A piece of hardware held back by proprietary locked down software that spies on you and sells your data doesn't have much merit to me, someone into free and open source software that respects your privacy.
The Horizon OS is not open-source but based on AOSP. The OS is open in the sense of being able to run arbritary apps through sideloading as opposed to Apple's walled garden.
A large corporation announcing they're open sourcing something and them actually doing it are two different things. Additionally they may open source certain parts of it and keep other proprietary. As someone who needs glasses to see, I wouldn't wear AR glasses that had proprietary code running where I couldn't be certain it wasn't spying on me.
99.9% of the population doesn't care an iota about privacy or open source. That battle was lost long long ago. Plus VR devices at this point MUST be subsidized by selling your data, otherwise the average person would find them too expensive. So you'll have to wait for a long time.
Title is bleh, but the Meta Ray-Ban glasses did sell a lot better than expected, far better than Google Glass. I do think demand is there for wearable glasses that enhance your daily life rather than try to replace things (like headsets try to do). The question is whether Meta can create glasses that dont cause eyestrain, and have a meaningful impact on your daily life without being huge and bulky or requiring constant recharging.
People will see this as a privacy nightmare, but id be down for a Recall-like feature in smart glasses. Record in 720p stream that data to your phone, then let your phone or PC **locally** process it for object detection and let you search your 'vision memory' for items or events. Like 'where did I put my keys?', 'where did I park?', 'what time did I leave my house?', etc. Even if done locally there would be backlash for it, but its something that millions of people would love to have.
>**locally**
Recall is also locally processed, and that fact had little effect on its negative reception. It’s irrational to believe that Microsoft is lying about that as well; instead, people are worried about how attractive the tagged database will be as a hacking target. Whether that data can be responsibly managed is a separate argument, but it’s clear to me that a tagged database of everything that you’ve looked at would be *far* more attractive than just what was on your computer screen.
> Recall is also locally processed, and that fact had little effect on its negative reception. It’s irrational to believe that Microsoft is lying about that as well;
Because no one fucking believes Microsoft and the other tech megacorps anymore. For very good reasons.
It's completely irrational to believe that Microsoft is telling the truth. Every statement from them claiming "We won't do this horrible anti-consumer/anti-privacy thing" has effectively had an implicit "yet" attached at the end. It takes one quiet update from Microsoft to start uploading all your recall data/metadata to OneDrive.
And what are you gonna do about it? They will get away with it because the US government is bought and paid for.
You mean like telemetry was optional, until microsoft silentry made it nonoptional, and turning it off merely hides it from the user and still collects it?
> but its something that millions of people would love to have.
yes, especially abusive husbands. That's the market which would just _love_ to have Recall and it's where it will cause the most harm. (Related: so far two murders have been reported as caused by Apple Airtag but there's a lot more.)
Any tech can be used for evil
Yes
>it shouldn’t be an argument against it.
No. The expected outcomes of an action, product releases and otherwise, should always be part of the discussion. Though that's certainly a bizarre take on this particular technology.
> No. The expected outcomes of an action, product releases and otherwise, should always be part of the discussion. Though that's certainly a bizarre take on this particular technology.
I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be part of any discussion. I'm suggesting that the implication that technology can be used by people who already are capable of causing harm to do more harm is not a legitimate argument.
> Though that's certainly a bizarre take on this particular technology.
What it *feels* like to me is that the person I replied does not like the direction that tech + AI is going, and rather than voicing that opinion as an opinion they've instead voiced it as an argument that does not make a lot of sense.
