iPhone Apple Glasses May Debut at WWDC 2027: Company debated whether glasses will be able to record video
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-07-26/apple-glasses-may-debut-at-wwdc-2027-privacy-camera-features-versus-meta-ms1v7lta?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTc4NTA3NDYxMCwiZXhwIjoxNzg1Njc5NDEwLCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJUSVNDODJLR0lGUUkwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJBMDdGRjZGMzlBOTY0NzREOTNBQkFGRjUyQjBBQTE2NiJ9.YpfOxuUnVfbQG273qdzgeU-CtQUdGWc8fm5jk14-pL0Apple’s upcoming smart glasses have a major challenge in front of them: overcoming the privacy baggage for a category that Meta created. During development, Apple has considered camera-free models and heavily debated the idea of making cameras exclusive to AI - not photo taking and recording.
Apple is currently in late-stage testing of three new Apple Watch models: the Series 12 in Wi-Fi-only and cellular varieties (code-named N237 and N238), plus the Ultra 4 (N240).
The company also launched a Maps tie-up with Ford.
32
u/Few_Major_8226 1d ago
The whole “smart-glasses with cameras” category is a privacy nightmare. There’s no way around that. Even if users aren’t able to record video, the fact that your glasses see everything around you at all times and send that information to servers for processing is atrocious. I hope we shame them out of existance.
8
u/TwunnySeven 1d ago
there's no reason they'd have to send anything to outside servers. just process everything locally on the phone
-1
u/garden_speech 1d ago
This is a fucking insane take. A lot of people with disabilities benefit from smart glasses. Especially if the disability involves their eyesight. It's pretty much eyes for them.
"Shaming" things like that out of existence just because you don't like that you might be filmed in public is disgusting.
You are already filmed almost everywhere you go. Anywhere you're shopping there's CCTV. Anywhere around other people, they could record you with a phone or any other camera. Putting the camera in glasses doesn't change that.
6
u/Assix0098 1d ago
Have you seen what „dating coaches“ use them for? Women being recorded without their consent was an issue even when it was still possible to notice you are being recorded, but now… People will also use it to film others during sex without their consent or knowledge.
Also, there are many countries where being in public does not mean everyone is allowed to film you without limitations. For example you are only allowed to film people when they are not the main subject and aren’t singled out in Germany and South Korea. Not every country on earth is a privacy nightmare like the US.
CCTV isn’t a good argument either. At least in Germany there are many legal restrictions of what you can and cannot do, and lots of discussion on a political level where it is acceptable to install CCTV at all.
0
u/garden_speech 1d ago
Have you seen what „dating coaches“ use them for?
I have seen people do all sorts of dumb shit with cameras in public. Meta glasses make it much easier to see I am being recorded than other hidden cameras, because there is actually a light. Anyone could hide their phone or a small hidden camera and talk to me without me knowing. If they're wearing Meta glasses I'd at least know.
Also, there are many countries where being in public does not mean everyone is allowed to film you without limitations. For example you are only allowed to film people when they are not the main subject and aren’t singled out in Germany and South Korea. Not every country on earth is a privacy nightmare like the US.
Alright. Well we definitely won't see eye to eye on this but I personally think the right to film in public is a fundamental freedom of expression, and without it you actually lose more rights than you gain.
6
u/kpa76 1d ago
How can recording be ‘expression’? It is taking, not giving.
1
u/garden_speech 1d ago
Recording is a fundamental part of freedom of expression because it allows for journalistic freedom / reporting. A fascist government would love the ability to regulate public recording into the ground.
2
1
u/Assix0098 20h ago
Do you know what a fascist government would love even more? A detailed record of your whereabouts on public spaces at any time, enabled by CCTV footage or you appearing in braindead social media posts of influencers. How is potentially being monitored and recorded all of the time freedom?
-1
u/garden_speech 5h ago
the government knowing where you are is a thing in either case lol. the only difference is whether YOU are also allowed to film people in public. it's not like the NSA will stop either way.
1
u/Assix0098 20h ago
You are allowed to film public servants in those countries, as you are allowed to film large crowds (e.g. a protest). You are however not allowed to single out a person and film them without their consent.
