Hacker News Reader

Comment by JKCalhoun | Hacker News Reader

They have a brand problem. Absolutely no way I buy anything from Meta.

This is my #1 issue. I simply don’t trust them and I don’t know that there is a realistic path to build that trust at this point. They’ve been violating my trust for decades.

I’m happy to let them prove out the tech, and if/when a company enters the market with a compelling product that I can trust, I will consider that competing product.

OP is taking videos of his baby with these when Meta's page here doesn't event mention data privacy or security of the user's information or how it protects them

All babies look the same, out of anything private you could film by mistake, a baby seems pretty harmless.

Yeah and stupid babies are too stupid to consent anyway

Face recognition is uninuitively good. Google Photos was able to pick out faces from my baby photos pretty easily.

Google's face recognition can't tell the difference between my 5yo and my newborn. And, most hilarious, my 8yo could unlock my wife's iPhone with face recognition when she was 2yo.

I was thinking about that a while ago and came to the conclusion that it's likely massively helped out by the narrow search space. They aren't trying to match between every single person, just the ones in your photo library which is an extremely small group compared to what most facial recognition is doing.

Google Photos works in a near perfect extremely constrained closed system: your photos have fewer than a hundred faces, it likely biases uncertainties with more confidence due to those constraints.

Funny because I don't use the feature and in my review tab I have like 15 versions of myself that google thinks are all different people for me to individually name. Mostly different phases of facial hair.

Really? Mine lumps together completely unrelated people whilst failing to group together the same person.

Custom ads based on your baby facial expressions 15 years later?

Well. Until that film or metadata getting uploaded on Meta servers or checked by some local child-safety AI, getting flagged for inappropriate meterial and police knocking on your door.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs...

Note: user has baby.

Now hammer them with ads designed to guilt trip parents. +1 surveillance capitalism.

I disagree with your assumption, but you also need to consider that the baby is going to be a person for decades.

Yes, it does, the link to Data & Privacy is at the bottom.

> I don’t know that there is a realistic path to build that trust at this point…

I suspect it's impossible as long as Zuckerberg is involved in the company.

Meta has close to 4 billion people worldwide using one or more of their products. Their brand problem doesn't extend much further than the HN comment section.

Instagram or WhatsApp are absolutely critical for daily functioning in certain circles of humanity.

Yeah, but facebook^WMeta didn’t develop those… they bought them to stifle competition.

WhatsApp I can buy due to the communication factor, but Instagram you're really going to have to sell me on fitting into the category of 'critical for daily functioning'.

Instagram. Critical to life. Naah.

I kind of agree but a lot of modern american small businesses run completely on facebook. At least in the 4wheeling community they do

WhatsApp. Instagram not really. WhatsApp has unfortunately become "official" (not in a figure of speech) mode of communication in certain countries, one of which has more than a billion people in it.

Depends on who you are. Quite a lot of careers require you to market yourself on social media now. You can hate Meta with a passion but acknowledge that you still have to reach customers who are on Instagram.

Well, what you are pointing out sounds like a role “Influencers needed”. So that’s obvious.

Instagram as well absolutely. There's all sorts of "small business owners" whose entire existence is conducted via an Instagram account and DMs, the same way there were entire businesses that operated via Facebook pages in the past.

It’s interesting to see how out of the loop many HN commenters are on social media. Any teenager or even occasional social media using adult could confirm that Instagram is a hotbed for business operations and marketing for many business. I barely use it myself but this is plainly obvious.

The number of overly confident yet entirely incorrect comments about how other people use WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook from people who obviously aren’t familiar with this platforms is interesting.

Mark was right: https://www.theregister.com/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/

You can use their products and still hate the brand.

I use Whatsapp daily (as does everyone I know) and there's no way I'm buying anything from Meta.

You might not be buying anything from Meta with cash, but you are with information about yourself and your network.

Yes, but that's besides the point.

My comment was in the context of "Meta has a brand issue" which is absolutely true.

I was able to avoid WhatsApp until we started our current multi-year sailboat cruise. All the local cruiser communities are on WhatsApp. So when we got to the Canaries, I created an account.

But I'm making sure WhatsApp will not be used for anything outside this context. That way I can nuke it when we're back home.

Yeah it has replaced SMS everywhere but the US and China.

> Meta has close to 4 billion people worldwide using one or more of their products.

If you ask any of those 4 billion people if they know WhatsApp is related in anyway to Meta, your answers will be split between "no" and "what's a Meta?"

and do you think they will stop using Whatsapp if they know Meta is the parent ?