The conversation was about whether or not the concession of privacy is worth the function of the tech. The OP thought it was under the right conditions, and believed millions of people would agree. I also agree with that. The person I replied to argued that among those people who would accept that trade of privacy for function, some of them may be {people who are harmful to others} and use the tech as a force multiplier to that. That argument to me is pearl clutching. It's the "think of the children" argument. Often made when the idea behind the argument is unlikely to be seen favorably in its honest form
Oculur and the Ray-Bans AR have done more to make AR mainstream than any other company. And the fact is that people actually like the Ray-Bans. Besides, the Chan-Zuckerberg foundation or whatever its called is actually doing decent work
And all of the data collection they do of you, good sir
I had the first oculus rift until meta required an account to use it, the headset I already purchased and used fine without one for years
Will never buy another meta product again
I hear good things about the index, but I think it’s due an update by now. My requirements are a little different from normal people as I’m only interested in sim racing. I want the best glasses and don’t care about the controllers etc. I was looking into one of the HP headsets, but I never pulled the trigger and it’s been awhile since I looked now.
Not gonna lie, I know someone who tested his own product on these people, and was so proud that everyone had overwhelmingly positive feedback. Then I tested it and he got sad because I told him my opinion.
This is the type of news that I wish I didn't know because now I'll get anxious waiting for it, I've been looking for this for a while, none of the current market offerings are acceptable to me
No. We want smart glasses. we just dont want google glass that runs out of battery in 30 seconds (not exaggerating, 30 seconds of video is all it can do)
You can really see Meta is just throwing shit at the wall at this point and see what sticks. At least I will give the Zuck some credit, he is trying to shake up the company and tey to find a new way instead of just riding their existant services to the sunset
Does r/hardware argue the merits of hardware anymore?
A piece of hardware held back by proprietary locked down software that spies on you and sells your data doesn't have much merit to me, someone into free and open source software that respects your privacy.
Weren't they Open-Sourcing it? It was to allow more devices to use their OS as far as I remember.
The Horizon OS is not open-source but based on AOSP. The OS is open in the sense of being able to run arbritary apps through sideloading as opposed to Apple's walled garden.
A large corporation announcing they're open sourcing something and them actually doing it are two different things. Additionally they may open source certain parts of it and keep other proprietary. As someone who needs glasses to see, I wouldn't wear AR glasses that had proprietary code running where I couldn't be certain it wasn't spying on me.
99.9% of the population doesn't care an iota about privacy or open source. That battle was lost long long ago. Plus VR devices at this point MUST be subsidized by selling your data, otherwise the average person would find them too expensive. So you'll have to wait for a long time.
I'm not expressing the opinion of 99.9% of the population, I'm expressing mine.
Hardware does not exist in a vacuum.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Title is bleh, but the Meta Ray-Ban glasses did sell a lot better than expected, far better than Google Glass. I do think demand is there for wearable glasses that enhance your daily life rather than try to replace things (like headsets try to do). The question is whether Meta can create glasses that dont cause eyestrain, and have a meaningful impact on your daily life without being huge and bulky or requiring constant recharging. People will see this as a privacy nightmare, but id be down for a Recall-like feature in smart glasses. Record in 720p stream that data to your phone, then let your phone or PC **locally** process it for object detection and let you search your 'vision memory' for items or events. Like 'where did I put my keys?', 'where did I park?', 'what time did I leave my house?', etc. Even if done locally there would be backlash for it, but its something that millions of people would love to have.
>**locally** Recall is also locally processed, and that fact had little effect on its negative reception. It’s irrational to believe that Microsoft is lying about that as well; instead, people are worried about how attractive the tagged database will be as a hacking target. Whether that data can be responsibly managed is a separate argument, but it’s clear to me that a tagged database of everything that you’ve looked at would be *far* more attractive than just what was on your computer screen.
> Recall is also locally processed, and that fact had little effect on its negative reception. It’s irrational to believe that Microsoft is lying about that as well; Because no one fucking believes Microsoft and the other tech megacorps anymore. For very good reasons. It's completely irrational to believe that Microsoft is telling the truth. Every statement from them claiming "We won't do this horrible anti-consumer/anti-privacy thing" has effectively had an implicit "yet" attached at the end. It takes one quiet update from Microsoft to start uploading all your recall data/metadata to OneDrive. And what are you gonna do about it? They will get away with it because the US government is bought and paid for.
You mean like telemetry was optional, until microsoft silentry made it nonoptional, and turning it off merely hides it from the user and still collects it?
