[georgemcbay]

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).

[BoxwoodSeed]

> people don't like the idea of being filmed in public,

I don't think that this can be the main issue, given how nobody really cares about security cameras in public spaces or all the cameras modern cars can come with, nevermind dash cams.

[soraminazuki]

People absolutely do care about security cameras, as demonstrated by ongoing opposition to Flock cameras. Security cameras have been widely deployed at a time when they weren't interconnected and people had to physically obtain tapes to look at the footage. The cost of engaging in stalking or mass-surveillance has lowered dramatically since, and people are strongly opposed to these technologies once they realize what the current capabilities are. The public never consented to any of this, but those responsible are maliciously framing the past lack of awareness as consent.

[yallpendantools]

I think it has to do with how closely people think they are being recorded.

Someone filming/shooting in a park with a kit 18-55mm lens is fine. Swap that with a bulky 300mm or more and you are bound to get some questions asked.

A content creator casually shooting content in a mall is fine but if you start interviewing people, aiming your camera directly at them, it's at least common courtesy if not legal requirement to ask for permission.

Personally speaking, I wouldn't mind someone wearing these creeper specs in public but if they talk to me or if we eat at the same table, I would expect the courtesy of them putting the glasses away.

[mrdatawolf]

They like to be ignorant of being filmed. I don't mean that as an insult. "Ignorance is bliss"

[reddit_clone]

I would love a pair of ordinary looking glasses that work just as displays. I go for long walks (for health reasons) and it would be really good to watch youtube videos or shows that gets projected in front of my face, but still keep overall vision outside.

I definetely don't want a camera in there.

Not sure if such a beast exists. But due to Meta/Google screwing up with cameras, I may never get my display glasses.

[lrae]

XREAL, RayNeo and there is at least one more brand that exists. You could use those for that already - though they're probably not perfect yet for that specific use case.

But they will come and will get better. Apple is also supposedly still working on some and they'll likely try to get rid of the "camera issue". Or maybe they'll try to make it the new normal. But they already exist and there will be more of them in the future - with and without cameras.

[wolvoleo]

I love my Xreals. They don't even have a camera for tracking as they're the first generation.

Unfortunately due to meta's perv glasses they are getting a bad name too, it happens when I'm using them that people think I'm recording them. They are more bulky and clearly tech glasses, and many people understandably don't know the difference. They're more noticeable than meta's glasses.

I had that last time on the plane. It's really annoying because they have no camera nor microphone. They're great displays and can even do 3D. But meta is ruining that for us now too.

[lrae]

I think they're all still without a camera. It's just an optional, detachable add-on for, e.g. the 1S. (Which is nice.)

But yes, they are bulky.

[bamboozled]

The meta glasses look fucking stupid too. Like a pair of ray bans with water retention issues.

[georgemcbay]

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]

> 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]

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

[jononor]

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]

Well, not any sort. We'll just have to stick to wireframe glasses.

[bamboozled]

I had a guy filming my kid recently while playing, I had to confront them an get them to delete the photos off their phone and recently deleted. It's going to suck when you don't even know if they were recording the kids.