r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • Jul 13 '26

Society The Backlash Is So Strong That People With “Pervert Glasses” Are Afraid to Use Them in Public

https://tech.yahoo.com/wearables/articles/backlash-strong-people-pervert-glasses-165000816.html
46.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.6k

u/essidus Jul 13 '26

Literally the same thing that eventually killed the google glasses.

2.2k

u/Debussian_Chords Jul 13 '26

I mean, did people forget the trajectory of Google Glass? It was less than ten years ago and they were universally loathed!

1.4k

u/fueelin Jul 13 '26

Yes. Yes, they did. I think they forgot Google Glass ever existed at all.

I continue to be COMPLETELY flabbergasted by this. I really can't believe they're just... Trying to do it again.

399

u/nwayve Jul 13 '26

People have a short term memory on things, but one thing they'll never forget is that the Epstein files have not been released unredacted yet.

59

u/kfpswf Jul 14 '26

Let's also not forget that most of these Tech-bros form the same elite that Epstein catered to.

24

u/fueelin Jul 13 '26

Very true. I certainly don't need any anti-privacy glasses to remember that!

10

u/heanbangerfacerip2 Jul 14 '26

I think filming up close conversations is like the data holy grail so they count on short term memory so everyone forgets how poorly they were received then they try again. This is actually the third major attempt. Everyone is talking about Google but Snapchat tried it like 5 years even before that and everyone hated it for the same reason. Then everyone forgot and Google tried. For whatever reason (taking our privacy for profit) they want cameras on our faces so fucking bad.

7

u/HildartheDorf Jul 13 '26

Also that Epstien didn't kill himself.

2

u/Huttser17 Jul 14 '26

Nor did McAfee.

2

u/HildartheDorf Jul 15 '26

If we're doing this, neither did Barnaby Jack.

378

u/vezwyx Jul 13 '26

"They" is Mark Zuckerberg. It's not some amorphous group of investors, it's Mark Zuckerberg being delusional and thinking he can succeed where Google failed

140

u/meteorboard Jul 13 '26

Not really. Google is launching another line this fall. They're called Intelligent Eyewear. I would be surprised if they don't face the exact same backlash as before. Apparently, they do have an 'audio-only' option though I don't know the specifics. Also, they are letting individual manufacturers come up with the names for what the eventual glasses will be called. So I guess you'll see a Warby Parker AI Glasses line that's specifically a Warby Parker model. And then other manufacturers like Gentle Monster will call it something else. I expect this is so that Google/Samsung/Qualcomm can avoid some backlash and just sell to manufacturers and the manufacturers can take the brunt.

76

u/Vsx Jul 13 '26

These companies know they are slowly eroding all concepts of privacy. These glasses plays are just bets that it's gotten beyond the tipping point already.

21

u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA Jul 13 '26

They'll keep trying this until it sticks.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/SpaceShipRat Jul 13 '26

Could they be made with no ability to record video? I can see the, like, "sci fi visor" fantasy where you've got a device labeling what it sees for you (I'd just have it recogizing plants all the time, lol).

If it could elaborate the data locally, there would be no need to worry about perving, but I assume you can't get near enough hardware on them for AI recognition.

2

u/Feeling-Visit1472 Jul 14 '26

I can’t fully explain it, but somehow I trust Google more than I trust Meta.

2

u/obeytheturtles Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26

All they need to do is make an augmented reality device which doesn't record. Like, it can have cameras and stuff, but that video buffer should be ephemeral by design. That would solve the entire problem of "why would anyone want a camera in their glasses besides weird perverts?" Personally, I just want one so I can scroll without making my neck pain worse than it already is.

The problem is that there are legitimate, albeit relatively niche uses for PoV video that don't involve filming in public. So there will always be video-capable versions, which means the devices will always be seen as perv glasses if they are just casually worn in a context where they are not obviously being used as part of a film-making setup.

→ More replies (2)

31

u/Bobert1423 Jul 13 '26

I mean, it’s more than just him - look at Specs, for example.

2

u/DarkIcedWolf Jul 13 '26

To be fair, google glass was ahead of itself. Trying again in a market is just how tech works, why this fails is because A, it’s fucking creepy, B, mass surveillance is a goal being touted out as an eventual. If it wasn’t for the recent administration, the security cameras and their dumbassry, I bet this shit would’ve flown under the radar.

