vault was the best iteration of AR. I desperately wish someone would pick that back up.
  • alanbernstein 2y ago
    I hadn't heard of these, they look good, but the gap between smart glasses with monochrome HUD and AR is quite large. Neat display tech though. Vaunt, not vault.
    • eximius 2y ago
      Hmmm that was an autocorrect I hadn't noticed. Thanks for the correction! My understanding was that it was on its way for true AR, just with limited display capabilities. e.g., if I only wanted augmented information, monochrome is just fine. I don't really need to be able to play pong badly to consider it AR.
      • alanbernstein 2y ago
        Augmented reality means displaying virtual 3D content, registered to the real world. So a 2D panel that sticks to a wall, or a 3D object that sits in place on a desk, etc. The display is "just" the way to present that content, getting the registration requires cameras, 6DOF sensors, CV, SLAM, etc. Monochrome AR is certainly possible, and probably 90% as useful as RGB AR. I'm just saying the Vaunt hardware seems to be display-only, i.e. a HUD, without any capability to do the registration part.
• jzacharia 2y ago
  fantastic for a prototype, meta teams are crushing it lately
• antipurist 2y ago
  > the look and feel of a regular pair of glasses That's a bold claim for glasses this comically thick. If you're interested in more normal-looking glasses with a HUD, I suggest taking a look at Even Realities G1 [1] — I have not seen them in person, but at least in photos / videos they don't scream "a piece of tech". [1] https://www.evenrealities.com/ https://www.evenrealities.com/
  • modeless 2y ago
    It's an interesting product but they are 25 degrees monochrome half VGA resolution head-locked HUD vs. 70 degrees full color HD world-locked holograms. These are in completely different categories. You could make a case that nobody needs more than a monochrome HUD but I think there will be a place for both categories of products in the future, until eventually the hologram version is miniaturized enough to make the HUD version obsolete.
• poisonborz 2y ago
  This will never be a real product. Putting it out as a "consumer grade prototype" is the pivot itself, garner the maximum PR impact and maybe snap a few customers who could be lured by most of the usability of the Vision Pro at fraction of the bulk (congrats for that!). But this ship has sailed for a decade now again.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  I met a lady once, we were in a line at DefCon. She worked on these and was quite concerned that they'd end up on the heads of children, feeding content-reaction biometrics about those children to people who would then use that data to manipulate those children in harmful ways. I'm curious if people think that that's worth worrying about, or if the idea of optimizing ad placement based on whether it makes your pupils respond in the desired way is the kind of thing that's only effective in sci-fi.
  • snackjack_38294 2y ago
    we need protections for children. An argument can be made that adults are responsible for their data, perhaps protections here are also needed, but children can't be held responsible. I would not want my children's data being harvested for some multimodal model; these days even toothbrushes are iot devices. Where will the data harvesting begin to end?
  • cooper_ganglia 2y ago
    We already put a phone in their hands by kindergarten... I think any kind of flashy tech in front of kid's eyes is almost always bad.
    • afh1 2y ago
      Speak for yourself.
      • insane_dreamer 2y ago
        I, for one, agree strongly with the OP.
    • salemh 2y ago
      [dead]
  • aniviacat 2y ago
    I think that's a realistic scenario. They will certainly attempt to use the data accessible by XR devices to make ads more effective. Actually succeeding at doing so seems realistic to me, too. Whether the legislature has notably limited data collection for ad purposes by then - probably not.
• snackjack_38294 2y ago
  [dead]
• animanoir 2y ago
  Wow, more useless trash.
• bentt 2y ago
  If it were any other company, I'd be skeptical. Since it's Meta, I'm dead set against it from day 1.
• righthand 2y ago
  Each giant marketing corp gets their own generation of glassholes if you spread the R&D far enough apart.
• andrewmcwatters 2y ago
  Oh man. I know they have a partnership with Ray-Ban, but Gentle Monster's design language would have really made these work at a consumer level.
• Aeolun 2y ago
  If feels like every builder of AR glasses falls into the same hole. At some point, after they make them smaller and better looking than the ones before it, they think “this is enough”. It is not enough. While a large improvement, those are some chunky looking glasses that I do not imagine anyone wants on their face.
  • martpie 2y ago
    That is exactly what Meta acknowledged, and this is not a product that is going to be released to the public anyway.
  • modeless 2y ago
    They are explicitly saying that it's not enough...
  • lazyeye 2y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdFB7q89_3U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdFB7q89_3U
  • 98codes 2y ago
    I like wearing chunky glasses -- they fit my face well. These things look at least twice the thickness of anything I'd ever consider wearing in public, in any circumstance.
  • rising-sky 2y ago
    > those are some chunky looking glasses that I do not imagine anyone wants on their face You realize this is a prototype and not available for sale to the general public... right?
  • didyouread 2y ago
    It feels like most people aren't actually reading. They are showcasing the current technological improvements. They did explicitly say its not enough and are just a prototype to showcase what they have so far.
  • mystified5016 2y ago
• packetlost 2y ago
  Am I the only one that wants AR to effectively be an extension of my phone? Like, give me video game HUDs with handoff from a handheld similar to CarPlay/Android Auto, please. The killer feature of AR is that it can be omnipresent in your FOV, which enables a whole class of apps that just otherwise aren't possible.
• lazyeye 2y ago
  I'm waiting on real-life english subtitles regardless of language.
• peppertree 2y ago
  Missed opportunity to name it Milhouse.
• yobid20 2y ago
  Lol google glasses v2, no thanks.
• znkynz 2y ago
  Great look if you want to look like Brains from Thunderbirds.
• Geee 2y ago
  Imo this "mobile AR" is a stupid product category. This category is like Apple Watch on your face. You get to look at notifications, AR popups, messages and so on. It's mostly for consuming light-weight content on the go. First product in this category was the Google Glass. This category focuses on mobility, instead of pushing computing capability. In another category, we have PCVR and Vision Pro, which are optimized for high-end computing experiences, and compete with high-end PCs with multiple displays in terms of capability. This category pushes the boundaries of what's possible to do with computers, and has the chance to elevate productivity to a completely new level. There aren't yet any devices / software that do this, but the idea is there. These two categories might converge into a similar form factor somewhere in the far future, but as of now they represent the polar opposites of computing experience. However, I simply don't want the "mobile" experience in my life at all, and I don't think anyone wants it. When I'm moving or spending time with friends, I try to put away all devices, and expect everyone to do the same. Also, I hate notifications and pop ups, and definitely don't want them on my face. On the other hand, when I'm alone, I want to immerse myself in CAD, programming or games, and I want to use the most capable devices and software. Only PCVR and Vision Pro are devices which might elevate the experience beyond of what we have today.
