13 ms·

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 litt

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.
casenmgreen 2y ago
> IIncredible amount of negativity here. It's FB. They're not popular. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, because I expect it will be absolutely stuffed with user surveillance.
- larodi 2y ago
  Was just going to write that there is no way people trust META to become their eyes. Maybe some smaller player. We already greatly distrust f*n mobiles which eavesdrop on everyone's conversation. Considering recent cyberpunk breach I actually expect more people to try to distance themselves from this all. It will probably be top product for telemedicine and teletutoring one day, but it will never be safe in the hands of Meta, no matter how many lammas they put in the loose... Think about it - sometimes it is much more about trust than technology. Yeah, I know all your chats go back and forth commercial GPTs, but you know half of my GPT interraction is already local inference based and it does similar job, and is OK. So that much about wanting to let s.o. see your naked friends. Their days are numbered and if you see how IT history unfolded - there is always rush to the cloud and away from the mainframe. Its like the breathwork in criya yoga, happens simultaneously in a sense. From the funny side of things - such wearables open perspective to lot of people talking to themselves being O.k. in society. Perhaps we could only agree to have such visual interface when things get closer to what guys have in Cyberpunk 2077. Honestly I really hope someone developes a genetic enhancement or all children born 2000 suddently become enlightened enough to master telepathy. I'm much more fascinated by the propspect of personal electronics, and how cheap they have become. I don't want Meta in them for sure, and nobody apt-get installs gcloud or fb as his must have tool.
  - radlad 2y ago
    > We already greatly distrust f*n mobiles which eavesdrop on everyone's conversation Yet every single person carries one.
    - tekknik 2y ago
      and yet many people want to get rid of them and move back to a simpler time when people weren’t connected 24/7
brtkdotse 2y ago
> next consumer electronics platform I really hope this isn’t the case. We have enough screens around us as is, the last thing I want is screens pressed up against my eyeballs
- micromacrofoot 2y ago
  it's not really a matter of if at this point, it's a when... it's the peak of screen technology that we've been hurtling towards for nearly 100 years
  - frankhorrigan 2y ago
    I really hope you’re wrong. I suspect that the future is technology which blends further into the background rather than being shoved closer to our faces.
    - micromacrofoot 2y ago
      I agree with your ideal goal, but there are hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on getting it in directly into our eyeballs. Maybe we'll be lucky enough to die before it's normal for this stuff to be integrated into our brains (which again, billions of dollars being spent on figuring this out).
- pj_mukh 2y ago
  I think the main question will be if Meta can run the glasses under a different business model than ads/personalization. I know Meta feels like they missed out on owning the hardware ecosystem with mobile, but a big part of why Apple's product work is because their business model is not ads. If they can fix their incentives there it will address 80% of the concerns in this thread. Counterintuitively I think a passive screen affixed to your face will reduce your reliance on all other screens. Glasses aren't a great form factor for scrolling feeds, but they are much better at connecting you to your physical world (which phones are the worst at). That plus just the posture improvements [1] that glasses can provide over the phone may make this a winner. [1]: https://www.today.com/health/texting-neck-how-hunching-over-your-smartphone-stresses-your-spine-1d80302058 https://www.today.com/health/texting-neck-how-hunching-over-...
short_sells_poo 2y ago
I think the hardware and idea is great. But I simply can't ignore the fact that it is made by Facebook, which is basically the posterchild for modern addiction optimizer adtech business. The last company I'd want to put right in front of my eyeballs for any extended periods of time is Facebook.
- zer0zzz 2y ago
  This is the only comment on here about fb that makes sense. Meta is fully capable and willing to make products that protect user privacy, and they have in the form of WhatsApp and others. But what they definitely aren’t capable of is building things you aren’t addicted to use in order to generate them revenue constantly. Maybe as they transition to hardware they’ll spend more time making their products worthy of chronic upgrades rather than chronic addictive usage.
ActionHank 2y ago
"negativity" or people who are stating their perspective on a product. Was there a lot of engineering, novel problem solving, and even new invention? Yes. Does that matter to customers if it comes together in a product that they don't feel is good enough? No. For a site focused on tech and startups there is an awful lot of whiteknighting for companies who should know and do better.
- commakozzi 2y ago
  it's a prototype...
  - ActionHank 2y ago
    Doesn’t matter. Don’t show it to the public if you don’t want their opinion. Assuming meta knew this, it’s pretty insane that there are people defending the honour of their billion dollar corporate bff.
