The most costly part would be the transparent waveguide plates. They look like thin sheets of glass, but also virtually work as series of lenses and mirrors against light entering a small designated spot. WaveOptics[1] that reportedly supply that device seem to build them by stacking three plates for RGB made with electron beam lithography and nanoimprinting, which are both relatively slow, low volume semiconductor processes. The PR reel shows 10 monochrome waveguide plate patterns on one 200 or 300mm wafer, so theoretical wafer to RGB stack ratio is only 1:3. Nowhere in product pages of both Snap and WaveOptics says the wafers are glass, so I assume it's something else.
R&D costs are also not trivial considering that this isn't first gen product, but 5th or 6th gen. They'd have to be recoup costs of those devices as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was technically sold at small losses or at cost from accounting perspective.
All I see is people giving them free feedback. So I would expect Snap to reduce the frames and the bulkiness of these glasses in the next version and finally, the price.
and they’re seemingly attempting an app ecosystem.
People complained it didn't have apps and didn't support java, but it was very cool.
Also, it cost $500.
On the one hand, this solves the problem of smart glasses being too stealthy to tell when you're being filmed/broadcast in public by someone wearing them; where Meta's glasses look like Wayfarers, these look a lot more distinctive.
On the other hand, the reason these won't be too stealthy is because they look like those standard-issue glasses the US army was know to give out (upon looking it up: S9 glasses), and those have a reputation.
On the third, mutant, hand, I don't have a fashion sense and I really don't care about smart glasses as a technology, so maybe I'm the wrong person to judge this thing on is merits.
> You’re in charge of what gets captured, and a glowing indicator light lets others know when you’re recording. We prioritize on-device processing, so you’re in control of permissions when third parties request camera or microphone access with internet connectivity.
I still don't know if I'd trust them, but they at least address it.
> You’re in charge of what gets captured, and a glowing indicator light lets others know when you’re recording. We prioritize on-device processing, so you’re in control of permissions when third parties request camera or microphone access with internet connectivity.
And all that aside, the real killer-feature with AR/VR is the software and so far it doesn't fell like anybody has figure out what people are even supposed to do with these things.
1. If I'm wearing smart glasses, whether I'm filming or using it for something else is nobody's business. I paid for it, I can do whatever I want with my computer glasses.
2. The fact that someone wearing them can snap my picture and unveil my entire history with one glance is terrifying. If they don't, the company can still do it "accidentally".
3. You can't have one without the other. So i hope these things crash and burn.
Unfortunately they won't.
Do we really want to live in a world where people have hidden cameras strapped to their faces?
Normal people don’t want this, it’s creepy
Not ideal, but also nothing different or new.
Also, in the country where I live, it's illegal to record passers-by, so this is also way worse than that, but ymmv.
You mustn't be smart to buy 'smart glasses'..
always with the thick ugly frames
afavour•2h ago
I can only hope there is amazing work being done with this kind of tech in industries I know little of. Surgeons, precise mechanical engineers… they’d surely benefit from this stuff and have the reason to pay for it. But as a consumer product, nope.