• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 days ago

    I remember this media cycle from the GoogleGlass era. And while the initial reporting was “People are viciously attacking anyone seen wearing them!”, the business post-mortem was more that nobody was buying them to begin with.

    These glasses are oversized, heavy, ugly, and pretty much useless for anyone who isn’t a pervert. The sticker price for this largely pointless gadget can go north of $800 retail. That’s a high-end PC or fully loaded PS5 for a small camera that sits on your face and some lenses that give you a Virtual Boy tier of AR overlay.

    Who has time for this shit? There’s no use-case.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      I can think of several use-cases: subtitles for the hearing impaired, translation, AR overlays for technical work, etc. Not saying they’re a good value, but it seems weird to say there’s no use-case.

      And I genuinely don’t understand the pervert angle. What do they do for perverts that can’t be done with much cheaper button/pen cameras, or even a phone in your breast pocket?

      Like sure, there are problems with surveillance and ads and other nasty tech bro shit, that much is obvious. But I sincerely do not understand why they’re being called pervert glasses. Am I missing something?