    - WorldMaker 2y ago
      Even when it isn't a "prototype" and simply just doesn't have a consumer version, the public will be negative about it. Look at the Apple Vision Pro. That's a shipping product with a massive negative public opinion because it doesn't have a consumer version and no one understands if they are "Pro enough" to care to buy one. Look at Microsoft HoloLens. That was a shipping product with some large Enterprise and Government customer contracts. But the public perception of it was miserable, which is partly why Microsoft dumped a lot of their research in that area and lost of their brains in that area to Meta, so it's ironic and hilarious to see Meta making the same mistakes again that Microsoft already made with a variation/iteration of the same tech.
yndoendo 2y ago
This would be like Telsa coming with new tech. Tesla / X-Twitter & Facebook / Meta are companies I will never financially support. They make money off propagating misinformation and their CEOs are not decent human-beings.
- mminer237 2y ago
  I mean, sure, I get that. But also, are any big tech CEOs decent human beings? It's hard to participate in tech at all with that strict of a moral code.
- leesec 2y ago
  What misinformation does Tesla propagate
  - AmINotARobot 2y ago
    I think they're referring to Musk going off the deep end in general. There's also the whole "We'll have self driving cars in two years!" That they've been peddling for the last decade.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      Even the way they marketed their early cars as self driving/autopilot was deceptive. Plus they covered up safety issues, and there have been many privacy issues as well.
stiray 2y ago
Trust Is Built in Drops and Lost in Buckets Negativity? Yes Facebook was negative for 20ish years and as a result of their behavior technical people don't like them. This is not something, we are wrong about even if your "negativity here" silently suggests that. You reminded me of something, please read this article: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_brand_alone https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_br... It is helpful for becoming negative to negative companies where they deserve it. IG Farben had great technology (for that time) but needed change of name and half of century of good service so they have been removed from our memory as producers of Cyclone B. Now they are known as Bayer. And my neighbor (concentration camp survivor), while he was alive, wasn't buying Bayer products and he was quite vocal about it. Any of them, regardless of technology, different people, different products,... Guess why. Will you say he was negative? Thats why FB was renamed and I am eagerly waiting what they will be like after 50 years. Until then, they will not be anywhere near my devices and even less filtering my sight.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  For me personally they build a lot of trust back with their work on llama. Also they do have capable software engineers. But hardware is a different thing. I am still burned by their handling of hardware support for Oculus devices. To such a degree that neither VR nor AR is of significant interest anymore, never mind developing software for such products. That said, I was never a Facebook user. I do have an account and that is that, which I tend to not use in most browser session because of Facebook surveillance.
  - stiray 2y ago
    If you are android user, dont know about Apple, 3rd party applications are full of Facebook SDK, try installing https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases (and pay author a coffee, he seriously deserves it) and check the domains apps are accessing. You might figure out you are Facebook user. Just nobody told you.
    - JimDabell 2y ago
AlexandrB 2y ago
The negativity goes both ways. I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg will think we're "dumb fucks" for buying this new gizmo.
- marknutter 2y ago
  My god, he said that when he was in college. What is it with this recently popular opinion that nobody is capable of changing for the better?
  - Minor49er 2y ago
    Changing for the better? Really? Facebook under Zuckerberg has done plenty of predatory things, such as track users across non-Facebook websites, create shadow profiles for people who don't even have accounts, conduct studies to try to make the platform as addictive as possible, and sold access to peoples' private messages revealed in the the infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal When he called people "dumb fucks", he was including you
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    Facebook's ongoing behavior towards its users is consistent with the original quote. I don't see any evidence that something has changed besides PR slop.
  - alex1138 2y ago
    I just want to elaborate on something here, the full quote is "yeah so if you ever need info on people just ask; I have over 4000 email, sns, addresses" "What? How'd you manage that one?" "people just submitted it, I don't know why. They 'trust me', dumb fucks" That's not a great look seeing what they've done since then and people always focus on the wrong part of the quote. "I would've said the same thing" (would you?) - he was offering his friend user info.
mrmetanoia 2y ago