  • PKop 2y ago
    >This category pushes the boundaries of what's possible to do with computers, and has the chance to elevate productivity to a completely new level. It probably has something to do with mass-production for a mass audience (not that they'll even succeed here). Look at the success of smartphones and compare their capabilities to full powered computers. They want to make it up on volume, so you have a quantity over quality dynamic of iOS-ified lowering of productive capacity. >When I'm moving or spending time with friends, I try to put away all devices, and expect everyone to do the same. Also, I hate notifications and pop ups, and definitely don't want them on my face. On the other hand, when I'm alone, I want to immerse myself in CAD, programming or games, and I want to use the most capable devices and software. Only PCVR and Vision Pro are devices which might elevate the experience beyond of what we have today. Yea, very respectable usage of technology and I relate completely, but our type is a minority of the addressable market. So toy-computers is what will be produced. This is the pessimistic reality of "democratization of technology". It makes you miss the glory days when the main target market for computers was more advanced users. Offerings for that segment could be a larger portion of sales and would thus get focus from product development that would lack today's lowest-common-denominator designs.
• noemit 2y ago
  I guess I'm the only one, but I love these. They seem so fun. I would definitely rather have glasses than to carry a phone around with me.
• wetpaws 2y ago
  [dead]
• mlsu 2y ago
  I would love to have that neural wristband released as a standalone product. I could imagine it acting as a sort of third/fourth/fifth shift key. Easy extra few degrees of freedom for an input device, for regular computer use.
• didip 2y ago
  Very good form factor. Good job to everyone on Meta.
• cebert 2y ago
  This is amazing technology, but I have a hard time trusting FB/Meta having this much additional information about my personal life.
  • spencerchubb 2y ago
    why?
    • cebert 2y ago
      They have a bad track record of respecting user’s data and selling it to advertisers.
• benreesman 2y ago
  I've long been a huge skeptic of the whole Metaverse project/undertaking, I think I've called it a smoking crater where ten billion dollars used to be. But this is really interesting: it sounds like the display works, and it sounds like the puck is workable, and it sounds like both can squeak above the line in terms of battery life. If those things are true I may turn out to have been completely wrong. I don't know the first thing about silicon carbide display substrate thingy yields, so I can't remark on whether or not that's a "scale will make cost acceptable", but I bet some mega geniuses at Meta think so or they probably wouldn't be showing this much. If it turns out that I was dead wrong on this I'll be glad I was, it would be really cool if it works.
  • kindawinda 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • benreesman 2y ago
      Because when you make a strong (some might say strident) assertion in a forum, and you think you may have done so in error based on new information, it's just good manners to acknowledge that you may have been mistaken.
      • SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
        Trust your first instinct.
  • daemonologist 2y ago
    The Verge's article[1] mentions that the consumer version planned to be a few years out won't have silicon carbine lenses, and that those lenses are responsible for the majority of the cost of the Orion device due to extremely poor yields. Sounds like they're pretty great otherwise so maybe they're return to it at some point in the mid-future. I agree regarding the undertaking - enormously costly, but if they can make it "just glasses" it might actually end up as the "next computing format" Zuckerberg was looking for. (Even in that case though, whether it was worth the investment/Meta can stay on top I don't know.) [1] - https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo-mark-zuckerberg-interview https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo... (ctrl+F for "silicon carbide", it's the last mention)
• ein0p 2y ago
  No normal person will be caught dead wearing anything AR related, especially if it’s made by a company whose main source of revenue is mass surveillance.
• auggierose 2y ago
  > We don’t think people should have to make the choice between a world of information at your fingertips and being present in the physical world around you. What a weird mission statement.
  • guiomie 2y ago
    Agreed. Can the experience provided by this hardware be so much superior to a smartphone that'd ill want to put this thing on my face if im not someone that needs to wear glasses? Can this be really superior to a "fingertip" experience I take out of my pocket when needed? I'd have to take the glasses out of my pocket, put them on when needed, OR wear them all the time? All the time is a no-go for me, I've had Lasik, and its in my top 3 best lifetime decisions, not wearing glasses is such a quality of life improvement. I'm a vision pro owner, and it's a great experience, but even with a smaller form factor, I would not consider this a replacement to the 'fingertip' experience.
  • sethammons 2y ago
    Sounds good to me; what makes it weird to you? This is AR, the point is to blend digital and the physical world. And currently you dive into a phone to interact with the digital
  • aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Why? The biggest complaint about the smartphone, a world-changing device, is that it keeps people from being present in the world around them. If you can remove that biggest complaint, huge improvement, right?
    • vlz 2y ago
      But has the device really something to do with that? Right now people are staring absent-mindedly at a screen in their hands, in the future they might be staring absent-mindedly at whatever is behind the projected image on their glasses. What’s keeping you from interacting with the world around you is probably the content not the device.
      • 2y ago
• bryan0 2y ago
  While still pretty clunky, I think I'd rather wear these for extended periods of time than Vision Pro glasses (100g vs 600g). This is the type of v1 minimalist design I was hoping Apple would go for. I assume Apple investigated this path but realized they would be cost prohibitive? (although when has that ever stopped Apple before?)
  • threeseed 2y ago
    Vision Pro is an XR device not purely AR. So there are many things very important to Apple e.g. running apps, creating content, watching movies etc. that AR glasses are completely useless for. Never really understand why people keep comparing AR to XR. Very different use cases.
    • dagmx 2y ago
      Most people aren’t actually familiar with the products or technology. Most only look at a checklist on paper and don’t bother with the details beyond that. Till these products are common place and people have tried them, it’s unfortunately always going to be the case that the distinction is not intuitive to (effectively) a layperson.
  • sutra_on 2y ago
    At $10K per pair in the first dev batch and the consumer version price still unknown, it's not surprising that this was not a reasonable option for Apple. It's going to be interesting to see the actual price and the specs once these glasses are launched.
  • ozten 2y ago
    These are entirely different tech skill trees. Meta has been acquiring research companies and empowering researchers to invent cutting edge solutions like micro-led projects and Waveguides whereas the Vision Pro is a traditional VR headset architecture. Similarly Google has invested in 3D displays that use lightfield displays, with Project Starline. One would assume Apple has many lines of research towards AR glasses, but nothing is publicly known. Meta plays the asymmetry game. Apple and OpenAI are secret shops. Meta Orion and Llama can benefit from being more open.