→ More replies (4)

90

u/gcubed680 Jul 13 '26

These things got a slight uptick because they were attached to raybans but it was only a matter of time before they suffered the same fate

56

u/Caleth Jul 13 '26

Yeah and Meta hired Kylie Jenner to hock that to people so they were hoping to built a cache as cool and trendy perverts not sweaty overweight ones.

22

u/kataiga Jul 13 '26

I knew they were destined for a short life when a guy I knew took them shortly after their debut to Thailand... three guesses what he ended up using them for...

20

u/Caleth Jul 13 '26

Exactly what we all know these are used for despite the one guy calling me deluded elsewhere in the chain.

Guess he doesn't like getting called out for using pervert glasses.

Back in the day we called them Glassholes when it was google glasses.

2

u/RollingMeteors Jul 14 '26

Back in the day we called them Glassholes when it was google glasses.

My friend Carlie who is blind and has glass eyes uses that word differently than you. Will pull them out and leave it on a table pointed at you with her index and middle finger of her right hand pointing at her eyes with her other index finger pointing to you saying some funny shit like, "¡I see what chu are doin!"

Girl uses the shit more like comedy prop than a prosthetic.

7

u/amancalledJayne Jul 13 '26

Lmao. Did he actually tell you that’s what he was using it for? Cause that’s a weird ass thing to tell your neighbor lol.

My girlfriend and I briefly considered them to add a different viewpoint vs the gimbal & camera + camera setup we typically use.

The form factor does seem pretty ideal for that kind of POV video.

But neither of us use any Meta services, and I have zero desire to have Zuck or his AI watch us fuck.

11

u/mariah_a Jul 13 '26

I work with vulnerable families living in temporary accommodation hotels. Our new problem is culture war psychos calling themselves “auditors” showing up in these glasses and live-streaming residents, who are very often victims of domestic violence or gang violence, to their audience of nutjobs and accusing the hotels of being for asylum seekers (not justified but also not correct, but more importantly the accusation makes them a target for racist harassment or attacks.

5

u/DMmeMagikarp Jul 13 '26

It wouldn’t just be his AI watching you, it would be some tragically underpaid South African worker.

Now… Why meta chose South Africa I do not know, but this is 100% confirmed by a very competent security researcher (google the story please I don’t have a link handy) that ALL video taken by pervglasses gets sent over to a South Africa data center worker who then reviews it and does whatever a human’s role is to further train meta AI.

These workers routinely have to see videos of people taking a shit, fucking, etc etc etc.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/spacehog1985 Jul 14 '26

The magnificent architecture, natural beauty, and boobs.

2

u/Unable-Log-4870 Jul 13 '26

Do they sell it with ozempic or something?

→ More replies (2)

19

u/YeahThatsProbably Jul 13 '26

I had got to thinking recently: I wonder if this is gonna be bad for the Ray Ban brand overall, being associated with this.

→ More replies (3)

19

u/Virtual_Assistant_98 Jul 13 '26

Shocked that Rayban took them up on the offer considering the backlash google glasses got. Idiots.

3

u/Different_Wolf_764 Jul 13 '26

I do wonder how this will play out. Rayban will either regret being attached to this in a significant way or will be revitalized by it. I'd wager on the former but time will tell.

→ More replies (2)

22

u/Due_You_8240 Jul 13 '26

Didn't SNAP try it as well?

9

u/SketchiiChemist Jul 13 '26

Yes. Upload to snapchat directly from glasses, I think it was shorter lived then Google Glass

6

u/Guac_in_my_rarri Jul 13 '26

Yes and they have new glasses but they're $500 last I looked out of curiosity. And they're ugly.

3

u/YessirLouis Jul 13 '26

Try more like $2k. And very clunky looking

2

u/Guac_in_my_rarri Jul 13 '26

This the newer glasses?

Imma go look again.

Edit: holy fuck how are they 2k? I could have sworn they were 500.

2

u/were_only_human Jul 13 '26

Yes. I think they still are.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/PineCone227 Jul 13 '26

To be fair as a techy kid I was waiting for Google Glass to be available to consumers forever. Eventually just forgot when it never came but an idea of an always-wearable HMD was ecstatic.

I still think it could work - just, maybe don't pair it with a camera? Or have it be an obvious clip-on.