I wish I didn't have to be so negative because these are cool, but it's Facebook. Surveillance and ad tech that cause brain rot are what they do for a living. At this point they could just sell versions of these products that aren't subsidized by evil, and they still choose not to do so. This means no matter how much they talk about the future of AI being open, no matter how nice their AR glasses are, I can't do business with them. Everything facebook does is burdened by being facebook and I for one am glad at least one demographic won't let them forget it.
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
The technology they've packed into these things is amazing - it's an incredible achievement. But, that said, there's also plenty of room for negativity around the actual product conception. It may have niche applications, but it just doesn't seem that most people need or want AR for everyday use - it's a solution looking for a problem. For gaming VR seems a better fit than AR, and same for Metaverse in general. AR seems a bit like Segway two-wheelers - cool and fun, but with limited actual use. I could see AR glasses being used in the same way as Segway's end of life use for tourist city tours, or for other similar rent-to-use entertainment experiences.
- autoexec 2y ago
  The sad thing is that there are a lot of things AR glasses could be useful for in my everyday life, but it all assumes that those glasses are working for me and me alone. I'd never use a product that was going to spy on everything I see and do. I'd never use a product that would fill my vision with ads either.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    > The sad thing is that there are a lot of things AR glasses could be useful for in my everyday life Can you give some examples, because I honestly can't think of any. I certainly can imagine these in specific, mostly niche professional contexts, but as "the next computing computing platform", no thanks. To be clear, I'm fine if this is "just me", but take this quote from the article: > You can take a hands-free video call to catch up with friends and family in real time, and you can stay connected on WhatsApp and Messenger to view and send messages. No need to pull out your phone, unlock it, find the right app and let your friend know you’re running late for dinner – you can do it all through your glasses. Even under their own description, the phone experience is better for me in every way. I don't want something strapped to my face - I want to perform a task and then put my device away.
- irq-1 2y ago
cududa 2y ago
The problem with waveguides are the manufacturing defects are on the micron level, and you need to get those channels perfect - then produce the same pattern a few more times for other colors, and hope they all perfectly line up. I don’t see 3D printing being a solution here for a very very long time
paul7986 2y ago
I wonder if and when Apple releases smart glasses that take pics and videos too how society will react? It goes against Apple's whole privacy ethos.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  IMO it is ironic the EU has forced Meta to take leadership in educating the public on the significance of "privacy," but not in the way the EU wanted. "Privacy" means two different things: (1) censoring sensitive personal life info from the public, versus (2) limiting government power. Who will invent the words to distinguish the two, I don't know, but it will turn "privacy ethos" into "X ethos" and "Y ethos," and Apple will sort it all out.
Meniceses 2y ago
Some people have morals and ethics and believe that its not okay to just do what facebook does without taking responsibility. You build a platform which allows you to share fake news and pay to win shit to billions? You make sure the algorithm makes you as much money as possible? You know who made sure facebook fixes this? Politics, not suckerburg.
- valval 2y ago
  Are your morals better than mine? Mine say that Meta is a successful business that has delivered on user demand for a solid while now. My morals also say that sharing any news, be it fake or real, should be allowed. Likewise they say making as much money as possible is admirable.
  - Meniceses 2y ago
    Thats just capitalsm not morals or ethics. With power comes responsibility. And your moral ethical construct should not just benefit you and work for you but for all. Plenty of companies are not ethical and not your friend. If you have family and actually care, you wouldn't worry that facebook teaches them garbage? fake news? etc.? Just for the sake of making money or being allowed to do what they want? Im curious why you would even debate morals here if your main objection is to make 'as much money as possible'? Just accept that its not a moral goal to have. Moral would be "Making as much money as possible without hurting anyone and benefiting the society" I often advocate things not for me. I'm quite good in understanding the facebook algorithm and all of that shit. I advocate this for my friends, familiy and other fellow humans including you.
    - valval 2y ago
      I get it, our characters are polar opposites. There’s nothing you can teach me that I wouldn’t regard as obnoxious ramblings of a lost person.
EasyMark 2y ago
I agree, just because you don’t like a company or you don’t have a use for the device doesn’t mean that it can’t be a good step forward for tech in general, and for those who will find a use for it.
TeeMassive 2y ago
> Incredible amount of negativity here. Negativity isn't spared on bad actors.
shinycode 2y ago
My only gripe is Meta business model. So I prefer not to use any of their products at all. My loss.

