Meta's Ray-Ban Smart Glasses Fail To Catch On (wsj.com) 32
The Ray-Ban smart glasses launched by Meta almost two years ago have struggled to catch on with owners, many of whom appear to be using the devices infrequently, according to internal company data. WSJ: Less than 10% of the Ray-Ban Stories purchased since the product's launch in September 2021 are used actively by purchasers, according to a company document from February reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Meta sold a total of 300,000 of the wearable devices through February, but the company only had about 27,000 monthly active users.
The device, an important part of Meta's hardware strategy, allows users to take photos and listen to music with the frames of their glasses, among other features. It has experienced a 13% return rate, according to the document. Among the top drivers of poor user experience were issues with connectivity, problems with some of the hardware features including battery life, inability for users to import media from the devices, issues with the audio on the product and problems with voice commands for the smart glasses, according to the document.
The device, an important part of Meta's hardware strategy, allows users to take photos and listen to music with the frames of their glasses, among other features. It has experienced a 13% return rate, according to the document. Among the top drivers of poor user experience were issues with connectivity, problems with some of the hardware features including battery life, inability for users to import media from the devices, issues with the audio on the product and problems with voice commands for the smart glasses, according to the document.
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting. Though the relationship beween frequency and antenna length are a bit more complex; if we treat the spine as a dipole, then the average person would only be susceptible to around 200 MHz, far below those used by modern devices. If we consider the overall length of a person, the frequency drops to around 86 MHz. Although perhaps da Vinci was prophetic when creating Vitruvian Man and was positing the human body as a phased array?
At any rate, Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] is still relevant. Everyone will recognize
Re:Don't use high tech near your head or body. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone using high-tech near their brains must lack a brain. It's a well-known fact that cell phones cause brain tumors when held too closely to the head for too long.
It's believed by some, but the evidence is lacking [nih.gov].
It should actually be pretty easy to test. Most people hold their cell phone on the right side of their head, so if cell phones are causing cancer there should be a lot more tumours on the right, that doesn't seem to be the case [nih.gov].
Chiropractors have been finding that carrying a cell phone in the pocket can cause some misbalancing of a person's gait. That can lead to back pain. But recently some chiropractic research has found that the nerves fanning out from the brain act as a sort of receiving antenna for all the radio noise being created by all the micro-circuits.
Chiropracty is not based in science. That doesn't mean they can't help people (lots of people did useful stuff before the invention of the scientific method). But it's a bad idea to take the word of Chiropractors on a scientific subject.
Anyhow, back to the point about smart-glasses: these devices along with all the other electronics will certainly overload a person's nerve system. Being so close to the brain, the likely spot subluxations will develop is near the
brain stem or upper cervical area.
Wait, you think the smart-glasses electronics will knock bones out of alignment [wikipedia.org]!?!?
If you must have these types of devices, ensure you eat a well balanced diet consisting mainly of natural foods such as kale, lentils, non-factory farmed
meat, fish rich in Omega 3 fatty acids, etc. Get plenty of exercise in an area with little air pollution (deep breathing that stuff in when in the middle of a 5K run will kill your lungs),
This bit is actually good advice, backed by doctors and.... non-doctors.
and ensure you visit an expert in the human nervous system such as a chiropractor. They are trained to detect and treat the scourge of vertebral subluxation before they take hold and rob your cells of their innate healing intelligence.
Yeah, that's a bunch of meaningless woo.
If you have back pain you can go for the chiropractor. I'd suggest a massage therapist of physiotherapist would the a better idea, but for back pain it sounds like chiropractor's are better than nothing.
But for anything else chiro is a reliable way to get bad advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people hold their cell phone on the right side of their head, ...
That's interesting, if true. Got any sources/citations? I'm right-handed, but hold my cell in my left hand, to the left side of my head (on the rare occasions I make/receive calls), probably so my right hand is free (I don't really think about it) ... As far as I know, most (or more) people are right-handed, so it might reasonable for that rational to apply to them too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And it's been proven false. If the low power EMF waves were that dangerous, then going out under the sun would be near instant death.
The key part of the danger of EMF is ionizing EMF. [nih.gov]
Too much lock in (Score:4, Interesting)
These things could have been popular had there not been any vendor lock in. If Ray ban had made something like a Go-Pro in glasses format, they would have had a winner. Instead they just made yet another way for facebook to collect data.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. I won't touch anything that's Meta-related.
Re: (Score:1)
They were made by facebook, not Ray Ban.
Re: Too much lock in (Score:2)
The electronics were made by Faceboot, the plastics were made by EssilorLuxottica which owns ray-ban (and Oakley, and gargoyles...)