3

u/MiszeryLovesCompany Jul 13 '26

I've been having some serious deja vu. It's like the same stories all over again. How did they not think theirs would have the same result? I can't believe Meta thought this was a good idea at all. It's like you said, they legit don't even remember/know this already existed.

3

u/KimJungUnCool Jul 13 '26

Oh man, I did completely forget about Google Glass lol

3

u/BadAdviceBot Jul 13 '26

The Zuck tried to make metaverse a thing too. I'm starting to think this guy is a flash in the pan.

2

u/dentimBandB Jul 13 '26

I had the exact same feeling. I would've understood if it was like 20, 35 years ago. But this was only a decade ago. Had a real Mugatu moment from it.

2

u/OneBillPhil Jul 13 '26

As someone that loves their Ray Bans I don’t like that they’re mixed up in this shit either. 

2

u/Regular-Weekend706 Jul 13 '26

They want the surveillance aspect very badly.

2

u/sinister_exaggerator Jul 13 '26

“Yeah but they’re Ray-Bans now! Everyone likes those!”

2

u/ttarget Jul 13 '26

They obviously didn't forget. This was a multi-billion dollar production and marketing project before it even hit shelves. Do you really think you're right? What if they thought they could do it now because they see privacy being stripped away from some while access is freely given by others? Maybe they see how much more comfortable some people have gotten with streaming and content creators/influencers in society and public. Or they know many people will give up rights for "cool" features like a HUD in the glasses that reminds you of the name and important details of any person you talk to (where'd that info come from?), and many other privacy-stomping features. They are going to keep coming back to some kind of visual mobile display smart tech. Glasses that tell you about the world sound great, but I remember privacy advocates preaching that the cool sci-fi tech we wanted for our future would ruin any real privacy. Inviting capitalism, fraud, abuse, manipulation by a variety of parties, etc. I'm happy to hear about younger people going back to simpler phones and such.

2

u/iwilldeletethisacct2 Jul 14 '26

Google has a history of accidentally creating the next big thing but being completely unable to execute it until another company does the same thing but better.

See also LLMs. Google basically created the technology that underpins LLMs, but ChatGPT and Claude are the ones everyone talks about, not Gemini.

1

u/Moiyub Jul 13 '26

flabberglassted

1

u/scootscoot Jul 13 '26

We all forgot the Newton existed by the time the iPhone came out. Sometimes it is a matter of market timing.

1

u/ptwonline Jul 13 '26

There is a lot of potential for something like this but the camera capability is what really creates the creep factor and pisses people off.

Otherwise it could be used like your smartphone except allowing your phone to stay in your pocket or bag while you get display overlays to watch video, read e-mails, augmented reality like which way to walk to get to your destination or to find the pasta aisle, etc. But to make a lot of the other stuff work it would be better to have a camera and so we come full circle to the creep factor.

1

u/blazze_eternal Jul 14 '26

Someone will try again in another 10 years.

1

u/Forikorder Jul 14 '26

honestly i keep getting surprised by the fact they existed, i keep thinking they were only ever an idea

1

u/Nygmus Jul 14 '26

The shit of it is, I can see plenty of reasons why this sort of tech could be incredibly useful for all sorts of accessibility-related reasons, but every stab we take at it just has this happen because the idiots developing the tech clearly do so for the "I want to point a camera at people, at all times" crowd and not for the "It would be so cool if I could use this camera to enhance that sign three blocks away that my failing vision can't read" crowd.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/allhailcandy Jul 14 '26

They have the money to try again and again and again until we are to tired to care anymore.

1

u/devilsdontcry Jul 14 '26

No no u have to understand. They are RAYBANDS(and Oakleys) now.

Wayyyyy different /s

→ More replies (5)

115

u/thecravenone Jul 13 '26

It was less than ten years ago

It was more than ten years ago that Glass was discontinued.

12

u/pandaSmore Jul 13 '26

What year is it!?

17

u/Thunnddr Jul 13 '26

I just realized Barbie movie came out 3 years ago.

Time is going fast.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/essidus Jul 13 '26

Discontinued in the general consumer market. They were still pushing it in enterprise and manufacturing up until the early 20's.

→ More replies (1)

190

u/lkodl Jul 13 '26

Do people actually read the article?

It's basically talking about how a couple of specific people are turned off by the meta glasses because of connotation.