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.

casenmgreen 2y ago

> IIncredible amount of negativity here. It's FB. They're not popular. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, because I expect it will be absolutely stuffed with user surveillance.

larodi 2y ago
Was just going to write that there is no way people trust META to become their eyes. Maybe some smaller player. We already greatly distrust f*n mobiles which eavesdrop on everyone's conversation. Considering recent cyberpunk breach I actually expect more people to try to distance themselves from this all. It will probably be top product for telemedicine and teletutoring one day, but it will never be safe in the hands of Meta, no matter how many lammas they put in the loose... Think about it - sometimes it is much more about trust than technology. Yeah, I know all your chats go back and forth commercial GPTs, but you know half of my GPT interraction is already local inference based and it does similar job, and is OK. So that much about wanting to let s.o. see your naked friends. Their days are numbered and if you see how IT history unfolded - there is always rush to the cloud and away from the mainframe. Its like the breathwork in criya yoga, happens simultaneously in a sense. From the funny side of things - such wearables open perspective to lot of people talking to themselves being O.k. in society. Perhaps we could only agree to have such visual interface when things get closer to what guys have in Cyberpunk 2077. Honestly I really hope someone developes a genetic enhancement or all children born 2000 suddently become enlightened enough to master telepathy. I'm much more fascinated by the propspect of personal electronics, and how cheap they have become. I don't want Meta in them for sure, and nobody apt-get installs gcloud or fb as his must have tool.
- radlad 2y ago
  > We already greatly distrust f*n mobiles which eavesdrop on everyone's conversation Yet every single person carries one.
  - tekknik 2y ago
    and yet many people want to get rid of them and move back to a simpler time when people weren’t connected 24/7

brtkdotse 2y ago

> next consumer electronics platform I really hope this isn’t the case. We have enough screens around us as is, the last thing I want is screens pressed up against my eyeballs

micromacrofoot 2y ago
it's not really a matter of if at this point, it's a when... it's the peak of screen technology that we've been hurtling towards for nearly 100 years
- frankhorrigan 2y ago
  I really hope you’re wrong. I suspect that the future is technology which blends further into the background rather than being shoved closer to our faces.
  - micromacrofoot 2y ago
    I agree with your ideal goal, but there are hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on getting it in directly into our eyeballs. Maybe we'll be lucky enough to die before it's normal for this stuff to be integrated into our brains (which again, billions of dollars being spent on figuring this out).
pj_mukh 2y ago
I think the main question will be if Meta can run the glasses under a different business model than ads/personalization. I know Meta feels like they missed out on owning the hardware ecosystem with mobile, but a big part of why Apple's product work is because their business model is not ads. If they can fix their incentives there it will address 80% of the concerns in this thread. Counterintuitively I think a passive screen affixed to your face will reduce your reliance on all other screens. Glasses aren't a great form factor for scrolling feeds, but they are much better at connecting you to your physical world (which phones are the worst at). That plus just the posture improvements [1] that glasses can provide over the phone may make this a winner. [1]: https://www.today.com/health/texting-neck-how-hunching-over-your-smartphone-stresses-your-spine-1d80302058 https://www.today.com/health/texting-neck-how-hunching-over-...

short_sells_poo 2y ago

I think the hardware and idea is great. But I simply can't ignore the fact that it is made by Facebook, which is basically the posterchild for modern addiction optimizer adtech business. The last company I'd want to put right in front of my eyeballs for any extended periods of time is Facebook.

zer0zzz 2y ago
This is the only comment on here about fb that makes sense. Meta is fully capable and willing to make products that protect user privacy, and they have in the form of WhatsApp and others. But what they definitely aren’t capable of is building things you aren’t addicted to use in order to generate them revenue constantly. Maybe as they transition to hardware they’ll spend more time making their products worthy of chronic upgrades rather than chronic addictive usage.