Re: (Score:2)
These things could have been popular had there not been any vendor lock in. If Ray ban had made something like a Go-Pro in glasses format, they would have had a winner. Instead they just made yet another way for facebook to collect data.
Apparently good speakers and an apparently not-great camera, I'm not sure what the use-case is supposed to be.
If you're interested in taking photos the convenience of the glasses is lost by the inability to see the photo without pulling out your phone.
If you're interested in taking video during some activity you're much better off getting a Go-Pro and getting a better quality video and wearing more appropriate eye wear.
And if you just want the speakers you're better off not having a camera that will occasio
Re: (Score:2)
They'll never catch on because they're such an inelegant form factor. No one wants to wear big, chonky glasses with cameras permanently fixed onto them.
You can't use them as a GoPro because most kinetic activities need safety glasses or goggles. Not overpriced hipster glasses.
Finally, there is just nothing that inconvenient about the standard phone/camera concept. These glasses are an expensive bauble that don't solve any problem.
Smart glasses (Score:5, Insightful)
There are multiple problems:
- They're still not elegant enough
- They still cost too much
- Facebook is a toxic brand to the target demographic
Give me a HUD with hardware that actually looks like my regular glasses, with a sub-$1000 price point, can make it through an 8 hour day for basic use, and that I don't believe is data mining my life for Zuck's wallet and I'll buy a pair.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't be allowed to record without such a light, but for general environment processing I don't see that as a requirement.
And yes, that can be an exception adapted for abuse, but you can also just destroy the LED.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is a toxic brand to the target demographic
Toxic? Oh come on, that's not quite fair.
It would seem that Mark "Dumb Fucks" Zuckerberg made it quite clear from Day Zero of the social infection how he felt about his "target" demographic, no?
Big, Heavy, and Ugly - Whats to like? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone buying a name brand product like Ray-Ban is looking to stand out in some way. Adding a camera instantly invades everyone's privacy that gets near you...
And yet bars are somehow slam full of humans walking around with at least two cameras and a microphone array on them at all times, usually enabled with full permissions to [every social media app]. Don't even get me started on concertgoers selling out stadiums. You were bullshitting something about humans still giving a shit about privacy why again?
And they sell Ray-Ban glasses at fucking Sams Club, not the Polo club. Hardly an exclusive brand reserved for only four-eyed royalty.
Quite a few possible reasons (Score:2)
1. People tried them, found out that they're crap and stopped using them.
2. People used them in public and got the glasshole treatment, so the glasses are (hopefully) broken now.
3. People found a way to break out of the Metastasis surveillance and use their glasses the way they want rather then the way the maker intended.
Either of them would make me happy, to be honest.
Wearing glasses most of my life. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The extra weight in your Ray Bans helps your momentum as you slide across the floor in your socks, underwear and button down shirt to the tune of "Old Time Rock and Roll" by Bob Seger.
considering facebook/meta (Score:3)
Too early for The Light of Other Days (Score:2)
What Meta is trying to do sounds similar, but they, as usual, rushed it. Make the things closer to regular glasses with easier functionality and it might work.
Re: (Score:2)
if it had a display it might have been useful.
Maybe there's an app to help the blind, a kind of video to audio representation, they probably would worry about being sued if it failed though
terrible marketing (Score:2)
Meta's what? (Score:2)
Possibly the reason they failed is because no one has heard of these...
Stop trying to make "fetch" happen (Score:4, Interesting)
I sincerely doubt people want gizmos on their faces.
Also, as one of something like a quarter or a third of people who wear eyeglasses, I doubt that segment of the population wants to deal with fitting things over their glasses either. I'm gonna lean on the geek stereotype and assert without proof that a sizeable chunk of the potential target market of techie types fits into this category.
And beyond that, what's the value added? You've got a phone in your hand already, so what does having a heads up display give you in daily life?
If you're reading something, your attention is already diverted from whatever else you're looking at, so there's no gain from having it hovering in space versus in your hand.
There are a few niche applications where you need a display in front of you with your hands free. Many of these, in professional contexts, are done by having a display in front of you while you're working with your hands. A small number perhaps are left over, but almost certainly not enough to justify a mass market consumer device.
Solution in search of problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus far, all of the VR business application have been solution in search of problem. Until they can tackle genuine need, they'll just be a curiosity at best.
Re: (Score:1)
No duh (Score:2)
Ray-Ban's are terrible.
Meta is terrible.
Neither of them has the skills or knowhow to engineer smart glasses.
Result is a terrible product no one wants or likes.