• precommunicator 2y ago
  One step closer to AI headbands from Ell Donsaii world
  • tandr 2y ago
    Or Mad Hatter's ones from "The Batman" cartoon series...
• heavyset_go 2y ago
  I think where these products fall flat is the fact that people don't want a computer strapped to their faces.
  • bryant 2y ago
    > I think where these products fall flat is the fact that people don't want a computer strapped to their faces. A winning strategy for a V1 product imo is a minimalist augmented reality overlay for life applications that a person's phone will do most of the processing to generate. Google Glass but proper augmented reality rather than a simple HUD.
  • Sir_Twist 2y ago
    I agree with you, but to play devils advocate: beyond the physicality of the device (whether it’s uncomfortable or ugly), how does this change the relationship between you and your information in a way that phones and smartwatches don’t? If information is already instantly accessible, how does a pair of glasses with the same capabilities change the acceptability of the concept?
• thisisnico 2y ago
  The RayBan AR Glasses are about right for size/style. This is not something I would wear out in public. Cool technology, lacks style. Style for a wearable is necessary.
• svara 2y ago
  If it works as advertised, yeah, it's cool, it's useful. But I just can't muster the excitement about this sort of thing anymore, the way I used to be able to. This is a toxin. It's going to make our teenagers sad to the point of depression. It's going to stunt their physical development. It's going to replace the warmth of human connection with a shallow surrogate that will feel like we can't do without, but never quite gets us what we really want. Let's just each for ourselves choose not to go down this path. Let's seek out effort instead of comfort, and let's build our reality together out there in the real world.
• Animats 2y ago
  Nice hardware. They're down to swim goggle size. Then you see what Facebook wants you to do with it - see screens in front of you all the time. One with Facebook's "Recommended" page, and a video of some talking neckbeard. There's a feeling of "we were promised virtual reality, and all we got was talking heads of influencers." The hardware apparently has GPS, but that's turned off. So, no Pokemon Go yet. Not even Hyperreality.[1] It's all about ads and clicks. It can't draw dark. The workaround seems to be to dim out the world and draw light overlays, like almost everybody else. Will it work in bright daylight? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs
  • alexfromapex 2y ago
    It's so sad they felt okay with unveiling these with the horrible aesthetics and no guarantees anywhere in plain sight on privacy.
    • aprilthird2021 2y ago
      I mean they are prototypes, not available for purchase. Presumably they can clean up the aesthetics and provide privacy guarantees around it when it's actually for sale. It's just to show what's possible, and to presumably jump the gun on their competitors
    • moralestapia 2y ago
      >no guarantees anywhere in plain sight on privacy Elaborate. Do you mean this with regards to the data that users will generate when using the device? Or the privacy of the people around the wearer?
      • gorjusborg 2y ago
        I could not care less about the the privacy of the weirdos who will try to wear these in public. I care deeply about the further normalization of surveillance capitalism. I try hard to be kind, but I will have very little patience for any individual who wears always-on cameras that infringe on my privacy. I don't use social media for a reason. Meta just wants to sell surveillance devices so they can collect more data, and will try to convince us it is for our benefit.
• mkatx 2y ago
  So where do you sign up to be part of the "select external audiences access to Orion"?
• skeeter2020 2y ago
  as a lifelong glasses wearer I don't understand why anyone would want to increase the time & activities involving wearing glasses, especially big, clunky ones. Make Zuck wear these 20 hrs/day in all weather & activities for a few decades, then get back to us. edit: though I got to admit it has advanced "not hotdog" capabilities...
  • dyauspitr 2y ago
    Because if I could have heavy context and help around everything I’m seeing, not using them would mean a massive disadvantage in life.
  • robotresearcher 2y ago
    > increase the time & activities involving wearing glasses Many glasses wearers have their glasses on for all their waking hours. That might even be the most common scenario. I can't see for shit without specs. I don't wear them in the shower, but that's about it.
  • beart 2y ago
    As a fellow glasses wearer, my first question was - will these ever be usable by people with poor vision? A quick google search indicates ~63% of US adults wear prescription lenses.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• theXRdev 2y ago
  [dead]
• arresin 2y ago
  > We can talk to a smart AI assistant, connect with friends and capture the moments that matter – all without ever having to pull out a phone. Interesting shot at the smartphone market but you need a big “wireless compute puck” in your pocket. Apple has the most powerful hardware at the moment that fits into a pocket and they’re also working on AR.
• vertical91 2y ago
  It's crazy how Apple is behind in this space. Smart AR glasses were conceptualized as early as the 1990s in movies like Mission Impossible (1996) and we had consumer-ready device (Google Glass) roughly 11 years ago. Yet, Apple wants to push out a "fresh" phone every year with hogwash new features.
  • KerrAvon 2y ago
    Expensive, ugly vaporware with poor specs from Facebook makes you think Apple is behind in this space?
• BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  The prominence of "Ray-Ban" in the article means they're aiming towards (possibly going to rely on) 'veblen' as opposed to 'actually useful in daily life'. Not that this is a bad strategy, but it's a red flag for this particular cheap arse.
• stonethrowaway 2y ago
  Whenever I hear about how people who work for Facebook are concerned, my first and only question to them is when do they plan on giving Zuck back all the money they took from him and FB.
• 65 2y ago
  Pretty cool. But I'm interested to see when they release these - how non-tech people will react. Anecdotally it seems computer/internet based technology is increasingly becoming more rejected by regular people. It seems people are so sick of the internet and screens that the idea of a new screen would be so nauseating figuratively and literally that wide adoption would be unlikely. As in - these big consumer facing tech companies like Meta have created addictive software, to the point where people don't even want to use their software but feel an impulse to or have nothing better to do because we have created a world in which screens are a way of life. Surely there must be a limit to the amount of digital drugs someone can take before they become sick. I'm not very bullish on new internet based consumer technology. Technology in other areas like transportation, energy, and manufacturing seem to be the way the next billionaires will make their money. I wonder how long the screen based social experiment will last before either societal upheaval or a mass rejection of new technology.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• erksa 2y ago
  These are some thicc glasses. We're getting close, but saying we're there of "regular" glasses is a stretch.