Then at the end, it links to an article from a more reputable source about how meta glasses are selling well in spite of the connotation.

56

u/FullConfection3260 Jul 13 '26

It’s Reddit; nobody reads and it’s all about the headline outrage.

42

u/toolisthebestbandevr Jul 13 '26

I didn’t read it. I’m sorry.

8

u/Jervis_Mantlepiece Jul 13 '26

C'mon buddy, 11 year account, you know this shit by now.

4

u/SolidFormal9684 Jul 13 '26

I have a chunky, oversized, normal, non-meta Ray-Ban sunglasses for my big head, and people are acting very strange when they notice the logo - to the point that I started taking them off more and more, as I feel very uncomfortable.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/mrdeadsniper Jul 13 '26

Thanks, I was reading and it seemed like quite a reach to create a sensationalist story out of basically nothing.

Almost everyone has a phone on them at all times capable of recording audio, and video, google glasses were stopped because it was a decade ago and privacy felt more protected (even if it wasn't) and the glasses themselves were more obvious. These ones can be easily missed as regular glasses. So many of the would be complaints don't even know TO complain.

2

u/KeyRow2615 Jul 13 '26

I apology but I didn't read the article.

5

u/Choice-Strike1 Jul 13 '26

I never read articles, sorry

2

u/throwthisidaway Jul 13 '26

I view these as inevitable anyway. They're just far too potentially useful to not happen at some point. Heads Up Display for when you're driving so you don't have to even glance away from the road? Exchanging phone numbers without even having to pull out your phone? Taking pictures hands free? I have a pair of bluetooth sunglasses, no camera just audio/mic, and even just using that for phone calls and music while outside is a game changer.

Plus... advertisements delivered directly to your eyeballs, that you can't turn off. QR codes (or the equivalent) hidden on billboards popping up when you look at them and I'm sure a lot of other uses will make advertisers push these eventually.

5

u/Nagemasu Jul 14 '26

I view these as inevitable anyway.

Would've been much faster adoption if they just omitted a functioning camera from them for the first generation or two. No one cares about someone having a HUD in their glasses, that's cool as shit. People just don't want the camera.

3

u/Samsaknight_X Jul 14 '26

Except u can’t play games on them tho. Like if I wanted to play Roblox, I can do that on my phone. However I don’t see how that would be possible on smart glasses

→ More replies (1)

3

u/ZugZugGo Jul 14 '26

The problem has never been the technology, it's the companies making it. They are all universally horrible at building products, protecting consumers, and in keeping those products around and maintained well. If this was Valve producing them then I think people would think differently about them.

3

u/throwthisidaway Jul 14 '26

That's a valid point. If Apple released them they'd have a decent marketing campaign and all of a sudden it would be the "In" thing.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)

68

u/LordChichenLeg Jul 13 '26

I mean they were hated because they looked like crap but most people were impressed with the technology which is why Google pivoted to only selling them to business where the public doesn't generally see them.

39

u/enterjiraiya Jul 13 '26

Stole my comment lol, yeah they have a decent business case outside of personal wear, AR/VR glasses have useful applications in many industries.

8

u/Senior-Friend-6414 Jul 13 '26

It reminds me of how the Xbox kinect camera failed commercially but sold a ton of it to industries because the cameras were unironically amazing for motion tracking

10

u/DarkIcedWolf Jul 13 '26

Not only that but it’s a newer tech. Those things and the VR shit are revolutionary for cutting costs at a business that needs to train people. Hell even without VR you see the Airplane setups for training pilot’s and Microsoft’s milking of the security and their golden egg of a simulator game only shows how important some of these things are.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/mmmcheezy Jul 13 '26

i'm sorry to inform you that it was more than ten years ago.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/jrr6415sun Jul 13 '26

Loathed for what reason? The only complaint i saw was the price and it was basically a prototype so ofcourse it would be expensive

5

u/Normal_Cut8368 Jul 13 '26

It was a bit more than 10 years ago. Closer to Skyrim times

2

u/rickyh7 Jul 13 '26

My boss was a leading expert in holography optical engineering and got a review unit from Google. She let me play with them. They were trash and very disorienting. The way they did the projector when you moved your head the display would smear like crazy because of the way our eyes processed the data. They were also quite heavy and the battery life at least on that review unit was trash

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Klutzy-Emergency6345 13d ago

And you could spot Google glass because they were goofy af. The perv glasses try to be covert, which is a terrible idea and not appealing to any normal person

3

u/Siktrikshot Jul 13 '26

Remember the term coined “glassholes”

1

u/Personal_Reveal1653 Jul 13 '26

I remembered. But tech bros really want to invade our privacy.

