Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Technology

Facebook Enlists Ray-Ban Maker To Help Develop Secret 'Orion' Smart Glasses (cnbc.com) 31

Facebook is partnering with Ray-Ban parent company Luxottica to help speed up development of its top-secret augmented reality glasses that are being developed out of its Facebook Reality Labs in Redmond, Washington. The social media company is hoping the new partnership will help them complete the glasses between 2023 and 2025. CNBC reports: The glasses are internally codenamed Orion, and they are designed to replace smartphones, the people said. The glasses would allow users to take calls, show information to users in a small display and live-stream their vantage point to their social media friends and followers. Facebook is also developing an artificial intelligence voice assistant that would serve as a user input for the glasses, CNBC previously reported. In addition, the company has experimented with a ring device that would allow users to input information via motion sensor. That device is code-named Agios.

The company has hundreds of employees at its Redmond offices working on technology for the AR glasses, but thus far, Facebook has struggled to reduce the size of the device into a form factor that consumers will find appealing, a person who worked on the device told CNBC. Given the long lead time, there's no guarantee that the glasses will be completed on time or ever ship. But one person familiar with the project said that CEO Mark Zuckerberg has a strong interest in the glasses, and asked hardware chief Andrew Bosworth to prioritize them.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Enlists Ray-Ban Maker To Help Develop Secret 'Orion' Smart Glasses

Comments Filter:
  • With the way things are going for them, what makes them think anyone is going to even want to wear those things, even for free?

    • Man, Facebook has been a mystery to me ever since it's inception. But to answer your question...

      People are stupid enough to try it all out, until they suddenly find themselves unable to feel normal without it. Same thing they did with Facebook.

  • great idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by guygo ( 894298 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @03:57PM (#59205416)
    Sure, Let's get in bed with the guy who had a monopoly on sunglasses for decades and said (on 60 Minutes to the cameras) "My glasses are worth what people will pay for them." as an excuse for fixing prices and gouging customers. What better way to say "We care about our customers".
    • ... the guy who had a monopoly

      You mean "has"? Trying to find a non-Luxotica brand at local stores can be an exercise in futility. Thankfully they don't own Bolle (yet. AFAIK).

    • "We care about our customers".

      If your customers are the authoritarian governments, companies, societies, and A.I.; then you are probably correct. When most people become addicted to these glasses, like they do to stupidphones, it will be second nature to become the eyes, ears, mouths, and feet of an unknown provocateur.

      Just like Spy vs. Spy, but to the nth degree. Let A.I. be the voice in your head and the world is yours. How seductive is that?

  • The Italian Mafia's answer to "Why do these a-dime-a-dozen plastic frames cost $200?" and "Why can't I buy anything but Luxottica in Europe, yet you aren't in prison for monopolism and racketeering?".

    There is only one independent frame maker in all of Germany, and he's practically retired. (Yes, he.)

  • Perfect! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mister Transistor ( 259842 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @04:11PM (#59205476) Journal

    It's a perfect shit-storm!

    1. Facebook, awful privacy and general disdain for it's damage to society.

    2. Luxottica, with its Mafia-like stranglehold on the eyeglasses industry.

    3. Privacy-invading "smart" eyewear phones. It was a resounding failure with Google glasses because it creeped everyone out not knowing how much or often they were invading people's privacy. What makes them think it will fare any better the 2nd time around? By employing the other two items as juggernaut strength backing they will be able to better ram this down people's throats?

    Sounds like an idea whose time has come and gone. If they can address the issues that made Google's glasses so undesirable maybe they will have a chance to make it a success. Although, since people seem to be descending to the lowest common denominator of being an asshole these days, I don't see this as changing.

    • by LocalH ( 28506 )

      Your number three infuriates me. As far as I know, Google Glass never recorded without the LED on, yet somehow people got this idea that anyone wearing Google Glass was secretly recording them. How does the presence of a camera on one's glasses automatically equal a privacy violation for anyone else?

      • by Barny ( 103770 )

        It depends on who owns the software running on them, really. Facebook's history of privacy would leave anyone a little worried at this development.

      • by moikka ( 1085403 )

        I do not want constantly look at some strangers face whether there is some LED on his spy camera or not. I have other things I want to look at and concentrate to. Therefore the LED solves nothing about this privacy problem.

        Let's imagine a situation if I sometimes notice the LED is on meaning there is a recording ongoing the only option I can do to avoid getting livestreamed to internet is to leave this restaurant where I am having a dinner. I cannot go and say to the camera guy that I don't want to get reco

        • It's not your right to demand someone not record you, that's the right of the owner of the establishment. If you're in public then it's not your right at all. Meanwhile you're being recorded by security cameras through your entire meal, when you gas up your car, and walk down the street. But for some reason you're OK with that, but not when some noname jerk happens to catch your face for 10 seconds on a livestream that will be seen by maybe 3 people.
          • by moikka ( 1085403 )

            Yeah. I do not have any right to demand anything. However many spy camera advocates say that no problem, just say that you don't want to be filmed and we stop. No problem. And I refuted that this is not a viable course of action.

            There are many things in life that happen because people do good things to each other without it being a right that can be demanded. I cannot demand much of anything throughout my day but still I like everybody else get hundreds of things my way every day even without asking. For so

      • How does the presence of a camera on one's glasses automatically equal a privacy violation for anyone else?

        So, you've never heard of a dot of paint? Also - many states require consent of both parties for recording is how.

  • "Facebook Reality."
  • Since Luxotica is nearly the _only_ manufacturer of eyeglasses in the world, their ownership of the Rayban trademark has nothing to do with this story.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]

  • Using them will make everything you see on Facebook funny and/or satirical -- can't wait to view my privacy controls through them. (Just kidding, I don't have a Facebook account.)
  • Can I get a pair of sonic glasses? Maybe they can ask the Doctor for help, she likes to help.

  • I cannot imagine people paying for Facebook hardware.
    • The oculus rift seems to sell quite well, who knows what Facebook tracks about the use?
      Yes I know what Facebook has said, but we also know they lie.

  • The only thing I know about Ray-Bans from Facebook is that while they're normally super expensive, they're on sale now today-only for $19.95. I saw the image that a friend-of-a-friend posted while tagging his friends. I thought it was a scam, but now that I know Facebook and Ray-Ban are partners, I'm sure it's totally legit, not some imitation off-brand sunglasses with an unauthorized Ray-Ban logo.

    Seriously, if they're going to partner with Ray-Ban, could they please get rid of that spam?

  • After Google's vision of a world awash with "glassholes" failed to materialize we are going to need entirely new terminology to address those unfortunate soles participating in Facebook's attempt.

  • They bought Oculus a few years back and the hardware development and innovation stopped completely.

    If this kind of tech is going to come out, it's going to be from a different developer.

  • 1. Find glasses that look good with the needed size of the temple arms.
    2. Hide everything in the frame.
    3. Hire staff who can do the miniaturization of the electronics.
    4. Provide power and don't add any bulk to the look of the glasses.

    The problem was the lack of ability to actually do the needed miniaturization.
  • Ah, one shitty company asking for help from another shitty company.
  • The biggest selling point of the AR glasses is that they will put a big 'E' on the forehead of anyone determined by FB to be an extremist.

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.

Working...