• mk_stjames 2y ago
  I just want two to four text lines of 80-characters wide, literally in monochrome if you have to I don't care, and the ability to use it to scroll thru help with speaking in a foreign language / subtitling what I am hearing around me, in a glasses form factor that people don't notice aren't my normal reading glasses. That is it. I have wanted just this, for decades. I have lived a lot of my life in places where I don't speak the local language. I have Auditory Processing Disorder and a speech impediment that, if I don't have a good 'script' to go along with, makes it very difficult for me to get by in public often. I currently live in a country where my anxiety is amplified by the fact that any mis-spoken words by me often results in straight up being berated at a faster speed than I can understand, instead of being helped. I feel like am absolute idiot every time I have to just go get something at the pharmacy or ask for something new at the bakery. I've tried for years, taking courses, to learn to listen closer and work on my grammar and vocab, but I'm aging and have just gotten worse and worse. Most interactions would go smooth if I could just have a few key moments translated for me. I feel like this is a no brainer of tech now that we have super reliable speech-to-text in multiple languages and pretty damn good audio filtering to pickout the main converstation from background noise. I'd even let the model run on a laptop in my backpack to keep the glasses down in size to something that, again, doesn't make me look like some VR dweeb. And no cameras in the glasses staring at people making them question my motives or draining the battery. Just the essentials. Please. I've been seeing promises of this for literally 20 years. I just need those few lines of text in ~640x200 pixels in front of me to help me get by. Fuck it, give me a 9600 bps serial-over-bluetooth to the display and make it 'dumb' and I'll write the software myself..
  • mk_stjames 2y ago
    To add to my above- I have spent a lot of time researching AR glasses tech that would allow for this that could potentially be available even as old dev kits to buy, and the tech is out there in a much smaller form factor than what Meta is needing here to get them the full color, high res, 3d display. To just get floating text, all you need is a micro laser projector in the arm of the glasses pointed at a section of the lens that reflects and focuses the projection onto your retina, at a virtual focus so that it appears in front of you. Google bought a company that was making a dev kit of these a few years ago (I believe it was called North and the glasses were called Focals). But, as we know, google does this all the time and then kills shit. So I was happy at first because google said they were going to use this to do exactly what I describe above as their first killer app for the glasses. But then... nothing. Vuzix is another player in the game but with micro-led displays via waveguide instead, and they seem to actually be selling product, but at something like $800 it's just too much to try out just to do my own dev work for.
• kypro 2y ago
  This is super cool tech! I'm surprised how many people here knocking the glasses for being "too thick" when it's clearly this is a huge improvement on previous attempts at AR like the hololens. And to be honest it looks fairly comparable to some of the "hipster" glasses people willing choose to wear today... I'd be interesting in knowing what the battery life of this thing is... I get that the compute is being done on the puck, but there seems to be almost no room for battery in those lenses... And even the puck looks small to be honest... Surely no more than a couple of hours of power, likely quite a bit less. I also wonder what the latency is like between the puck and glasses... Latency is such an important aspect of creating a convincing AR experience and judging by the video the Verge posted it looks like latency is pretty bad. I thought the reason compute for AR/VR is typically done on device is because it's the quickest and most reliable way to do it.
• bozhark 2y ago
  Looks worse than magic leap
• ricokatayama 2y ago
  This thing is huuuggee. For it to become something, it needs to be wearable at first. like Spectacles, it still feels like a prototype. For now, the G1 seems to have the correct form factor and features reduced to the essentials
• ocean_moist 2y ago
  This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but Meta is in the right direction and has to go on an Amazon type arc to align their employees with their vision. I watched this podcast that released around the same time and Zuckerberg's argument/vision for the future of Meta seems solid[0]. Generally, a large magnitude of value is created during "platform shifts" and they have now placed (really good) bets on VR/AR and AI (LLMs). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX7OduG1YmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX7OduG1YmI
  • sieabahlpark 2y ago
    [dead]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • smt88 2y ago
    > This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but Meta is in the right direction and has to go on an Amazon type arc to align their employees with their vision. It's not just unpopular, it's just wrong. Even if Zuckerberg's vision is good (and there's no reason to think it is, because he famously doesn't understand human beings and has never come up with a single product idea that became popular), he clearly has no ability to execute. Spending $50B in a few years with almost no revenue to show for it has to be the biggest business failure of all time. Can you name a bigger one? Sure, Musk has destroyed roughly that much value on paper, but Zuckerberg actually set that much cash on fire building the Metaverse that no one asked for and no one uses.
    • ocean_moist 2y ago
      > he famously doesn't understand human beings and has never come up with a single product idea that became popular This point is at least contentious. I am not going to go into weeds, but I fail to see how you can make a product that literally popularizes the term “network effects” without vision. You can say he “stole” the idea for facebook, but what about everything after? Ideas are cheap. > no ability to execute I see no evidence of this. How does someone scale from $0 to $1T without the ability to execute? > Spending $50B in a few years with almost no revenue to show for it has to be the biggest business failure of all time. I also think the metaverse was a failure. But I think they failed fast and have more experience in that area than any other company. They basically spent $50B to get data on the intial vision for the metaverse. Their stock and business has fully recovered. It was a hedge against being “too late” and they got the timing wrong. It’s one thing if you fail and the business goes bankrupt. It’s a completely different scenario when they recover completely. How does “the biggest business failure of all time” not end in that business going bankrupt? Off the top of my head I am pretty sure hundreds of billions of dollars of value vanished after the Lehman Brothers collapse. In tech (adjacent) you got worldcom, which was of a similar magnitude but in y2k dollars.
• tbrownaw 2y ago
  So, another step closer to replacing my multiple 4k screens with equivalent virtual screens?
• darepublic 2y ago
  It would be cool to develop apps for. Hopefully they won't try to create a walled garden around writing software for these.
  • __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't. It's gonna be the battle of the walled gardens for a while before something open emerges.
• dangitman 2y ago
  [dead]
• user3939382 2y ago
  I don’t know what the general population sentiment analysis is of FB but my trust level is 0 and I’d never use their tech regardless of features.
• MarkMc 2y ago
  OK that's cute, but when is Facebook going to release this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EohIA7QPmmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EohIA7QPmmE Lex: "It just feels like we are in the same room. This is really the most incredible thing I've ever seen".
  • zonkerdonker 2y ago
    That level of detail needs a few hours of scanning and a few dozen of terrabytes of data, along with processing that data to create a model, and then a rig to power that model. Anything less than that, and the uncanny valley creeps up FAST. There's been work on using scans from an iPhone, but with realistic avatars it's really all or nothing.