I think 99% of WhatsApp users would gladly stop using WhatsApp and switch to something like Signal, if they had verbal agreements of "everyone else" that they would also switch.

Everyone is only on WhatsApp because everyone is on WhatsApp. That is why they tolerate the Meta ickiness of it.

I bet there are more people knowing what Meta is than Signal or Telegram.

This sounds like a product idea to me. Make a website that shows the status of your friends that are willing to switch to signal. You send an invite to all your friends first so the list keeps up to date as soon as one of your friend made a decision. If everybody agreed you can switch as a whole. Even better if signal would implement it themself!

Well, your plan could work if all your future friends also agree to this.

As far as I can tell, Signal automatically tells me which of my contacts are already on the app. If someone is willing to switch, the obvious thing to do is install it.

I find that list out of date. It shows friends that deleted the app months ago so don't receive the message.

I bet more than 1% of Whatsapp users make use of their web interface and/or live location. Signal doesn't have either of these. Yes, you can install a Signal app on your computer, but not everyone wants to do this.

Also, that "everyone else" would have to include all business accounts, which I think would require Signal to build out an API

> I think 99% of WhatsApp users would gladly stop using WhatsApp and switch to something like Signal, if they had verbal agreements of "everyone else" that they would also switch.

Most users do not care. If you told them other users agreed to switch platforms, they’d be annoyed about having to learn a new app when they already had one that was set up and they knew how to use.

HN is part of a small bubble that doesn’t understand product management for common people. Average users do not care. They just want a product that works.

People in HN treat non tech people as illiterate. Everyone knows what meta and facebook is and who owns whatsapp. At least if you remove the >50 years old folks.

Most non tech folks believes that Meta listens to their conversation for ads in Instagram, but that's a different issue, and even with that belief they are fine with that. I have seen this discussion so many times with so many different groups.

So you are saying people won't buy these glasses because Meta is evil, but they also don't know what Meta is?

the glasses require a FACEBOOK account. they got away on whatsbook by not mentioning Facebook anywhere. including NOT requiring a Facebook account.

> the glasses require a FACEBOOK account

They do not

do you have one?

all oculos needed one, so

Actually Facebook and WhatsApp are the only products I know of where even completely non-tech people like my mom or the other parents at my soccer game have ever mentioned something along the lines of "yeah I did X on Facebook so now whatshisname Zekkerburg knows about it too..."

These people probably have zero awareness about cookies, tracking, online disinformation campaigns and online security in general...yet the one "tech" thing they know is that Facebook spies on you.

Everyone is aware of how Meta kills privacy in their products. The products are still useful, especially at price point "free". And they are still riding on an installed base and network effect from a time before we cared that much about the privacy infringement.

But, actually paying for the privilege of being the product...that seems like an extremely hard sell from Facebook for me.

In my (totally limited) experience, most non-tech people don’t even know what Meta is. WhatsApp is almost the only messaging platform used where I live (and pretty much everywhere outside the US).

I remember doing Bug Bounty for Meta a while ago and telling some friends and family about it, and I had to repeatedly explain they _are_ Facebook and WhatsApp and Instagram and many other things because they would look at me like I was talking about aliens.

Those 4 billion people are using a free product with strong network effects. That has basically zero bearing on who's going to buy useless spyware glasses.

100% this. I'd love to have some of these features in eyewear, but there is no way in hell I purchase anything like this from Meta.

Less those bastards get of anything I control (data, finances, time) the better.

You’re about to be in a world where your consent is totally out of the picture with Meta releasing this product and people will be recording you all the time now and sending that data directly to Meta where they can then build models about where you are, who you’re with, what you’re doing and what you are talking about and all without providing you and way to opt out other than breaking the glasses when you encounter them in public.

You are expecting meta to succeed and that's won't be happening.

I would probably buy a pair once there’s some progress on an alternative firmware for those. The price is (hopefully) subsidized, so putting Meta in the red while getting some cool tech would be nice. (Same reason I own a Quest 3.)

Hah, same reason I bought my Quest 2. Figured I could buy a device that is subsidized by them, and then buy zero games on their platform and stream from my PC instead.

I was very angry though when they suddenly took away my USB debugging and had to go through another round of "verification".

I own two pair and love them yet hate them also because they are not durable and my 1st pair bought Oct 2023 stopped being smart in April so I bought a 2nd pair. After some big-ish water splashes the second paired died in June.