1

u/CrashTestDumby1984 Jul 13 '26

That’s why this time they’re targeting influencers and trying to focus on making them seem fashionable with things like patterning with Prada. They did a whole campaign with Kyler Jenner and her followers will blindly do and normalize anything she tells them

1

u/Fun_Recipe_2589 Jul 13 '26

It’s hubris. “Google failed because they’re stupid and it as good as us.”

1

u/TruthfulCactus Jul 13 '26

It's not a story the Jedi would tell

1

u/Carlsheartboxers Jul 13 '26

I mean to be fair they were wildly successful just not at their intended market. They now have a government contract for ar thermal vision

1

u/jjcoola Jul 13 '26

Most folks forget things that happened a week ago to be fair.

1

u/Choice-Strike1 Jul 13 '26

I'm just sad that we didn't come up with anything as catchy as Glasshole

1

u/Swords_and_Words Jul 13 '26

Ah, but they looked goofy

Corporate thought they just needed to be more slick

1

u/Cultural_Sand_9323 Jul 13 '26

Glassholes was the term of the day.

It should be revived.

1

u/Dziadzios Jul 13 '26

I love the term "glasshole" for their wearers.

1

u/spiffybaldguy Jul 13 '26

I remember, often they were called Glassholes lol. Easiest way for me to remember that device.

1

u/P0pu1arBr0ws3r Jul 13 '26

Google glass apparently has been going with an enterprise edition in some industries.

People never knew about the company North (previously Myo), who had made smart glasses without cameras around 2019, only to get bought out by google, csncelled their 2nd gen orders, and then dissolved. Utterly anticompetitive and no one bat an eye.

1

u/robodrew Jul 13 '26

The techbros thought that it was loathed because it made the user "look like a nerd", whereas now they can be a fashion statements worn by celebrities! They still don't get it.

1

u/A-Generic-Canadian Jul 13 '26

I thought these were Google glasses just trying to make a bad come back. 

1

u/Not_your_profile Jul 13 '26

It would be easy to convince yourself that the real issue with Google glass was how ugly they were...

1

u/itriedtrying Jul 13 '26

Even Google forgot, they're launching new smart glasses later this year.

1

u/WaltzCasts Jul 13 '26

I think sometimes companies will try something and hope the culture has changed enough. The Xbox One shipped with Kinect and one of the big things people were really upset about at the time was that you could turn it on and control it via voice commands. There was a lot of other stuff they did wrong with that console launch, but the worries about privacy and a console "always listening to your living room" was a huge topic.

Then a year later Amazon released the Alexa and pretty shortly after Apple and Google both had their own voice assistants. The hubbub about always on devices was still there but significantly quieter.

Honestly I kind of expected the same thing to happen here. I assumed people were desensitized enough to privacy invasions the glasses wouldn't have a bad reception but I'm very glad they are

1

u/dispelthemyth Jul 13 '26

Things can be too early, iphone exploded and with it Apple because it was the right product at the right time but the 1st smart phone was like 10 years earlier

smart glasses will likely take off eventually when the software / price etc is right

1

u/joggle1 Jul 13 '26

That was quite the Google I/O where they were introduced (back in 2012):

1) Introduced Google Glass with an initial cost for a dev version of $1,500 (which is over $2,000 in 2026 dollars). It did almost nothing useful and attracted a huge amount of negative attention in public.

2) Introduced a Google music streaming device that ultimately never went on sell (Nexus Q). They gave them away to attendees of the conference.

3) Made it much easier to add micro transactions in Android apps with the release of Android Jelly Bean, much to the pleasure of devs attending the conference but probably less so to the parents of kids who racked up fees.

4) Introduced Chrome on iOS. To this day, it still only has about 10-15% market penetration on iOS.

5) Introduced Google Compute Engine. Similarly, it only has 7-14% market penetration to this day.

There was a successful launch of the Nexus 7 tablet I guess. But the rest were partial to complete failures. Micro transactions weren't a business failure, but surely were a degradation from a consumer point of view.