• sailfast 2y ago
  What is the killer app for this? Dan Suarez's Daemon series probably provided some insight into what might be possible in terms of literal secret meta-communities, etc but why would I want to see an internet link about the things I'm looking at in real life? Assuming I have the money and don't mind the looks - why should I buy these?
• bensandcastle 2y ago
  Having built similar tech (Meta, YC S13), it's been a great year with Vision Pro, Orion, Spectacles and more coming out. Currently at my co, seeing most day to day use out of XReal, and keen for Visor. AR/XR/MR/VR app I'm most looking forward to is a 360 location share with the sharing user in AR, and the receiving user in VR, with additional virtual objects shared between. Orion would be great for the send side, with a few extra cameras and Vision Pro on the receive side. The main thing letting down tech today is how open the platforms are for external developers. The lack of projecting black I don't see as an issue, clip on something for VR (ok 70 degress isn't quite enough but getting fairly close), or just dim and use gradients for day to day work. I think we're still at the most basic level in terms of understanding optical physics and ultra high resolution much smaller devices will come out, probably not too soon though.
  • chabad360 2y ago
    Damn! That's a throwback. I remember reading about you guys in an airplane magazine once and getting hooked on the concept. I always wondered where y'all went...
    • bensandcastle 2y ago
      a bunch at Vision Pro, some at Zuck's Meta, some at Hololens, some doing other things. Meron is doing BCI, I'm doing AI infra - strongcompute.com (YC W22)
  • verdverm 2y ago
    visor.com is close to shipping too (Vision Pro in a smaller package at 1/3 the cost, aimed at virtual monitors)
    • bensandcastle 2y ago
      Yes, got my founders ed. pre-order in, can't wait!
      • 2y ago
• physhster 2y ago
  If only a company other than Facebook could come up with something like that... Sigh.
• aussieguy1234 2y ago
  Now we just need a LLama 3.2 vision powered 3D avatar, then we'll all have an assistant we can interact with like a real person. This would include voice interactions where possible, but i'm sure at some point i'll see people air typing in public while they type secret messages to their assistant on their virtual keyboard.
• xyst 2y ago
  The gifs on this page give an impression the UI is very clunky, slow.
• whatrocks 2y ago
  I wrote a short story about AR + "Golden Compass"-style daemons a few years ago. Feels like we're inching closer: https://f52.charlieharrington.com/stories/the-correctives/ https://f52.charlieharrington.com/stories/the-correctives/
• 725686 2y ago
  Jiminy Glick would love these.
• dools 2y ago
  I just can't imagine ever buying something like this from Facebook. I know everyone shits on about Google being bad and whatnot, but the things I buy from Google aren't really part of their advertising business. I pay for Workspace and Google Cloud Platform, and those things don't advertise at me. I am more likely to cruise around already logged into Google as a result of using those things, which obviously plays into their ad business, but those products that I pay for aren't vehicles for advertising and I don't think Google would ever try to make them that. Likewise, Apple does obviously advertise some of their own services (like iCloud backup) in mildly annoying ways through their devices, but by and large I'm buying a thing from them and only to the extent that I am engaged with one of their Apps (like TV+ or Music) do they try and advertise at me. In neither case are their platforms inherently about advertising. Facebook just strikes me as a fundamentally different company. Even if I were to pay them for these glasses I would have no confidence that it wasn't just a gigantic suckhole being fed into their slush fund of data.
  • rty32 2y ago
    Guess what? Most people who end up buying this product won't care about any of these. (P.S. Apple is much worse than you think. Look up Apple's first party tracking.)
    • deutschepost 2y ago
      There is always a comment saying Apple is much worse than people think compared to Facebook or Google. But there are never any Sources. Google and Facebook track you wherever you go on the internet. You can't get away from it. Apple only shows ads in their App Store. And you can turn off Apples tracking in their Settings. How is that "Much worse than you think"?
      • manojlds 2y ago
        Nitpick, but the comment said Apple is worse compared to what people think of Apple.
        • 2y ago
• meet_zaveri 2y ago
  robert downey jr. would be proud
• stephenlindauer 2y ago
  Why would anyone even consider ever buying hardware from Meta? Look at their list of killed products or how quickly they EOL previous models. No thanks! I hope they get sued for contributing to e-waste.
• perryizgr8 2y ago
  This looks like the first VR/AR I'll consider buying. It looks like an actual pair of glasses, has see thru capability, the showcased functionality looks useful already. This will be a breakthrough if the promises are true.
• lifeinthevoid 2y ago
  My biggest gripe with AR products is that they will just become a tool to spoil the real world with ads everywhere. No thanks.
  • keiferski 2y ago
    But many cities in the real world already have ads everywhere. If anything, a modified AR device could allow you to detect and remove those.
    • Log_out_ 2y ago
      I cant wait for one to overblend the other .New shakedown unlocked.
    • murermader 2y ago
      Complex solution to a simple problem. Just ban ads in cities. Like some cities have already done. Then the ads that are left are just for stuff that is important, e.g. events, music, etc. No need for AI filtering algorithms that have to decide what to block and what to leave.
      • keiferski 2y ago
        Probably impossible in the US at least, as it would be considered a first amendment violation.
        • vincnetas 2y ago
          Is graffiti also freedom of speech? If i have a wall does it mean i can write whatever i want on it? I guess not. These are social norms. And we could decide that advertisement is not ok in public spaces like it's not ok to walk around naked.
          • keiferski 2y ago
            Not an equivalent situation at all. Graffiti makers don’t have billions of dollars to hire lawyers that challenge laws that ban advertising. Society increasingly runs less and less on social norms and more on laws.
• ojbyrne 2y ago
  $10k to build, prototype, no timeframe for public release. I wonder if the purpose of this demo, strategically, is to make competitors (Apple, Snap) give up.
• keiferski 2y ago
  It seems like a crazy thing to say, but the phone/tablet format is actually not very natural. It is more natural than the previous generation of computers that require being stationary and using a complicated keyboard, sure. But holding a device in your hand and staring at it isn’t really the optimal way of using technology. Which is a long way of saying that even if this generation of AR devices don’t take off, they will eventually. And they will most likely become the default way most people use a computing device. I cannot imagine a future where people prefer to hold a little black box in their hands instead of putting on a pair of glasses. In a century we may look back at the screen phone model as a curious anachronism.