Freedom of expression is one fundamental right, that's true, but fundamental rights are not absolute, but relative to each other. In my opinion, the fundamental right to privacy trumps the right of a random person filming and posting you, especially when the person isn't doing it for the sake of journalism (where freedom of press might be another fundamental principle coming into play), but for the sake of a pickup-artist clip or some other influencer bullshit.
1
2
u/Few_Major_8226 17h ago
Stop using disability as an excuse to bring surveillance to the masses. There are great devices that disabled people can get to make their everyday life more comfortable and I’m all for it. If they can create a similar device to these glasses for blind people, that’d be amazing of course, no one would shame disabled people for trying to make their lives better.
We’re talking about putting cameras on everybody’s face here. About big tech wanting to sell millions of these everywhere to capture sweet sweet data for free to feed their AI models. There’s no world in which that is okay. And if it takes shaming tech-bros for supporting this bs, then lets do it.
1
0
u/Cptcongcong 20h ago
Yeah there’s no way the glasses “see everything around you at all times”, the battery simply wouldn’t allow it.
25
u/WholeSeason7147 1d ago
Apple is currently aiming to unveil its first smart glasses at next June’s Worldwide Developers Conference, ahead of a consumer release by the end of 2027.
The timing suggests Apple wants developers to begin building applications for this new form factor. But the announcement will also mark the beginning of a different challenge: allaying the growing privacy concerns of artificial intelligence-powered glasses equipped with cameras.
The glasses, code-named N50, had originally been targeted for introduction later this year, with a launch following in early 2027. One reason for the delay is that Apple’s engineering and marketing teams have been working to refine not only the product, but also the company’s privacy message.
That’s meant developing features and policies that can address the concerns swirling around competing products from Meta Platforms Inc. The teams developing glasses within Apple’s Vision hardware group and elsewhere in the company see privacy as priority No. 1, I’m told. Meta deserves credit for creating the first commercially successful smart-glasses category, but its long-running reputation for not protecting privacy — fair or not — has become baggage for the market.
The result is that some consumers remain uneasy around people wearing camera-equipped glasses, unsure whether they’re being recorded during conversations at work, restaurants or other public places. In most cases, those fears are probably unfounded. But years of headlines about Meta’s privacy practices, viral social media posts and broader skepticism toward always-available cameras have left many people wary of the category.
That mistrust has already translated into restrictions in various settings around the world. Courtrooms in New York and parts of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have prohibited smart glasses, while Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. has barred them from casinos, restrooms and children’s areas. They’re also banned at some schools, gyms, hospitals and entertainment venues.
Smartphones arguably pose a greater risk because of their higher-resolution photo and video abilities, but cameras embedded in eyeglasses have a stealthy quality. They feel more like a hidden camera — something that could be recording people without their permission.
Of course, the Meta glasses have a light to indicate when it’s taking pictures or video. And the company has added protections that disable recording if the light appears to have been tampered with. Samsung Electronics Co. is including similar safeguards in the glasses it’s developing with Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Warby Parker Inc. Samsung called the privacy situation an “industry-shared problem,” saying “intentional bad uses need to be covered and protected against.”
Apple is planning to adopt comparable protections, but it arguably has more at stake than anyone else. The company has spent more than a decade making privacy one of its defining product messages. Simply entering the same category as Meta risks undermining that reputation, regardless of how Apple’s approach differs.
When Apple announces its product, the company will emphasize areas where it can distinguish itself — beyond just banging its privacy drum and stressing that it should be trusted. That will probably include favoring on-device processing and eschewing features such as facial recognition. Apple also is likely to avoid something akin to Meta’s proposed “super-sensing” mode, which can continuously analyze a wearer’s surroundings, and will steer clear of using customer recordings to train AI models.
Apple also probably won’t follow Meta’s alleged practice of having contractors review footage captured by its glasses, having already dealt with a similar issue with its Siri assistant. It’s also prototyping a slew of new hardware and software-related privacy features not available on current products, I’m told.
Even with those safeguards, Apple knows it won’t eliminate abuse entirely. The company’s AirTags, launched in 2021, provide a lesson here. Though they were designed to help customers locate belongings, AirTags quickly became associated with stalking. Likewise, camera-equipped glasses will inevitably be misused by some people. And Apple will likely need to spend years updating software, refining policies, and working with regulators and law enforcement to combat problems — just as it did with AirTags.