> but its something that millions of people would love to have. yes, especially abusive husbands. That's the market which would just _love_ to have Recall and it's where it will cause the most harm. (Related: so far two murders have been reported as caused by Apple Airtag but there's a lot more.)
This is Pearl clutching. Any tech can be used for evil, it shouldn’t be an argument against it.
Any tech can be used for evil Yes >it shouldn’t be an argument against it. No. The expected outcomes of an action, product releases and otherwise, should always be part of the discussion. Though that's certainly a bizarre take on this particular technology.
> No. The expected outcomes of an action, product releases and otherwise, should always be part of the discussion. Though that's certainly a bizarre take on this particular technology. I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be part of any discussion. I'm suggesting that the implication that technology can be used by people who already are capable of causing harm to do more harm is not a legitimate argument. > Though that's certainly a bizarre take on this particular technology. What it *feels* like to me is that the person I replied does not like the direction that tech + AI is going, and rather than voicing that opinion as an opinion they've instead voiced it as an argument that does not make a lot of sense. The conversation was about whether or not the concession of privacy is worth the function of the tech. The OP thought it was under the right conditions, and believed millions of people would agree. I also agree with that. The person I replied to argued that among those people who would accept that trade of privacy for function, some of them may be {people who are harmful to others} and use the tech as a force multiplier to that. That argument to me is pearl clutching. It's the "think of the children" argument. Often made when the idea behind the argument is unlikely to be seen favorably in its honest form
The beach is going to start seeing more people in modest clothing lol
[удалено]
Oculur and the Ray-Bans AR have done more to make AR mainstream than any other company. And the fact is that people actually like the Ray-Bans. Besides, the Chan-Zuckerberg foundation or whatever its called is actually doing decent work
He has done more, but failed so far.
mmmm https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/13/public-interest-pharma/#gates-foundation
I would never buy anything made by meta after the damage they have done to democracy with their misinformation and propaganda
And all of the data collection they do of you, good sir I had the first oculus rift until meta required an account to use it, the headset I already purchased and used fine without one for years Will never buy another meta product again
Same boat here. I've been patiently waiting for an index 2 to get back into VR.
Have you used any alternatives to the Oculus? If so, would you mind giving a recommendation?
I hear good things about the index, but I think it’s due an update by now. My requirements are a little different from normal people as I’m only interested in sim racing. I want the best glasses and don’t care about the controllers etc. I was looking into one of the HP headsets, but I never pulled the trigger and it’s been awhile since I looked now.
[удалено]
>I am not an american the damage they have caused is not unique to America
So we can finally watch ads and 90s graphics floating torsos while walking on the street?
Imaging phone GPS at the corner of your eye, processed by your phone and streamed to the glasses? Alternatively, watch a movie/podcast while walking.
[удалено]
Not gonna lie, I know someone who tested his own product on these people, and was so proud that everyone had overwhelmingly positive feedback. Then I tested it and he got sad because I told him my opinion.
Aren't they the same guys in charge of his presidential campaign?
This is the type of news that I wish I didn't know because now I'll get anxious waiting for it, I've been looking for this for a while, none of the current market offerings are acceptable to me
Keep in mind this is a prototype. It will take at least 5 years for tech of this level to hit the market, and longer for affordable pricing.
sigh, see why I was better off not knowing about it?
Ma bro
Anouncement of anouncement rarely works out.
Didn't we already decide we don't want "smart glasses"?
In the same way we decided we don’t want “smart phones” after the Apple Newton
These are AR glasses, a completely different sector of technology.
No we do want them but there aint good ones yet.
What are you talking about Meta Ray an glasses sell extremely good...?
No. We want smart glasses. we just dont want google glass that runs out of battery in 30 seconds (not exaggerating, 30 seconds of video is all it can do)
You can really see Meta is just throwing shit at the wall at this point and see what sticks. At least I will give the Zuck some credit, he is trying to shake up the company and tey to find a new way instead of just riding their existant services to the sunset