  • joerick 2y ago
    The touchscreen might be better than you're giving it credit for. Direct interaction (vs the indirectness of mice, keyboards, gesture) is one benefit that I can't see done better any other way. I think people will always have some kind of handheld touchscreen as a result.
    • keiferski 2y ago
      Hmm, touchscreens are a good counter point, but I do think they might be replaceable with AR glasses. It doesn’t seem difficult to mimic a feedback mechanism with only visual feedback and/or a light vibration from the goggles themselves. I actually think it may be the opposite: direct input like keyboards might be around longer simply because they don’t require you to be looking at your hands to use them. Both touchscreens and AR goggles do.
  • ang_cire 2y ago
    You've actually got it backwards. There's a reason that mice and keyboards are faster and more accurate than touchscreens, and it's that there is a physical+visual feedback occurring that our brains are used to processing when handling other physical objects. Touchscreens have no haptic component (or they have a vibration that is disconnected from the action that you're actually doing on the screen), so you're relying entirely on visual cues. It's slower and less accurate. Compare max WPM on physical vs touch keyboards, for instance. Moving to AR/VR is even worse, because the lag time is much larger than on a touchscreen, and in the case of VR, your hands are completely hidden.
• mbrumlow 2y ago
  Thick!
• Sparkyte 2y ago
  Technology aside I would actually prefer if the device to sit in my pocket until they can get technology small enough that it just doens't look like I'd get tired holding on my ears.
• david_shi 2y ago
  Orion in a few years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• lagniappe 2y ago
  In the future, these aren't glasses, they're contact lenses that are powered by the microscopic "jiggles" the lenses of your eyes make as they move back and forth, to show you ad-supported floating product descriptions in-place as you shop, or character notes to help you follow plotlines better as you watch a show.
  • ang_cire 2y ago
    > to show you ad-supported floating product descriptions in-place as you shop Just so we're on the same page... you do think this is a bad thing, right?
    • lagniappe 2y ago
      Bad in current context or in future context? Imagine telling someone in the 1700's that in the future you'd have a glass lens in your eye (no polymer membranes yet) to see better, or wires attached to your heart. They'd consider you a heretic.
      • ang_cire 2y ago
        Ok, but ads aren't going to fundamentally shift away from being a method to induce people to consume unnecessarily in 300 years. That's just what they are.
• ccppurcell 2y ago
  I thought my reaction would be all over the comments but I can't find it. Apologies if it's obvious. For this to work I essentially have to trust Facebook to film what's in front of me whenever I wear them. Not in a million years.
• upwardbound 2y ago
  Has anyone posted a deep dive yet on pinning down which exact waveguide design is being used and which exact projector (based on past papers, M&A activity, key hires, etc.)? I'm surprised Karl Guttag hasn't published anything yet about either Orion or Spectacles 24. https://kguttag.com/ https://kguttag.com/ His blog is normally the definitive source for reverse-engineering AR optics systems from public information. Maybe someone posted a deep dive on Reddit or something ? I'll post links here that could serve as a starting point: - The microLED display panel vendor is likely to be Plessey: https://www.uploadvr.com/facebook-plessey-microled-deal/ https://www.uploadvr.com/facebook-plessey-microled-deal/ - The waveguides are likely being produced "directly" by a contract manufacturer working under the direction of Meta's in-house team, and reporting appears to confirm that Meta is procuring the raw materials directly: "The silicon carbide waveguides are also proving challenging to procure. The material can deliver a wider field of view than the glass waveguides used in current transparent AR headsets, but it is also incredibly expensive. Further, Ma's report explained that because the material is used in military radars and sensors, the US government imposes strict export controls on it. That means glasses using it will have to be assembled inside the US, significantly raising the production cost, despite most of the manufacturing and components coming from China and Taiwan." https://www.uploadvr.com/meta-ar-glasses-lead-claims-as-mindblowing-as-original-rift/ https://www.uploadvr.com/meta-ar-glasses-lead-claims-as-mind... One thing I don't understand is whether the current Orion announcement is actually a new announcement or is re-announcing an already publicized project. This article from 2023 talks about Orion and its 70 deg FOV in the past tense as a line of development which Meta considered but then decided to abandon after Orion in its plans for the 2027 consumer version to be called Artemis: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/19/23800228/meta-ar-glasses-artemis-lcos-displays-waveguide https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/19/23800228/meta-ar-glasses-... "Meta’s Artemis glasses will reportedly use a glass waveguide, a component that allows light to travel through the glasses and into your eyes, potentially limiting its field of view to 50 degrees. According to The Information, Meta had originally planned to use silicon carbide, which allowed for a 70-degree field of view. The downgrade could make it harder for Meta’s consumer-focused glasses to stand out among the competition, as both Microsoft’s second-gen HoloLens and the Magic Leap One sport a 50-degree field of view." Maybe the hope is that with the Orion test devices, Meta can see whether people care about 70 deg vs 50 deg FOV enough to justify the costs of US-based waveguide manufacturing for the generation after Artemis? Disclaimer: I worked extensively on Snap Spectacles for a number of years so I'm highly biased, but credit where credit is due: I believe both Meta and Snap have done incredible work in their AR glasses and I am excited to see the competition heating up. I also hope that both company's efforts here can motivate Apple and Google to get in the game instead of sitting around doing more or less nothing really interesting or adventurous while cautiously sitting on piles of cash, while life passes us by and we get closer every day to old age. For heck's sake, either one of those tech giants could privately fund a LITERAL moon base, and they choose not to. Why should we have to live in a boring world? Life is short and I'd rather we get to see some very magical tech soon, in our lifetimes, instead of the tech companies conservatively waiting around for more of Moore's Law to happen first or something. Even Magic Leap, though a colossal failure, pursued a wonderful vision - to create innocent, whimsical literal magic in people's lives - like the world of Harry Potter - in our real world.
• tamimio 2y ago
  The funny part is I can’t even see the article because facebook is blocked at the DNS level for me, so definitely these glasses won’t work.
  • laweijfmvo 2y ago
    you find it funny that you can't read something you chose to block from yourself?
• aa-jv 2y ago
  Does it come with the tools, onboard, needed to build apps for it? No? Then its not a platform that will get my support. Any new device in the modern era which requires permission from a third party in order for its owners to do whatever they want with it, is not a device worth supporting. No matter how sexy it may seem, if you need permission to do something on the device, you are not the primary customer - your personal agency is being commoditized and re-sold. Just, no. End technological feudalism, end the hegemony. Demand development tools which free the user-developer and the platform.
