• masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    I understand the gripes about Meta, but I don’t understand how everyone clowns on this like the core concept is stupid or unwanted.

    Easy $1000 sell: cycling / escooter accessory. People already regularly buy expensive sport glasses just for sun and wind protection. With a smart version of them like this, you add open ear headphone, and you add the potential for navigation directions, or even a Bluetooth rear view camera on the back of your helmet to get a virtual mirror.

    • thehatfox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 days ago

      The core technology is impressive, and has legitimate use cases.

      But that doesn’t outweigh the enormous privacy concerns these devices raise. They aren’t being angled as an accessory for specific activities, but as everyday wearables. If smart glasses like these became common they would be unavoidable, creating leave of intrusion that’s concerning even without Meta being involved.

    • OrgunDonor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      As a cyclist, this is a terrible sell. I already have tech which does all this, and probably does it better, for less.

      I don’t need a HUD constantly in my face obscuring the beautiful views. I have sun glasses which fit well with a helmet and wrap around my face to keep the wind out.

      I have a cycling computer, which offers GPS turn by turn, and pairs to power meters, heart rate and radar light. It is mounted on the handlebars in an easy to view place.

      I have bone conducting headphones for music.

      All of this is significantly less than $1000, and if something breaks, I can replace it all individually. I also don’t have to wear ridiculous looking sunglasses to listen to my bone conducting headphones.

      • MurrayL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t necessarily disagree, but this reads a bit like some of the comments on those old Slashdot threads clowning on the first smartphones.

        ‘these things will fail, I already have a camera, a cellphone, and an mp3 player, why would anyone want them all in one device?’

        • magguzu@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Heh…these days I kinda long for devices for for specific purposes again 😅 and I’m a software engineer.

        • jve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Exactly my first thought.

          Hope it doesn’t turn out the same way this time around

            • jve@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              No.

              Doesn’t make me any less apprehensive about meta putting cameras and microphones on everybody’s face.

    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I agree that head mounted displays can be useful, I’m contemplating getting something like it, but just no cameras, please. not in the frame, not backwards, not anywhere.

      • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        If you don’t have cameras you instantly lose a tonne of potential amazing functionality.

        If you’re in public you have no expectation of privacy, so someone being able to photograph you or record you with glasses is no different to being able to do it with a camera or phone.

        • thatonecoder@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          People should still have an expectation of privacy in public spaces to some extent, otherwise the only way is to move to the foresf. One should not have to be concerned about being recorded, especially children (a pdfile can take photos to pick “targets”, so to speak).

          • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            22 hours ago

            People should still have an expectation of privacy in public spaces to some extent

            Why? You’re in a public space. You don’t have privacy when you’re out in public. There are already laws around taking photos of minors etc, but it being able to be done via glasses is no different to it being able to be done with a phone or a camera.

          • d7sdx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            The pdfile will do it anyways. What concerns me is all those data will be streamed to Meta. They will relay it to Palantir. The best mass surveillance you can think of.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sell your bike to afford them. Easy. It’s another pointless gimmick, like 3D TV or the Metaverse and virtual shopping. Zuckerberg had one idea and got lucky, it’s been wasting money since.