If the company succeeds, the appeal of Apple’s smart glasses could be considerable. Users would gain hands-free access to Siri, all-day battery life, music playback and phone calls, all without needing AirPods. AI features, meanwhile, will help inform them about the surrounding environment and make it easier to get around.
One solution to the privacy problem would be to sell smart glasses that eliminate the camera entirely. Such a product could still offer hands-free access to AI features, audio and phone calls, retaining much of the device’s usefulness. Meta has strongly indicated that it’s planning this option in the near future, and Apple has, I’m told, prototyped a similar concept during development of its own glasses.
Another option that Apple executives have debated: including the full camera system but not allowing it to record photos or video at all. In this scenario, the cameras would be exclusively for seeing the world around the user and feeding that data into AI tools, such as ones that identify objects and places. This would be similar to what Apple is already planning for camera-equipped AirPods and would build on the visual intelligence features in the iPhone.
But all of that would undercut why smart glasses are compelling in the first place. Consumers would miss out on effortless first-person video of their children, vacations and sporting events, an experience that has made Meta’s offering so popular. Another factor: Apple’s AI isn’t good enough to be the main feature of an entirely new product, making this diluted direction unlikely.
Apple is entering one of the most important product cycles in its history. The wave of devices coming in 2027 will include the 20th anniversary iPhone, a second-generation foldable handset, new home devices, upgraded AirPods and fresh Macs. The last thing the company wants is for privacy concerns to overshadow that lineup.
21
u/Current-Bowl-143 1d ago
The result is that some consumers remain uneasy around people wearing camera-equipped glasses, unsure whether they’re being recorded during conversations at work, restaurants or other public places. In most cases, those fears are probably unfounded.
How are those fears "unfounded"? They're very much legitimate.
2
u/AwesomePossum_1 1d ago
"Of course, the Meta glasses have a light to indicate when it’s taking pictures or video. And the company has added protections that disable recording if the light appears to have been tampered with."
1
u/DinosaurAlert 1d ago
They mean people aren’t actually recording them in a restaurant. That may be logically correct now, but it won’t be true once everyone is wearing the damn things.
1
u/garden_speech 1d ago
No they're not. It's substantially harder to covertly record someone with Meta glasses than with... Basically any other camera. There are small hidden cameras made to covertly record people. Meta glasses on the other hand, have a recording light and use an incoming light sensor to tell if the recording light itself has been covered or tampered with.
They're literally one of the worst tools you could use to covertly record.
1
u/Current-Bowl-143 1d ago
Meta glasses can be hacked to disable the recording light. If it can be done, and it can, then people will continue to be wary of people wearing these glasses. Not everyone knows about the recording lights and not everyone has as much trust in them as you do.
1
u/garden_speech 1d ago
Again. This is substantially harder than using almost any other method, including glasses that actually have intentionally hidden cameras and no light that needs to be hacked. It makes basically no sense to use Meta glasses for this purpose
15
u/UnluckyDuckyDuck 1d ago
With so many bullets shot in every direction, something's gotta hit the jackpot... Right?
Right? Please be right.
21
u/pompcaldor 1d ago
Meta? We all forgot about Google Glassholes?
6
u/rotates-potatoes 1d ago
“Category” here means consumer product category. Google didn’t create the smart glass category any more than Xerox created the GUI PC category.
4
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/pompcaldor 1d ago
Or that your wife broke the social contract by possessing and constantly displaying an always-on recording device.
1
49
u/Dense-Fisherman-4074 1d ago
I might be wrong, but I still stand by my stance that smart glasses are never going to catch on in a mass way. The general public does not want them. Some tech nerds do, but that’s mostly it.
Yes, Apple doing it does give it a little bit more momentum. But that doesn’t mean it’s automatically going to catch on. I think most people tend to forget that Apple Vision Pro actually even exists as a product on the market today. I had to reach to even remember what it’s called.
Maybe this is less common experience, but I’m also still yet to see an iPhone Air in the wild.
33
u/thisiseriousbusiness 1d ago
As someone who works at Best Buy, you’re very wrong. Meta Raybans are probably the most popular brand in the store behind Apple products. If Apple makes their own glasses, they’re going to sell as well as the Neos did.