• 4dregress 2y ago
  Let’s be honest, this is just a project to create a new advertising platform. It’s something straight out of a cyberpunk novel, you’re going to be walking down the street getting absolutely spammed with adds. I’m out.
• _pferreir_ 2y ago
  I know these might have very interesting and even noble applications (think hearing-impaired people), but the last thing I would want in my life is looking even more at screens.
• ErigmolCt 2y ago
  I don't know why, but yesterday's presentation seemed a bit funny to me. I can't understand why I had that feeling, even though they showed decent results of their ongoing work
• Lapalux 2y ago
  I wonder if this could be helpful for those who are sight-impaired. Sometimes consumer devices don't have widespread appeal but are so useful for some groups For example, my grandfather when basically completely blind in his 60s. When Alexa came out in his 90s it made such a different to his quality of life in his final few years.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• leohonexus 2y ago
  For the record: I think this is going to be one of the posts where the HN vibe would be totally off (incorrectly negative) looking back 10 years from now. Similar to the original Dropbox post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
  • ang_cire 2y ago
    I can't tell if you're saying that they were incorrectly negative, or incorrectly positive? In my experience, everyone hates Dropbox, and especially that it's always popping up asking you to sign in, and that it's preinstalled on fresh Windows installs whether you want it or not.
    • franciscop 2y ago
      ~10 years ago Dropbox was amazing and widely used, at least in my University and by many people in my community. For the record, the infamous post OP is referring to is almost 20 years old now.
    • vindex10 2y ago
      What do you use instead? I just happend to have Dropbox historically from >10 years ago. It doesn't pop up on linux that often btw. Would you recommend Proton maybe?
      • ang_cire 2y ago
        Personally, I use Nextcloud, running on one of my home servers. For SaaS storage, I honestly dont' know. I don't use Nextcloud to have instant access, I use it for redundancy for critical data that I don't want only living on my phone or laptop (like tax and legal docs), but that's also data that I don't want to hand to a third party app willy-nilly.
    • leohonexus 2y ago
      Thanks, I've updated my comment to clarify. I think HN is being incorrectly negative here. The original comment about Dropbox was saying how everyone can "trivially" implement Dropbox using a network share and hence it has no reason to exist - but obviously this is wrong. Many HN commenters are now saying how they won't ever buy anything from Meta. That's fair, but brand perceptions shift - newer generations are already at a point where they are way more comfortable sharing their lives and branding themselves than before - wanting to be a YouTuber now is what wanting to be an astronaut was in the past. A lot of the reputational damage dealt to Meta is US-centric (e.g. Cambridge Analytica), and the HN crowd, being mostly Western and privacy-aware amplifies that. The average person who's using Meta's services doesn't read HN, and is certainly much less critical of Meta. Also, I think AR glasses has lots of potential as an eventual phone replacement. I'll give an example - virtual humans that exist in your glasses that can act as a fitness trainer, tennis coach, rock bouldering buddy that you can summon anytime. I think we are kind of all glued to the same pane of glass for too long and give it 5-10 years for the pendulum to swing, this blending of physical and virtual will become very interesting.
• L_226 2y ago
  I want one of those wristbands bluetooth slaved to my Pixel!
• mdhb 2y ago
  Honestly I’d rather slam my dick in a car door and I suspect that society is not going to take kindly to this idea that people are going to just be walking around filming you from every angle without any kind of consent to stream it directly into who knows what kind of databases for future data mining. I hope people become afraid to wear this kind of thing in public because someone won’t hesitate to take it off their face and put it in the bin.
• fergie 2y ago
  Every tech company markets their magical glasses the wrong way: AR is a super exciting opportunity for people who spend their day looking at complicated stuff in real life- mechanics, plumbers, electricians, architects, builders, steel fabricators. This tech is definitely coming, has some really exciting and uplifting demos, and therefore marketing should be focused at this segment. AR is a super creepy opportunity for people who want to use these in social or family settings- it comes across as sad and dysfunctional, so its baffling that this seems to be the current focus of marketing. I wonder if they are deliberately trying to impress stakeholders/investors rather than actually trying to win over consumers?
• Havoc 2y ago
  Feels somewhat inevitable to me in long run so I can understand why zuck is pushing this despite it obviously not being ready for prime time.
• ivanjermakov 2y ago
  Nobody here is talking about all the sensors and cameras this thing has and how easily it can be used for unsolicited audio/video recording? For me this is the biggest reason why Google Glass and other such projects never took off.
  • saikia81 2y ago
    People in the west walk with cameras in their hands all day - both in public and in private. I doubt it gives anyone pause.
    • nick486 2y ago
      I don't think its comparable. phone cameras are assumed to be off, its pretty obvious when someone is recording a video, because he has to hold the phone in a very uncomfortable position. Unless someone is actively pointing their phone at you, you can reasonably assume you're not being filmed. this thing, on the other hand, is supposed to be on all the time. So having your head pointed in someone's general direction is going to be interpreted as "actively filming that person". This could easily lead to getting punched in the face.
      • ivanjermakov 2y ago
        Exactly, I can imagine how people with smart glasses are not allowed in sensitive environments e.g. govt institutions or schools.
        • nick486 2y ago
          they will probably be discouraged in the workplace too. no one wants to be dealing with a sexual harassment case, just because someone didnt pay attention to the direction his head was pointing in, while reading some random article on his glasses' internal screen.
• 727564797069706 2y ago
  Thanks Meta for inspiring me to work on my crazy side projects that no-one needs!
• karles 2y ago
  You know it's only a matter of time, before it will be filled with ads - so it's a no thank you from here.
• surfingdino 2y ago
  A true Austin Powers look for creeps.
• FL33TW00D 2y ago
  Incredible amount of negativity here. Huge kudos to Meta for breaking new ground and doing a ton of R&D/M&A to get to this point. Once MicroLED comes on a little further and the form factor shrinks this could be the next consumer electronics platform. Silicon carbide is really interesting, we need high RI materials to make this work. Hopefully glass 3D printing or similar will make cheap, Rx waveguides possible.
  • ravenstine 2y ago
    I agree, though it's hard not to be negative. My first thought after "oh cool" was "how long until this thing languishes and gets discontinued?" The recent history of AR devices doesn't exactly do Meta a service.