Smart glasses are great for ppl who wear some type of glasses and use their phone to take pics. Also, when I was in Europe asking about my surroundings enhanced my trip per my learning of about many sights I explored in Berlin and Amsterdam.

I do love and miss them but I’m not buying another pair til they are rock solid durable! Also the Ray Ban stores need to act just like Apple stores in terms of tech support but they do not ..and thus both Meta and Ray Ban are just selling a toy that easily breaks / doesn’t last. Even a Ray ban customer service rep said these things break I get so many calls.

100% They couldn't pay me to use it. I fully expect it's violating the user's privacy in every way they think they can get away with.

Why do you think they rebranded? They are chasing after Gen Z, brainwashing that clean slate.

"rebranding" takes more than saying "oh, now we are 'meta'" FB launched with great positive repetitional aura, but, at least to me, they have worn that away bit by bit over the years to the point where it becomes hard to earn back,.

> FB launched with great positive repetitional aura

As a site that ranked how hot girls were?

Ok, I was trying to give as much benefit of the doubt as possible. You are 100% correct of course...

The vast majority of users knew nothing about Facebook‘s origins until The Social Network. In the mid-to-late 2000s, the perception was of simply a much better designed, much more exclusive alternative to Myspace.

Hard to imagine nearly two decades later, but for a brief moment in time, it was cool to be on Facebook.

> The vast majority of users knew nothing about Facebook‘s origins

They are all <checks notes>

"dumb fucks." -- Mark Zuckerberg, 2004 personal correspondence documented in https://www.theregister.com/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/

Bro we get it. It's been done ad nauseam. It's now the equivalent of putting the dollar sign in Micro$oft. Probably the most relatable thing he's done anyway.

To the larger public they were the opposite of that... a clean, uncluttered alternative to MySpace that had none of its social baggage, in spite of its DNA which was clearly unknown during the early phases of social media.

The most popular dating apps do basically the same now but since there's no leader board and they aren't side by side it's all good I guess. All the same except for the UX

You'd be amazed how many <25s have no idea Meta owns Instagram and WhatsApp.

> 25s have no idea either!

The big “From Meta” at the bottom of the splash screen doesn’t tip people off?

I suspect it’s more that they don’t know who Meta is and because it’s meaningless they don’t link the “From Meta” between the two apps, if they even use both of them.

The inability of most people to notice 11 fingers should have adjusted our estimate of the average person's attention to detail.

They rebranded because Facebook is a limiting name for branching out into new markets. Clean slate is a bonus.

Which makes you wonder about Ray-Ban. Are they aware that their involvement with Meta risks hurting their brand? Those of us who are critical of Meta might be niche enough that it doesn't matter, but they must have factored that in.

Ray-Ban is part of EssilorLuxottica. They own pretty much every single (sun)glasses brand on earth. I'm sure someone in their organization has made the decision that Ray-Ban was the best fit for a brand in their portfolio to do something together with Meta.

Also, you're right about the niche. A lot of 'normal' people probably don't even have a clue that Meta and Facebook are the same thing.

Mark made the choice to go with RB (MIB inspired).

They probably had two brands that made sense, Ray Ban or Oakley, but just by listing those two, it's fairly clear that the products would be perceived vastly different, had they gone with Oakley.

The rest of the brands are either luxury or fairly unknown brands. Picking a smaller brand would automatically flop the product and going with e.g. Burberry could limit sales or the risk to the brand would be to high.

Huh. I genuinely thought they were already acquired.

You would avoid ray ban conventional glasses in protest at their association with meta? Don't forget to avoid the rest of Luxottica Group's products. I would bet (on Polymarket) against such a boycott gaining traction.

I wasn't talking about a boycott, I was talking brand damage. It's entirely possible to put less value in a brand, without boycotting it. Previously I had Ray Ban in the "Makes high-end expensive sunglasses" category, but now I mentally moved them to "Makes stupid smart glasses in collaboration with Facebook". This means that I'm willing to pay less for their products, compared to ten years ago, they are no longer a luxury brand, but a gimmick.

I see what you mean now. But all Luxottica brand name glasses have a big mark-up on a quite cheaply made product. They are better made than what you find on the rack at the supermarket but the perception of luxury comes from marketing.

I doubt it is to any measurable extent.

The (literally) billions of people around the world using Facebook and Instagram don't care.

Luxxotica is already terrible, predatory brand that makes shitty products.