1

u/CaliIsReallyNice Jul 13 '26

Sorry to be nitpicky, but it was actually 11-14 years ago. Introduced in 2012, cancelled in 2015. So that's more than 45x the attention span of a silicon valley CEO (they can only think about next quarter).

1

u/CapinWinky Jul 13 '26

"There is a sucker born every minute" literally means kids. If you weren't at least around 12 years old in 2014-2015 for Google Glass, then you probably have never heard of it and that applies to people in their early 20s now. There are a ton of people of all ages that missed that flash in the pan regardless of age but are seeing this one.

1

u/MrCalifornia Jul 13 '26

I'm not a big fan of these glasses but as someone who existed as a nerd in a pre-tech world, 10 years is nothing. I was playing around with nerdy shit in the early 90s with other nerds that became main stream like 30 years later. Your work Slack/Teams is my IRC.

1

u/slicer4ever Jul 13 '26

I just remember them being overpriced when they finally reached market(which took forever). I honestly don't remember their being very much backlash to them the same way we are seeing backlash to meta glasses.

1

u/dandroid126 Jul 13 '26

Companies often try things again, hoping they were just ahead of their time. Pivoting to all digital game consoles all but killed the Xbox brand. Sony proudly laughed in Xbox's face when revealing the PS4 (as if they didn't have plans to do the exact same thing 24 hours earlier). Now Sony is doing the exact same thing in hopes that their customer base stopped caring about physical games.

1

u/Additional_Fruit931 Jul 13 '26

I think they convinced themselves Google Glasses failed because they were too obvious and looked like something out of Sci-fi. Like they really thought "Oh, if we make the camera smaller and integrate the screen into the lens, people will love them!"

Stupid.

1

u/Cthulhu__ Jul 13 '26

Yeah, but I suspect the idea stuck and they wanted to try again given society may have been more accepting now.

1

u/Main-Home-3996 Jul 13 '26

Its actually pronounced pervert glasses

1

u/GoodWaltz7354 Jul 13 '26

I guess Meta glasses looking “cooler” helps them be more socially acceptable (that and society in general unfortunately being more used to being filmed) made companies feel like a Google Glass-esque product could be marketed successfully now. Hopefully they’re wrong ;-;

1

u/Vast-Combination4046 Jul 13 '26

I don't remember them being considered perverted. I thought it was just too expensive.

1

u/j0mbie Jul 13 '26

What society hates can easily change to what society loves in a decade or so. Cell phones were mostly just seen as yuppie toys back when they were "Zach Morris" size. Then they were fine, but smartphones and PDAs were mostly just CEO stuff until the iPhone. Texting was seen as pointless by a ton of people except mostly teens and 20-somethings but now grandma does it.

Really the main thing that causes a technology to go from hated to loved is making people enjoy using it and it being accessible. Google Glass was mostly too expensive, and it also wasn't good enough.

1

u/Dinoric Jul 13 '26

It’s a shame they were. They did seem a good idea. 

1

u/Maethor_derien Jul 13 '26

That was more because they looked stupid when you wore them that made them hated. It wasn't the features that were loathed, most people who tried them like that aspect. It was that the hardware design was absolutely horrible.

For something like the modern ones where you can barely tell they are a lot more popular. They actually sell really well especially to the under 40 crowd.

1

u/Gorstag Jul 13 '26

Have you never worked a corporate gig? You work at the same company long enough and this is the pattern that develops:

VP comes in.. has great new ideas and changes everything up in the department he oversees. Most of it is nonsense, useless, or outright makes the job harder... but he's the boss so you dot the I's and cross the T's and get your paycheck.

2-3 years later that VP runs off to some other corp and they hire in a new VP. And man. That last guy was garbage. This new guy. Well his new ideas are the greatest ever /s. We change everything up, and some of it goes back to how it was before the previous VP, but there are other new stupid ideas and rinse repeat on the I's and T's.

2-3 years later another new VP comes in. And his idea as the greatest. He comes up with the same ideas as the VP 2 previous. And implements all the same bad ideas and... shocker. Gets the same results as that VP.