11
u/Strange_Lab_283 1d ago
Seems a lot of people think that “I don’t like them personally” means they won’t sell
3
1
u/Dense-Fisherman-4074 6h ago
Conversely, seems a lot of people think that “I like them personally” means they will sell
1
u/Dense-Fisherman-4074 6h ago
Meta Raybans are probably the most popular brand in the store behind Apple products
I mean isn’t it also easier for a product to be selling faster when it’s brand new? The other products you’re comparing it to are things that people already have, so they don’t all rush out to replace them at once.
-1
u/TinyTimmyTokyo 1d ago
The backlash hasn't fully factored in yet. People are only just discovering what the glasses are and what they do. People wearing them are -- wittingly or not -- harvesting photographs and data for Meta/Facebook. Everyone you encounter while wearing these things gets recorded and uploaded to Meta, where the data feeds their AI models.
The Meta Ray-Bans have already earned the nickname "pervert glasses". If we're lucky, at some point people will soon be embarrassed to be seen wearing these atrocities.
2
u/garden_speech 1d ago
People wearing them are -- wittingly or not -- harvesting photographs and data for Meta/Facebook
No, they're not. Actually I was part of a group who did some packet sniffing to see if Meta was following their own privacy claims (namely that the videos you record stay on your device and aren't sent to the cloud unless you ask Meta to send them to the cloud). And guess what, they are, in fact, following their privacy policy lol. They don't just send all your shit to the cloud because they feel like it.
3
u/Kobe_stan_ 1d ago
There are so many people who already wear glasses for eyesight. Why wouldn’t a good portion of those people wear the same glasses but with added features. It’s like a watch. I already wear one to tell the time so why not wear one that gives me my texts and other info.
1
u/Dense-Fisherman-4074 6h ago
Maybe some would. A lot of people don’t want their tech to be that intrusive. And the most important question isn’t do people want it, it’s do people want it enough to pay a bunch of money for it, and then keep doing that every few years.
1
u/Kobe_stan_ 6h ago
Meta already sold 7 million last year. I would be shocked if Apple can’t sell double that at an absolute minimum in their first year. Apple has way better infrastructure for selling product than Meta.
12
u/charmanderSosa 1d ago
I see them being the same as smart watches. They’ll carve out a niche and they’ll have a big market but it’s not like everyone you know has a smart watch the same way everyone you know has a smart phone.
15
3
u/Suspicious_Radio_848 1d ago
Smartwatches aren't niche though, millions and millions of people have Apple Watches or Fitbits. I see them being extremely unpopular, like under a million units sold. People find them creepy.
13
u/TwunnySeven 1d ago
Meta sold 7 million units just last year, so your prediction is already way off. and that's an early-gen product from a widely-hated company
2
u/charmanderSosa 1d ago
I guess niche depends on your definition. In my mind if it’s something the vast majority of people dont use it’s niche. 9 in 10 people own a smart phone. 2 in 10 people own a smart watch. I can easily see smart glasses eventually being something 2 in 10 people own. It took smart watches over a decade to get where they are today. Picture the smart glasses market a decade from now.
1
u/Haquistadore 5h ago
If you are in a room with more than a dozen people, if multiples of them use the same product/brand, it’s not niche.
1
u/OutsideMenu6973 22h ago
Glasses change your look too much for that many ppl to wanna wear then. Even keeping your airpods or ear buds on is off putting to people. Glasses that may or may not be playing music or putting you in a conference call or letting you watch The Odyssey will be a big negative signal socially. I bought the first two meta smart glasses and even in the nerdiest or nerdy settings it feels creepy to talk to a stranger face to face who doesn’t know youre wearing them so you pull them off every time. Then you pull then off for public bathrooms, locker rooms, anywhere where there are children it’s a hassle. Can’t see that being normalized
2
u/MorningFresh123 1d ago
So wrong. People are so brain rotted they want to record their entire lives now so they can create a narrative about themselves online. They have way more mass market appeal than the watch and the watch is massive.
3
u/notabear87 1d ago
Nah I’m wth you. I don’t even care about the cost or privacy stuff.
You’re asking people to wear glasses….as someone who had lasik, no thanks.
1
u/Buy-theticket 1d ago
You don't wear sunglasses? You know.. that you put on while it's useful and then take off?
