4 ms·

A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever; Zuckerberg truly has the remarkable ability to turn to shit anything

A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever; Zuckerberg truly has the remarkable ability to turn to shit anything he touches.

bigfatkitten 3mo ago
It absolutely would not have received a positive reception at an event like DEF CON. They’ve always had a strict photo policy.
secretsatan 3mo ago
I don’t think so, google glass set the precedent
dabinat 3mo ago
Google Glass was loathed too. Unfortunately Zuckerberg learned the wrong lesson from its failure - that the issue was that people could recognize the glasses and know they were being recorded and not the actual recording itself.
- like_any_other 3mo ago
  If only people reacted to surveillance cameras the same way.
  - dnemmers 3mo ago
    I'm guessing if 'surveillance camera' meant people they don't know, obviously recording their every motion from close by...they may have a different response. It almost seems like personal Paparazzi.
georgemcbay 3mo ago
Google Glass came out in 2013 and got a similar reception. Google's device also suffered from making the user look ridiculous, like a gargoyle out of Snow Crash, but at the end of the day most people had the same core issue with it as they have with the Meta glasses which is that people don't like the idea of being filmed in public, especially when the filming is somewhat surreptitious (since you don't have to hold bulky camera gear, or at least a phone-sized device to do it) Of course you have the legal right to film people in public spaces in many jurisdictions, but you're likely to be socially ostracized for it (and IMO rightfully so).
- bamboozled 3mo ago
  The meta glasses look fucking stupid too. Like a pair of ray bans with water retention issues.
  - georgemcbay 3mo ago
    Yeah, I agree. But they look less stupid than Google Glass did and even if they didn't look stupid, people would still consider them "pervert glasses". In fact, I think the more indistinguishable these types of devices get from regular glasses the more people will be upset by their existence. The less immediately obvious they are, the more you seem like a creepy pervert for using them when the core problem is people don't want you filming them without their knowledge or consent.
    - JohnFen 3mo ago
      > I think the more indistinguishable these types of devices get from regular glasses the more people will be upset by their existence. My fear is that these spy glasses will actually become indistinguishable from corrective glasses. I don't look forward to a future where everyone wearing any sort of glasses will be immediately suspect.
      - Bender 3mo ago
        And not having a distinguishable Bluetooth device ID to detect when one is near. [1] not tested as I do not know anyone with pervert glasses [1] - https://github.com/alexh-scrt/glasses-radar https://github.com/alexh-scrt/glasses-radar
        jononor 3mo ago
        That could/should be required by law. As well as advertising the recording status. Then we can have app or OS level feature to avoid these things.
      - Cpoll 3mo ago
JohnFen 3mo ago
> A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever Not at DEF CON, no.
sublinear 3mo ago
I am fairly certain the goal of putting cameras on glasses is to poison the well for the rest of wearable computing while also testing the limits of user acceptance. They don't care if it succeeds. They just don't want to lose.
- wolvoleo 3mo ago
  Exactly! I'm noticing this already as an Xreal user. They're great for travelling, you have an amazingly huge screen and together with Samsung DeX and a foldable keyboard you basically have a whole Desktop pc with you. A year ago I used them happily but now after all of the bad press meta has caused I get more suspicion. I show people that they don't feature cameras but just displays and it's ok. But they don't see the difference from the outset which makes total sense, not many people know xreal or other bird bath glasses. But the newer ones use cameras for 6DoF tracking too so they're even more likely to be viewed as perv glasses. I hope they keep making ones without, I never use the tracking anyway.
m463 3mo ago
I think AR glasses are loathed. But the camera takes this to extreme anti-social levels.

A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever; Zuckerberg truly has the remarkable ability to turn to shit anything he touches.

bigfatkitten 3mo ago

It absolutely would not have received a positive reception at an event like DEF CON. They’ve always had a strict photo policy.

secretsatan 3mo ago

I don’t think so, google glass set the precedent

dabinat 3mo ago

Google Glass was loathed too. Unfortunately Zuckerberg learned the wrong lesson from its failure - that the issue was that people could recognize the glasses and know they were being recorded and not the actual recording itself.

like_any_other 3mo ago
If only people reacted to surveillance cameras the same way.
- dnemmers 3mo ago
  I'm guessing if 'surveillance camera' meant people they don't know, obviously recording their every motion from close by...they may have a different response. It almost seems like personal Paparazzi.

georgemcbay 3mo ago

Google Glass came out in 2013 and got a similar reception. Google's device also suffered from making the user look ridiculous, like a gargoyle out of Snow Crash, but at the end of the day most people had the same core issue with it as they have with the Meta glasses which is that people don't like the idea of being filmed in public, especially when the filming is somewhat surreptitious (since you don't have to hold bulky camera gear, or at least a phone-sized device to do it) Of course you have the legal right to film people in public spaces in many jurisdictions, but you're likely to be socially ostracized for it (and IMO rightfully so).

bamboozled 3mo ago
The meta glasses look fucking stupid too. Like a pair of ray bans with water retention issues.
- georgemcbay 3mo ago
  Yeah, I agree. But they look less stupid than Google Glass did and even if they didn't look stupid, people would still consider them "pervert glasses". In fact, I think the more indistinguishable these types of devices get from regular glasses the more people will be upset by their existence. The less immediately obvious they are, the more you seem like a creepy pervert for using them when the core problem is people don't want you filming them without their knowledge or consent.
  - JohnFen 3mo ago
    > I think the more indistinguishable these types of devices get from regular glasses the more people will be upset by their existence. My fear is that these spy glasses will actually become indistinguishable from corrective glasses. I don't look forward to a future where everyone wearing any sort of glasses will be immediately suspect.
    - Bender 3mo ago
      And not having a distinguishable Bluetooth device ID to detect when one is near. [1] not tested as I do not know anyone with pervert glasses [1] - https://github.com/alexh-scrt/glasses-radar https://github.com/alexh-scrt/glasses-radar
      - jononor 3mo ago
        That could/should be required by law. As well as advertising the recording status. Then we can have app or OS level feature to avoid these things.
    - Cpoll 3mo ago

JohnFen 3mo ago

> A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever Not at DEF CON, no.

sublinear 3mo ago

I am fairly certain the goal of putting cameras on glasses is to poison the well for the rest of wearable computing while also testing the limits of user acceptance. They don't care if it succeeds. They just don't want to lose.

wolvoleo 3mo ago
Exactly! I'm noticing this already as an Xreal user. They're great for travelling, you have an amazingly huge screen and together with Samsung DeX and a foldable keyboard you basically have a whole Desktop pc with you. A year ago I used them happily but now after all of the bad press meta has caused I get more suspicion. I show people that they don't feature cameras but just displays and it's ok. But they don't see the difference from the outset which makes total sense, not many people know xreal or other bird bath glasses. But the newer ones use cameras for 6DoF tracking too so they're even more likely to be viewed as perv glasses. I hope they keep making ones without, I never use the tracking anyway.

m463 3mo ago

I think AR glasses are loathed. But the camera takes this to extreme anti-social levels.