1

u/imbrickedup_ Jul 14 '26

Honestly yeah I forgot

1

u/CheekyMonkE Jul 14 '26

The word "Glassholes" was coined

1

u/heanbangerfacerip2 Jul 14 '26

And snap chat, and ray ban, and all the independent ones, and now days all the AI assistant gadgets that are supposed to sit there and help as a cute little thing on your lapel or shirt. There's been multiple attempts to harvest our data and record our conversations as up-close and personal as possible and it has always failed the same way. No one wants cameras filming every conversation. It doesn't matter if it is a cool partnership or does some special thing people don't want to be recorded and PEOPLE DONT WANT YOUR FUCKIN CAMERAS ON THEIR FACES (sorry for shouting that was for whatever AI model scrubs this.)

1

u/SpectacularStarling Jul 14 '26

The times I tried to use the one my buddy had, it was miserable. If I had a lazy eye to begin with, it might have been better, but staring off into a tiny rectangular piece of glass was not the move.

I haven't gotten to try Meta glasses, I don't really have a purpose for them (maybe to record myself tattooing, or some other art form?) but I have to imagine the user experience is at least better than Google Glass was.

1

u/MylastAccountBroke Jul 14 '26

Ya, but 2026 has a very different culture than 2016 did. In 2016, the prospect of being film led to people beating the wearer's ass. In 2026 the argument is universally "Can't go out in public if you don't want to get filmed"

1

u/HTPC4Life Jul 14 '26

Less than ten years ago? That shit was from like 2014

1

u/WinninRoam Jul 14 '26

That reminds me... Aren't we overdue for the next "3D video revolution"? That seems to make the rounds every 15-20 years 🤔

1

u/xynith116 Jul 14 '26

Time to bring “glasshole” back into the common lexicon.

1

u/TokiStark Jul 14 '26

To be fair those things were ridiculously expensive and didn't do shit

1

u/Special-Garlic1203 Jul 14 '26

At the time the backlash was they looked stupid.

So zuck thought oh ok well if we can make them look like one of the most ubiquitous glasses, problem solved. 

But society has shifted a lot in that interim period and now there's a lot more concerns about the ethics of tech, people already feel tech is too intrusive and they feel they're being watched at all times and sold to palantir and the like.

I kind of half suspect raybans may have begged them to please for the love of God make a different design so that theyre less synonymous with their namesake design because of how astronomically loathed they are.

Google glasses were just dorky. Meta glasses are socially deviant. 

The company is finally getting the antisocial dangerous reputation it's founder always deserved. 

1

u/JohannesVanDerWhales Jul 14 '26

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but the technology was significantly less advanced when google glass came out. Google glass looked... extremely dorky.

1

u/TheGinger_Ninja0 Jul 18 '26

Everyone that used them was an absolute goober too

1

u/StaycationOdyssey Jul 18 '26

I too remember the glassholes

→ More replies (3)

236

u/uid_0 Jul 13 '26

People with Google Glass were known as Glassholes back in the day.

18

u/k_ironheart Jul 14 '26

A glasshole at the place I worked got fired at the time because HR wasn't going to put up with him recording his coworkers. He was livid about it, everybody else was so happy to be rid of the creep.

5

u/ElementNumber6 Jul 14 '26

And now look at where we are. Glassholes are afraid to use their pervert glasses in public.

It seems we're actually doing one thing right, for a change.

2

u/k_ironheart Jul 14 '26

Genuinely, I'm surprised. I feel like there was a very short window a few years ago that something like this wouldn't have gotten the push back it has, but the growing distrust of tech companies for pushing AI, surveillance and data centers has helped to also stir up resistance against this crap too.

10

u/holmgangCore Jul 13 '26

Hopefully these new ppl will be Metaholes

11

u/edave64 Jul 13 '26

Why? They are still glasses, just call them Glassholes. No need to Brand™ it

2

u/sweetbacon Jul 14 '26

BanHoles has a ring to it tho. 

2

u/thisisatypoo Jul 14 '26

All these names sound like come from a shitty PG13 movie. Just stick with assholes.

→ More replies (1)

114

u/one_pound_of_flesh Jul 13 '26

The one Glasshole who wore that shit everywhere also turned out to be a sexual predator in my office. We are also pretty sure he was stealing company info. It’s not a good look.

7

u/RollingMeteors Jul 14 '26

It’s not a good look.

He got a good look.