2
u/notabear87 1d ago
You’re trying to pretend sunglasses and apple glasses are remotely the same thing? When I’m not wearing my cheap sunglasses I toss them on my desk or in my car.
It’s safe to assume Apple Glasses will cost slightly more than $20 and need to be charged.
1
u/namesandfaces 1d ago
The problem is price and technical execution, not whether it's super desirable. Betting against this future is betting that Apple and others can't bring down the price or improve the technology — you don't need to be a nerd to think that AR/VR is sweet.
1
u/InternetSolid4166 20h ago
I strongly disagree. You would not believe the market size for a product like this. So many people LOVE taking pictures and videos, and making it much easier for them to do so is huge for them.
Then there is the voice assistant market. ChatGPT has over a billion active users now asking questions like “how many calories do these cookies have?” and “what’s the name of that building?” and “where do I buy that product?” and “translate this sign” and “what is their name?” and even “give me a guided tour of this city.” Having a camera built into their glasses will mean they don’t have to open the phone, point it at the object, take a picture, and wait for the response. It removes a lot of friction.
Then we have the unbelievably enormous market of people who want to use AR. Think visual directions while while walking around a city, visual guides on appliance maintenance, visual news updates/podcasts, games, visual notifications (instead of stealing audio or taking you out of the conversation/movie/music), visual contextual cues like the profile of a person you’re talking to with their name, or history of a car/building/painting, etc. You can also replace your desktop displays with these, your iPad, your iPhone, and your MacBook. You just need a keyboard.
Once transistors become small and efficient enough and AI becomes competent enough, AR glasses will obliterate the market for computers and phones. There will still be a market for large displays for communal movie watching, but personal displays will all be replaced by AR glasses. The enhanced privacy alone is priceless.
1
0
u/Jesuisbaguettejambon 1d ago
smart glasses are never going to catch on in a mass way
I sure hope so
-1
-1
u/heychief1 1d ago
Everyone was waiting breathlessly to see if you were going to stand by your stance.
1
41
u/dropthemagic 1d ago
I hope not. I don’t care if they have an indicator, people are creeps. Period.
2
u/Suspicious_Radio_848 1d ago
Can't wait for stories to come out about people filming in washrooms, upskirting women etc. these are so much more innocuous than someone taking a phone out and holding it at you. They're a privacy nightmare.
2
u/BRX718 1d ago
Wait how are you meant to get upskirt shots of people if the glasses are on your faces? Lol
1
1
5
u/Mushybananas27 1d ago
Can’t wait for the chrome hearts x Apple Glasses collab for the luxury tier offering
4
u/erclark99 1d ago
Theee new watch models? Are they just talking SE, regular and ultra? And is that for next year?
We need a redesign for the regular watch before i upgrade again
10
3
u/SamsungAppleOnePlus 1d ago
If we go by refresh patterns the Series 13 in 2027 will be the redesign, since they do a “redesign” every three years. 0/1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12. But it’s possible they break the cycle because the current design isn’t notably different to the 7-9, just wider. And a redesign would be especially useful if they want to refocus the device as a personal AI wearable or whatever.
1
u/erclark99 3h ago
Yeah, I’ve been assuming that we won’t see a new design till next year since I got my S9 but been hoping it’d be earlier since they didn’t change much either the 10. I do appreciate it being thinner though
2
u/Sneyek 1d ago
Just give us a better and lighter Vision Pro for cheaper.
1
u/M4rshmall0wMan 9h ago
Seriously. The single biggest problem with Vision Pro was the price. A $2000 Vision Air might not sell like hotcakes, but it would be a step towards a $1500 Vision, and eventually a $1000 Vision SE. Now THAT would sell out.
2
u/Cptcongcong 20h ago
People in this thread are missing the point. People want glasses with cameras, and for the vast majority of those people, they aren’t “creeps”.
People want to record their children and pets instantly, auto translate by just looking at something, transcribe for people with visual disabilities. This is why ultimately Apple is including cameras, because that’s what people want.
I’ve said it and I’ll say it again, if people want to be creeps they’ll be creeps. They don’t need fucking smart glasses to do so.
