I love that big tech was so arrogant they just plum forgot or choose to ignore why those died then.
And then above it they still chose the one thing everyone was mad about, a camera. All they had to do was not put a camera in there but they couldn’t resist.
Not for the first time. Metaverse failed for all the same reasons that Second Life did: it’s a solution to a problem that most people don’t have. Except Second Life - which still exists and supposedly is far more active than during its heyday - only cost the merest fraction compared to the Metaverse.
As for the Spybans, there were a couple of short films released around 2010 that predicted the privacy issues linking AR with realtime social networking would bring. So it’s not a new idea. Unfortunately, both films were taken down soon after because they were deemed too disturbing.
I think the product that speaks the most about the camera was the Snapchat Spectacles. Snapchat did everything they could to position it strictly as a fun, party-oriented camera that didn’t try to hide what it was but leaned into the fun ways to use it.
And they still died out after the initial hype. Which I think is most telling because, like, here’s this product with the most positive take you could possibly have on “glasses with cameras” and people still didn’t want it. So wth makes Google think the creepy no-fun version will catch on?
I honestly don’t think so. I think they’re up there, but tech “enthusiasts” (read, tech bros and people who think random gadgets are cool) probably are. They’re happy to waste their money and give money to meta. Creeps are definitely number 2 or 3 though.
Needed the data, if you’re phone is always in your pocket then it’s really hard to get a live video. Better to model their AI to simulate human interactions
I love that big tech was so arrogant they just plum forgot or choose to ignore why those died then.
And then above it they still chose the one thing everyone was mad about, a camera. All they had to do was not put a camera in there but they couldn’t resist.
Not for the first time. Metaverse failed for all the same reasons that Second Life did: it’s a solution to a problem that most people don’t have. Except Second Life - which still exists and supposedly is far more active than during its heyday - only cost the merest fraction compared to the Metaverse.
As for the Spybans, there were a couple of short films released around 2010 that predicted the privacy issues linking AR with realtime social networking would bring. So it’s not a new idea. Unfortunately, both films were taken down soon after because they were deemed too disturbing.
And yet, here we are.
these are the same people who would unironically make the torment nexus, firmly believing that they will do it right and it will be good this time
I think the product that speaks the most about the camera was the Snapchat Spectacles. Snapchat did everything they could to position it strictly as a fun, party-oriented camera that didn’t try to hide what it was but leaned into the fun ways to use it.
And they still died out after the initial hype. Which I think is most telling because, like, here’s this product with the most positive take you could possibly have on “glasses with cameras” and people still didn’t want it. So wth makes Google think the creepy no-fun version will catch on?
Not everything.
They should have gone full OG instagram and make the glasses look like a pair of old school Polaroid cameras that even spit out the picture.
This is meta not google, but same difference
Because it’s the gateway to augmented reality and conditions the public even further I to the assumption they are constantly being surveilled.
creeps are the #1 target demo for these devices
I honestly don’t think so. I think they’re up there, but tech “enthusiasts” (read, tech bros and people who think random gadgets are cool) probably are. They’re happy to waste their money and give money to meta. Creeps are definitely number 2 or 3 though.
creeps, and creep supporters, ok. anyone giving meta money is at least creep adjacent if not a creep themselves.
They used to say that porn was the real driver of technology for home video.
it was one of the things that decided vhs vs betamax.
betamax (sony) wanted licensing fees from everyone and VHS (everyone else) wanted to win.
90% of the point of these things is having AI analyze what you are looking at (and also monetize it with ads etc).
Needed the data, if you’re phone is always in your pocket then it’s really hard to get a live video. Better to model their AI to simulate human interactions
for meta it would be pretty much useless without camera
…fair