ActionHank 2y ago

"negativity" or people who are stating their perspective on a product. Was there a lot of engineering, novel problem solving, and even new invention? Yes. Does that matter to customers if it comes together in a product that they don't feel is good enough? No. For a site focused on tech and startups there is an awful lot of whiteknighting for companies who should know and do better.

commakozzi 2y ago
it's a prototype...
- ActionHank 2y ago
  Doesn’t matter. Don’t show it to the public if you don’t want their opinion. Assuming meta knew this, it’s pretty insane that there are people defending the honour of their billion dollar corporate bff.
  - WorldMaker 2y ago
    Even when it isn't a "prototype" and simply just doesn't have a consumer version, the public will be negative about it. Look at the Apple Vision Pro. That's a shipping product with a massive negative public opinion because it doesn't have a consumer version and no one understands if they are "Pro enough" to care to buy one. Look at Microsoft HoloLens. That was a shipping product with some large Enterprise and Government customer contracts. But the public perception of it was miserable, which is partly why Microsoft dumped a lot of their research in that area and lost of their brains in that area to Meta, so it's ironic and hilarious to see Meta making the same mistakes again that Microsoft already made with a variation/iteration of the same tech.

yndoendo 2y ago

This would be like Telsa coming with new tech. Tesla / X-Twitter & Facebook / Meta are companies I will never financially support. They make money off propagating misinformation and their CEOs are not decent human-beings.

mminer237 2y ago
I mean, sure, I get that. But also, are any big tech CEOs decent human beings? It's hard to participate in tech at all with that strict of a moral code.
leesec 2y ago
What misinformation does Tesla propagate
- AmINotARobot 2y ago
  I think they're referring to Musk going off the deep end in general. There's also the whole "We'll have self driving cars in two years!" That they've been peddling for the last decade.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    Even the way they marketed their early cars as self driving/autopilot was deceptive. Plus they covered up safety issues, and there have been many privacy issues as well.

stiray 2y ago

Trust Is Built in Drops and Lost in Buckets Negativity? Yes Facebook was negative for 20ish years and as a result of their behavior technical people don't like them. This is not something, we are wrong about even if your "negativity here" silently suggests that. You reminded me of something, please read this article: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_brand_alone https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_br... It is helpful for becoming negative to negative companies where they deserve it. IG Farben had great technology (for that time) but needed change of name and half of century of good service so they have been removed from our memory as producers of Cyclone B. Now they are known as Bayer. And my neighbor (concentration camp survivor), while he was alive, wasn't buying Bayer products and he was quite vocal about it. Any of them, regardless of technology, different people, different products,... Guess why. Will you say he was negative? Thats why FB was renamed and I am eagerly waiting what they will be like after 50 years. Until then, they will not be anywhere near my devices and even less filtering my sight.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
For me personally they build a lot of trust back with their work on llama. Also they do have capable software engineers. But hardware is a different thing. I am still burned by their handling of hardware support for Oculus devices. To such a degree that neither VR nor AR is of significant interest anymore, never mind developing software for such products. That said, I was never a Facebook user. I do have an account and that is that, which I tend to not use in most browser session because of Facebook surveillance.
- stiray 2y ago
  If you are android user, dont know about Apple, 3rd party applications are full of Facebook SDK, try installing https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases (and pay author a coffee, he seriously deserves it) and check the domains apps are accessing. You might figure out you are Facebook user. Just nobody told you.
  - JimDabell 2y ago

AlexandrB 2y ago

The negativity goes both ways. I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg will think we're "dumb fucks" for buying this new gizmo.

marknutter 2y ago
My god, he said that when he was in college. What is it with this recently popular opinion that nobody is capable of changing for the better?
- Minor49er 2y ago
  Changing for the better? Really? Facebook under Zuckerberg has done plenty of predatory things, such as track users across non-Facebook websites, create shadow profiles for people who don't even have accounts, conduct studies to try to make the platform as addictive as possible, and sold access to peoples' private messages revealed in the the infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal When he called people "dumb fucks", he was including you
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  Facebook's ongoing behavior towards its users is consistent with the original quote. I don't see any evidence that something has changed besides PR slop.
- alex1138 2y ago
  I just want to elaborate on something here, the full quote is "yeah so if you ever need info on people just ask; I have over 4000 email, sns, addresses" "What? How'd you manage that one?" "people just submitted it, I don't know why. They 'trust me', dumb fucks" That's not a great look seeing what they've done since then and people always focus on the wrong part of the quote. "I would've said the same thing" (would you?) - he was offering his friend user info.