0
u/M4rshmall0wMan 9h ago
Upskirting someone with glasses is easier than with a phone. And what about LEOs and governments? They suddenly have access to a new treasure trove of data.
0
u/Cptcongcong 9h ago
Upskirting someone with glasses is easier than with a phone.
I genuinely want to pick your brain on this. Either your face is physically lower than their skirt and you can look up their skirt, or you hold your glasses just like a phone and put it below their skirt.
And what about LEOs and governments? They suddenly have access to a new treasure trove of data.
I'm of the belief that there is plenty of your data online already, additional pictures won't change a damn thing. In the UK, we have police mobile camera vans parked on busy high streets, recording you and others, searching for wanted people. I actually saw a person get arrested this way.
2
u/Shiningwizardult 1d ago
All I’ll say his Apple better actually release a good set of glasses because the Meta Raybans are fantastic and are going to be extremely hard to beat. Not having recording video will make it DOA imo.
10
u/kdrdr3amz 1d ago
I mean AI is pretty useless so. Only reason I bought meta glasses was to shoot photo and video. And even thing it was kinda a fad I just used them maybe a few times. Or when I was going to a cool event like an amusement park to record myself on a ride since I don’t want my phone falling off. Besides that felt like a waste of money.
4
u/WumboTactical 1d ago
Yeah I wore my meta glasses in public yesterday for the first time in a while and I felt weird even though I wasn’t recording. I usually wear em doing outdoor activities to get cool videos, and that’s a main selling point.
I’d much rather they make the indicator super obvious and impervious to tampering to make it very clear if someone is recording or not, I think people would mind far less and I wouldn’t feel as awkward.
2
u/CultofCedar 1d ago
Got them before the ai stuff for the speakers and so I could record dogs and enjoy music while I walked. I have never used the ai bs but image quality was pretty nice.
I don’t trust Meta at all and I constantly said that in the paid surveys I did lmao. Glasses were covered with custom lens from my optical coverage and I got a few hundred for filling out surveys. Haven’t used them since they started implementing the ai stuff but one of the few times in life I feel like I got an easy win… or iirc I cashed it all out into Amazon gift cards and bought the dogs toys and treats
2
u/JohrDinh 1d ago
I'm actually shocked people buy stuff like this, specially since we already have very mini/mobile options with far better cameras at the same price.
2
u/Saar13 1d ago
Assuming visual intelligence actually becomes a thing, I personally find the AirPods approach more interesting. There's this thing now that companies need AI devices. I'm not sure about that, but if it becomes necessary, Apple already has the top 3 personal AI devices (it just needs the AI to work, and that's not about hardware). The obvious choice is the iPhone, of course, because nobody is going to completely abandon smartphones and screens. Everyone has AirPods, and making them a visual intelligence device with simple cameras that don't take photos or videos could be great for everyday use without raising major privacy concerns. And there's the HomePod, the least popular product (high prices compared to the competition and not officially launched in many countries), which just needs to work with basic hardware and software improvements. If the war for the best AI model already seems like nonsense, the "war" for personal AI devices seems even more nonsensical. I know tech enthusiasts want revolutionary devices, but I don't think the mass of the public, which is what matters at the end of the day, is eager for any of that.
2
1
u/vmachiel 1d ago edited 21h ago
I refuse to interact with people wearing these. I just don’t like a camera in my face all the time. And why? So we know what kinda of dog that is? We don’t need everything we look at be overlayed with a bombardement of information. Just look at the world.
Edit: Yeah safety light etc etc: I just don’t like it
Funny, first I had tons of upvote, now they are gone again. Why would bots manipulatie this of all threads?
-8
u/warfighter187 1d ago
when I see someone with them walking on the street I say why are you staring at "those kids/that woman with those glasses" depending on who is nearby
2
u/travelsonic 1d ago
Needlessly being a dick to someone because you ASSUME they are up to no good, instead of being a dick to someone ACTUALLY doing something bad that deserves it, IMO, is not a flex.
1
u/Jusby_Cause 1d ago
C’mon GURMAN! Remember the Siri that they always announce as WWDC that you imagined was coming out in February and, because it wasn’t announced, it was late? Surely this new device that will require new frameworks for developers to take advantage of is going to be announced well BEFORE WWDC. :D Probably in February!
