Meta is adding rate limits and soft paywall to smart glasses
theverge.com
theverge.com
That is where the ugly shady stuff is.
> AR ventures
That is the corporate hobby stuff.
That's irrelevant because their AI was never a product they sold.
Despite everything Google is still the Google Ads company, Meta is still the FB/Insta company, etc ... I would even add Intel in there, they're where they are in part because every new thing they made they killed off right away because it wasn't "a money printing large margin xeon with no competition".
Apple, Amazon and Microsoft are the big ones that got out of that trap. Though with Apple I would say it's more limited than it looks, it's just that their "product" is the ecosystem they build around, so while they have lots of lines they're all linked together and feed off each other with iPhone at the core.
On the other hand some would say, Ballmer decoupled Microsoft survival from Widnows survival so much that it leads to what's happening to windows those past 5-8 years, and that's not a plus for its users.
Their ad revenue is $243.46 billion annual, so not sure why you mention survival.
If a company making money spends that money internally on projects that is ok, it's when they borrow money that survival becomes a risk.
It's not Meta's survival that is fascinating, it's Zuckerberg's ongoing survival as CEO!!
That is remarkable. Who is spending this kind of money on FB ads?
State departments are also one of the biggest spenders (some say that's how the 'deep-state' maintain control of the media...). All those 'stop smoking' and other health ads all add up!
Alexa: Hey Siri, what person in their right mind would place spyware microphones inside their house?
Siri: Hey human, what person in their right mind would carry a spyware tracking device with them 24/7 ?
----
Celebrating the "4th Amendment rights" that Monday's SCOTUS ruling brought us – if any (IMHO).
<https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-rules-that-law-enfo...>
All-in for the parallel construction(s)...
Or is it just that we haven't seen Scoble using these in the shower? :-D [1]
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jwherrman/yes-you-can-w...
...which has not been declared taboo through religious or cultural institutions. Time for those institutions to step up and declare a ban on networked surveillance devices. As long as the processing is all local and none of the gathered intel is shipped out to the mothership or the highest bidder (viz. Gargoyles from Snow Crash) they're fine but it should be legal to punch anyone in the nose who wears corporate spy-eyes.
They literally couldn’t.
Glass cost $1,500 and had tech spilling out into separate modules attached to the (already too clunky) glasses.
It’ll be interesting to see how quickly the problem is dropped by society at large because the hardware has become too subtle to notice,
and the “superpowers” (or draw of entertainment) are too strong to ignore.
(Sometimes you have to recognize that the tech is not ready for the intended form factor.)
A PM deep in the heart of darkness: Hold my creatine.
This platform will allow new opportunities - previously it was just organising a genocide, now you can have a first person view.
But the article says this is an on-device feature. So there should be no overhead to Meta at all, aside from them storing the conversations I assume.
BMW heated-seats style move. Classy.
For example, a musician would probably rather have the audience wearing recording glasses and actually watching then recording on phone and watching the phone screen.
The 'creepy pick up artists' and other social media types have become synonymous with it unfortunately
By making the glow a fashion aspect of the glasses, the fact that it should glow loudly will become a socially known part of the glasses. Because it’s Apple and because a good chunk of the frame needs to glow it’ll have a distinct look that’ll be easy to spot and if anyone has tampered with them to disable it, they can be asked to verify that it hasn’t by making it able to glow on command “Hey Siri, glow/party”.
I have doubts they know how to market these if I'm seeing this ad.
Also, where I live its against the law to record people without their consent so if I would be feeling very nice I would just hold you against the ground till cops come.
You wear them = you film with them. Get your shit together kids, this ain't some harmless fun.
In public? How does this work in practice? There are so many uses for cameras and avoiding showing people would be impossible.
Eg dash cams, security cameras.
It seems to mostly just be a problem if you’re caught (aka if you’re being obnoxious or using a tripod) or if you try to use the subsequent footage for anything other than private viewing.
In many places you’re allowed to take wide shots where people might be captured incidentally, though not everywhere, as some places don’t allow photos of “copyrighted” buildings and landmarks.
They're selling because people love to record other people, publicly, without shame. It's kind of like a go-pro, is the use case for these.
The creepers exist but they're not enough people to build a business around.
I get that recurring revenue is needed for hardware development. It'd be easier to stomach if they flat out had that subscription pricing locked in early on instead of rolling it out after hundreds/thousands of unit sales. Yes, I know it's "smart business". I say it's anti-consumer practice.
To see cars on the road please subscribe to our health insurance care package. Your health will thank you for that! Stay hydrated! /s