mrmetanoia 2y ago

I wish I didn't have to be so negative because these are cool, but it's Facebook. Surveillance and ad tech that cause brain rot are what they do for a living. At this point they could just sell versions of these products that aren't subsidized by evil, and they still choose not to do so. This means no matter how much they talk about the future of AI being open, no matter how nice their AR glasses are, I can't do business with them. Everything facebook does is burdened by being facebook and I for one am glad at least one demographic won't let them forget it.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

The technology they've packed into these things is amazing - it's an incredible achievement. But, that said, there's also plenty of room for negativity around the actual product conception. It may have niche applications, but it just doesn't seem that most people need or want AR for everyday use - it's a solution looking for a problem. For gaming VR seems a better fit than AR, and same for Metaverse in general. AR seems a bit like Segway two-wheelers - cool and fun, but with limited actual use. I could see AR glasses being used in the same way as Segway's end of life use for tourist city tours, or for other similar rent-to-use entertainment experiences.

autoexec 2y ago
The sad thing is that there are a lot of things AR glasses could be useful for in my everyday life, but it all assumes that those glasses are working for me and me alone. I'd never use a product that was going to spy on everything I see and do. I'd never use a product that would fill my vision with ads either.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > The sad thing is that there are a lot of things AR glasses could be useful for in my everyday life Can you give some examples, because I honestly can't think of any. I certainly can imagine these in specific, mostly niche professional contexts, but as "the next computing computing platform", no thanks. To be clear, I'm fine if this is "just me", but take this quote from the article: > You can take a hands-free video call to catch up with friends and family in real time, and you can stay connected on WhatsApp and Messenger to view and send messages. No need to pull out your phone, unlock it, find the right app and let your friend know you’re running late for dinner – you can do it all through your glasses. Even under their own description, the phone experience is better for me in every way. I don't want something strapped to my face - I want to perform a task and then put my device away.
irq-1 2y ago

cududa 2y ago

The problem with waveguides are the manufacturing defects are on the micron level, and you need to get those channels perfect - then produce the same pattern a few more times for other colors, and hope they all perfectly line up. I don’t see 3D printing being a solution here for a very very long time

paul7986 2y ago

I wonder if and when Apple releases smart glasses that take pics and videos too how society will react? It goes against Apple's whole privacy ethos.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
IMO it is ironic the EU has forced Meta to take leadership in educating the public on the significance of "privacy," but not in the way the EU wanted. "Privacy" means two different things: (1) censoring sensitive personal life info from the public, versus (2) limiting government power. Who will invent the words to distinguish the two, I don't know, but it will turn "privacy ethos" into "X ethos" and "Y ethos," and Apple will sort it all out.

Meniceses 2y ago

Some people have morals and ethics and believe that its not okay to just do what facebook does without taking responsibility. You build a platform which allows you to share fake news and pay to win shit to billions? You make sure the algorithm makes you as much money as possible? You know who made sure facebook fixes this? Politics, not suckerburg.

valval 2y ago
Are your morals better than mine? Mine say that Meta is a successful business that has delivered on user demand for a solid while now. My morals also say that sharing any news, be it fake or real, should be allowed. Likewise they say making as much money as possible is admirable.
- Meniceses 2y ago
  Thats just capitalsm not morals or ethics. With power comes responsibility. And your moral ethical construct should not just benefit you and work for you but for all. Plenty of companies are not ethical and not your friend. If you have family and actually care, you wouldn't worry that facebook teaches them garbage? fake news? etc.? Just for the sake of making money or being allowed to do what they want? Im curious why you would even debate morals here if your main objection is to make 'as much money as possible'? Just accept that its not a moral goal to have. Moral would be "Making as much money as possible without hurting anyone and benefiting the society" I often advocate things not for me. I'm quite good in understanding the facebook algorithm and all of that shit. I advocate this for my friends, familiy and other fellow humans including you.
  - valval 2y ago
    I get it, our characters are polar opposites. There’s nothing you can teach me that I wouldn’t regard as obnoxious ramblings of a lost person.

EasyMark 2y ago

I agree, just because you don’t like a company or you don’t have a use for the device doesn’t mean that it can’t be a good step forward for tech in general, and for those who will find a use for it.

TeeMassive 2y ago

> Incredible amount of negativity here. Negativity isn't spared on bad actors.

shinycode 2y ago

My only gripe is Meta business model. So I prefer not to use any of their products at all. My loss.