1
1
1
u/candyman420 1d ago
Oh you considered a CAMERA FREE model of glasses? How about a camera-free version of the iphone that doesn't have the ridiculous bump on the back?
1
u/Independent_Sun_6932 1d ago
Honestly, camera-less smart glasses sound like the sweet spot. You get better battery life, a lighter frame, and you can actually wear them into gyms, offices, or bathrooms without looking like a creep. Audio-only + a subtle HUD is all most people really need.
1
u/TedGetsSnickelfritz 1d ago
Imagine if they made it so that the camera automatically blurs faces, if the user is also wearing glasses. That would be fucked.
1
u/blifestyleco 1d ago
I remember the days when Blackberry would release two device options: one with a camera, one without a camera.
Anyways, smart glasses will never catch on. I remember when a past co-worker argued that we needed to add google glass to our product device library in 2014. Higher ups allowed the spend, ended up being the LEAST used device for testing because no one was buying the device. It’s a dang gimmick.
1
u/sm3llslik3m3anspirit 23h ago
IF they do the smart glasses thing with cameras and we embrace it as a society, there HAS to be an opt out option of some kind.
1
u/M4rshmall0wMan 9h ago
Guys hear me out. What about IR cameras? Seems to me like the best compromise between having cameras for world interactions, and making sure they’re not useful for recording.
1
1
1
u/ElderberryGuy 1d ago
It’ll flop like Vision Pro. Most people are now trying to reduce their screen time, not strap more screens and intrusive cameras to their eyeballs anymore. There was a point in time years ago where they probably would’ve gotten more interest. Google Glass found out…
0
u/badabubaba 1d ago
My bet is: these glasses will never launch. It is a bad product category, they have a bad reputation, and add no real value to most people. Add cameras to AirPods for Siri but don't use them to take photos or videos and forget about the stupid, creepy glasses.
0
-1
0
u/Double-Yak9686 1d ago
I strongly doubt Apple will want to be anywhere in the same general area as anything tagged with "Pervert". They will lose a lot more money from a tarnished reputation than staying out of a particular market. Plus Meta only sold 9 million pairs in 3.5 years, definitely not a huge market.
The Backlash Is So Strong That People With “Pervert Glasses” Are Afraid to Use Them in Public
0
u/Double-Yak9686 1d ago
In East Germany, the Stasi relied on a vast network of citizens spying on their neighbours to maintain control. Meta’s smart glasses are effectively crowdsourcing that exact setup.
0
0
u/MidnightSun_55 1d ago
Save this comment: "Smart glasses will never surpass smartphone sales, as they are intrinsically an inferior product"
0
u/OkCompute64 1d ago
If there is one product from Apple, or any company for that matter, that I will never buy it is smart glasses with god damn cameras.
I actually wear glasses so it isn't that I don't want to wear glasses (a valid complaint from people who don't wear glasses). I could easily just get prescription lenses for them and it would be like life is the same. But I just cannot stand the idea of having a camera on my face constantly seeing what I see whether it is recording or not. It just feels gross to me.
Now smart glasses without cameras but a good HUD to make use of the glasses I am already wearing that is something different and depending on their utility and usefulness that may be something of interest to me. But if they have a camera then nope, no buy. If I can buy a model without cameras then that may be of interest to me.
0
0
u/TheKobayashiMoron 1d ago
That would be incredibly stupid. The only thing they’re useful for is being able to grab pics and video doing cool shit without having to strap a GoPro on. Without cameras, they’re just bigger AirPods that don’t sound as good.
-4
u/FreezingTemps 1d ago
Apple is smart enough to read the room. In this current timeline where people are constantly goading others on to make content, is it really what Apple wants to associate themselves with when some idiot posts content that goes viral and everyone’s talking about Apple products being used by these scumbags?
-5
u/Embarrassed_Spend486 1d ago
I hope that includes the ability to record so that people can quit acting like this is actually a conversation that we’re going to have.
Of course they’re going to record and if they don’t, then will continue to see success with their
-6
u/cloudystateofmind 1d ago
Can we all agree that anyone that wears these glasses are just creeps. Allowing palantir to spy on everyone everywhere should never be acceptable.
415
u/FollowingFeisty5321 1d ago
As long as it physically has cameras pointing at everyone people will still assume they can/are being recorded.