This is why HN comments about personal preferences for Meta products aren’t informative. Meta really does have billions of users who don’t care in the slightest about boycotting the company. They just want to use their products because that’s where other people are.

The brand on display here is Ray Ban. That's why they spent billions to lock in the partnership.

Facebook changed its name to Meta. Meta is the company with the brand problem, not Ray Ban.

It's deeper than a brand problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Careless_People

Meta delenda est.

I would buy something from them, but until I know I could wear them safely at work while developing, using the bathroom, driving, and watching TV at home, and that I’d want to do that without being distracted all day by texts, etc., I wouldn’t wear them. I have to wear glasses, so they’d have to be clear, prescription glasses with reasonable small and stylish frames. This product isn’t for me, and I don’t see how it makes sense to continue spending money on this boondoggle, which is effectively a massively expensive human-testing project to help them develop reasonable-looking glasses. I love Ray-Ban glasses, but not this style or size, and not with these features.

This. The tech would have to absolutely world-alteringly amazingly unmissable for me to even consider using anything tied to the Meta ecosystem.

Well, your loss. My Oculus Quest remains the best $400 I ever spent on consumer tech.

Almost everyone I know who got a quest stopped using it after a week.

It's a fun toy, but gets boring pretty quickly.

I use mine for flight simming. The screen looks great for the price, and lets me stream games like DCS World from my desktop.

Far as fun toys go, the Quest sits head-and-shoulders over my Nintendo Switch.

For me too, I use mine for hours every week

For flight simming it really is much better. Being able to look to one side while "feeling" the offset (I can't explain it but you know what I mean) is a huge deal

Meanwhile I have a friend group (mostly build from real-life relationships) that gets together once a week for the last ~3 years to play VR games.

YMMV :-)

At one point it told you everyone on your friends list that had also got one - and in my case it was basically everyone I knew from work over the years. Literally the only people that used it more than two weeks were those working on VR.

Even if you try to stick with it you grow to dread all interaction with their app or OS. They have some superb technology but the product management is atrocious.

I used mine everyday for about 2 months but eventually reached the boredom stage.

There is just shockingly so little going on in VR.

There is also the issue that it is like a drug that the first few times are so mind blowing but your tolerance builds so fast. Then there is nothing stronger to up the dosage.

I use my Quest 2 constantly but the moment that rumored Valve Index with inside-out tracking becomes available I'm switching. Not only is the association with Facebook not great, their Windows desktop software is awful and constantly breaking. PCVR took a big back seat to the weak on-board stuff with the Quests.

8 days ago you would never buy a gimmicky device. Now a screen facehugger (which does even less than an iPad and is useful in even fewer situations) is the best thing you ever bought?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45188372

One man’s gimmick is another’s useful device.

I don’t use my iPad much…or didn’t, until I had a toddler and long car rides. I either used my phone or my PC, or a projector for movies. The iPad didn’t really fit in there.

I use my Quest 3 often. I can see why someone would have his opinion.

I already have an Android phone. What does the iPad do that my Android phone can't? Seriously, I have $300, I'll go buy one right now if you make a solid argument.

There are plenty of things my Quest does that an iPad and phone both can't do. Yes it's a toy, but it's a toy I get great mileage out of flying the F/A-18 in Microsoft Flight Simulator on a world tour. For $400, that's a steal. I've got telemetry disabled and it all runs great on my Linux box.

I'm not going to go buy a tablet to play HD Plants Versus Zombies for the 400th time. Sorry.

Only on HN do they have a brand problem.

The vast majority of the world doesn’t care. Half don’t know that Meta and Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp are the same thing.

And even if they know it’s no more concerning than that conspiracy video they just watched and 100% believed about Bill Gates, as they log into Windows or power on their Xbox.

Are you using Chinese brands? Tiktok, AliExpress, ByteDance, Binance, Tencent? If you have no problems with them but with Meta, that's hypocrisy on your part.

I myself don't really have problems with them, and neither with Meta. I don't think they have a brand problem other than in bubbles like HN.

One of these options (Meta vs. Chinese brands) is in bed with a dangerous totalitarian regime.

The other is the Chinese brands.

The Chinese government can’t do anything to affect my daily life. I would much rather the Chinese government know everything about me.

So you wouldn’t have problems with Meta if they weren’t American? Do you think Chinese people should use Meta’s products, if they were available there?

That kind of seems logically to me if Meta isn’t sharing data with the Chinese government.

Meta has a Musk/Tesla problem

Not even close to that level lol

Reply on news.ycombinator.com