    • tim333 2y ago
      They've been pretty consistent with the Meta Quest things.
    • aprilthird2021 2y ago
      What are you referring to? Meta also released their latest gen AR/VR device the same day
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • leohonexus 2y ago
    Agreed. I was commenting [1] on how this could be one of the posts where HN is totally wrong about looking back 10 years from now, similar to the Dropbox post. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41656380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41656380
    • autoexec 2y ago
      To be fair, that post wasn't wrong. To this day I still carry a USB thumb drive, most people I know have/use them, and they're still selling very well. Linux users are still fully capable of moving files around themselves.
• succo 2y ago
  UGLY as hell
• isolli 2y ago
  It's of course a matter of taste, but I don't think I will ever want to put such glasses between me and the world around me. It feels unnecessary, distracting, cumbersome, and slightly headache-inducing. I made a bet 10 years ago with a friend that VR headsets would never gain wide adoption among the general public (back when Facebook bought Oculus), and I think it's fair to say I've won this bet. With these glasses, I'm not so sure, but if I had to, I would bet against them as well. Time will tell...
  • hinkley 2y ago
    I’d rather wear 5th or 6th gen glasses than 2nd or 3rd gen cybernetics implants when those come. I’m going to be very late to that game, because getting hacked could have pretty dire consequences. You can just take the glasses off.
• ineedasername 2y ago
  I think bootstrapping a device like this into public acceptance will need a gradual approach, given current tech limits in size, weight, and the cross section w/ fashion. People often choose glasses to reflect the personality they want to display (accurate or not) and until the tech allows for this level of personal expression, widespread adoption will be close to impossible. When I had a Note 2 in 2012, many found its size impractical or embarrassing. Acceptance came through clear utility, not just ubiquity. For AR glasses to succeed, they need to prioritize seamless functionality. The more obtrusive the design, the higher the utility must be. Focus on a small set of functions— Loads can be done with voice, sound, and a simple visuals like 64x64 pixels. And offer a range of frame styles where the tech is noticeable but no more than an "ah, smart frames" from others. *Edited for brevity of my run-ons
  • hedora 2y ago
    I wouldn’t say large phones were so much accepted as forced on people. I hate my iPhone mini 13 because it is too fucking big for my giant hands. However, at this point, carrying a phone is basically mandatory, and it (and the giant se3) were/are the smallest workable ones on the market.
    • whiplash451 2y ago
      Have you considered the iphone SEs?
      • dkdbejwi383 2y ago
        I had the first gen SE. Loved it. But the current model is based on the larger iPhone 8 shell.
        • hedora 2y ago
          Yeah; I mentioned the SE3. It’s too bad you can’t cut the razr 2024 in half at the hinge and have one side still work!
        • 2y ago
• sunshinerag 2y ago
  “We call this Pure O2. This is the first of our planned upgrades. Once we can roll back some of Halliday's ad restrictions, we estimate we can sell up to 80% of an individual's visual field before inducing seizures, so …”
• zeptian 2y ago
  InstaFail. Nobody wants this. We are already saturated with bull-shit through social media. Now, there is yet another devices that manufactures BS before it hits our eyes. Steer clear.
• Ajedi32 2y ago
  I for one, am extremely impressed. Yes, its a prototype, and the cost makes these nonviable for consumer use at the moment. But this is a glimpse of the future! I thought it'd be another ~decade until anyone was able to cram fully-functional, HoloLens-style AR device into a form factor this small, and here Facebook just went and did it! It's crazy to me to see people in this thread calling this "bulky". It's literally the smallest this tech has ever been! Small enough to pass for actual glasses! It has a massively wider field of view than HoloLens, despite the HoloLens being like 10x bulkier! And they somehow managed to cram eye tracking and hand tracking into the thing on top of all that? This is literally the AR future science fiction has been envisioning for years, in real life, and yet this whole thread seems to be filled with nothing but cynicism!
• MisterDizzy 2y ago
  Another "IF" product like Stadia. It would be really great for the company IF there was a market for this, but nobody wants it. Big Tech seems determined to strap a live network-connected HD video feed with sound to everyone's head.
  • lkeskull 2y ago
    I really want those glasses. I think AR will be great.
• maxehmookau 2y ago
  Even if this were a perfect product, I wouldn't ever buy something like this from Meta because the business model is still "learn everything about you and sell you ads". Except now, it's on my face, seeing and hearing everything I'm seeing and hearing. That's a hard no, and always would be in my home and in my life.
• js4ever 2y ago
  Shut up and take my money! Especially if I can dev on it
• Simon_ORourke 2y ago
  These look like those corrective glasses the doctor gave Bart Simpson - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cgi8WqjU1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cgi8WqjU1U
• smeej 2y ago
  Back when Google Glass came out, I learned I was accidentally a good benchmark for wearable tech, in that if it's too dorky even for me, it's never going to fly. This is solidly in that category. It's a good thing they don't mean to release it to the masses, but this is going to put a negative impression if the overwhelming majority of people who actually see the thing in real life. Just a prediction, but Meta's going to regret having people wear this in the wild.
• thomastjeffery 2y ago
  We have been waiting quite a while for holographic lenses to hit the market. I get that this kind of form factor is exciting, but all I really want is a Pimax with these lenses. If Facebook (Meta) put out a below-average spec headset (think Quest 1 specs, or even worse) today, and put holographic lenses in it, I would buy it in a heartbeat. AR is cool and all, but that's not the reason holographic lenses are exciting to me. The real reason is that they don't have a fixed focal depth. That alone is the single most significant limitation of contemporary VR. Just imagine: No more IPD adjustment (that can never be perfect, because pupils move). No more godrays. No more stretched projection. No more prescription inserts. Holographic lenses are a leap forward, and it feels like these companies have just been sitting on it, absolutely clueless, for half a decade now. --- Dear Billionaire Oligopolists, please stop waiting until you have completely finished designing and building the distant future, and sell what you have today.
• sebastiennight 2y ago
  Interesting name collision with the recent OpenAI announcement. I mean, did either company use cat-names-from-the-Man-In-Black-franchise in their product line nomenclature recently? I just wonder at how unlikely it is to collide on a high-profile name out of all the millions of other one-word options.
• MetaverseClub 2y ago
  Metaverse is still alive!
• moi2388 2y ago
  I still won’t touch any Facebook tech with a 10 foot pole.
• m3kw9 2y ago
  The elephant in the room is it doesnt work with iOS/Apple eco system