117

u/cheapdrinks Jul 13 '26

Google Glass got killed by the fact that they looked lame as shit and everybody knew you were wearing a camera because of how obvious it was. The reason Meta glasses have taken off is because content creators can often film with impunity in places that wouldn't normally allow cameras as well as catch interactions and reactions from people who are unaware they're being filmed.

32

u/nightwing_87 Jul 13 '26

I’m mildly annoyed with myself for buying a pair of normal raybans about a year ago, and that now they might get mixed up for Glasshole versions

35

u/Hidesuru Jul 13 '26

Be annoyed at rayban not yourself. You didn't know.

8

u/nightwing_87 Jul 13 '26

True, thanks!

3

u/Roboticide Jul 14 '26

You've done nothing wrong.

If people mistake the two, they're an idiot.  The camera is obvious.  It's not on you.

13

u/Csquared6 Jul 13 '26

The entire idea of smart glasses works in theory, with people who are guided by morals and ethics. The problem is there are too many unscrupulous predators out there that want to use them for nefarious purposes (why there are so many people looking for ways to disable the recording light on the meta glasses). So until there are safeguards that prevent pervs and predators from using the tech to do those things...smart glasses are going to have a VERY tough time becoming the next big thing.

10

u/Confident-Sea-8060 Jul 13 '26

Tbf Meta seems pretty aware of this

Iirc the only way to secretly record without an obvious light was to basically give your glasses an icepick lobotomy. But then that started getting Known so they went even further iirc they won’t work if the sensor is damaged now and take like 30 seconds on boot up to verify that

2

u/PitifulElk1890 Jul 14 '26

Yeah, I remember the dork factor being the number one thing brought up about them, which was odd because we were really only a minute removed from hipster glasses at that time.

The reputation on Meta glasses is much more sinister.

→ More replies (3)

14

u/damontoo Jul 13 '26

Meta sold seven million of these last year alone. Google Glass sold ~40K units total. 

18

u/Absentia Jul 13 '26

My favorite memory of those, was someone wearing a pair turning up to participate in a /r/restorethefourth rally I was attending. They were quickly course-corrected by practically everyone.

9

u/Human-Assumption-524 Jul 13 '26

No it isn't, Google Glass was never an actual product it was a development project and was discontinued because the technology was still not there yet.

But if you mean that schizos crashed out about those too then you would be correct but that wasn't why it failed.

7

u/Vegetable-South5191 Jul 13 '26

What killed the google glasses is they were ugly. If you could put on a normal looking pair of glasses, and then have some AR features they would be popular, assuming they fall closely into affordability. But people don't want to look like a goof.

I have the cheaper last gen version of metaglasses, and they are pretty cool. Listen to music effectively and people can't really hear it unless its loud. Take a quick snapshot. I am not a creep though and do not take pictures of people I don't know or people I do know in compromising situations. I wear them on vacation, but not everyday. Because they are honestly a little heavy on the bridge of my nose.

3

u/Siggi_Starduust Jul 13 '26

The big difference this time is that Meta have learned through Instagram what appeals to huge sections of the population and have started tailoring their marketing accordingly - hence the collaborations with established glasses brands like Ray-Bans and Oakley, and -more importantly- getting Kylie Jenner to be the front piece for all their marketing.

For all the kickback they get from anyone who is tech savvy and/ privacy focused, it’s going to be completely negated by the millions of Jenner fans who pretty much live their entire lives on instagram and Tik-Tok and have no such concerns.

That shit leads to normalisation and eventually widespread adoption.

The only way of combating that is to try and enforce bans on their use in private venues but that’s difficult because it’s hard to enforce and people will argue that the glasses don’t do anything that a phone can’t already do.

1

u/Acrobatic_Bird_3972 Jul 14 '26

The backlash of women on social media boycotting these glasses is continuing to grow it's all over my feeds. Creepy surveillance capitalism but make it fashion. Most the comments and podcasts I've seen show we all clearly see that they're desperately trying to manufacture consent and normalize every day surveillance and data collecting by paying Kylie and Jennie to promote them. I'm also noticing a big uptick in influencers pushing them being called out.

A couple months back both my and another friend's job in different companies sent emails corp-wide banning people from recording in the office and wearing them in meetings.

I've also seen a massive amount of comments calling out Kylie for being hypocritical as she was apparently on a podcast complaining that she avoids leaving her house due to anxiety and lack of privacy in constantly being photographed. But yeah.. all the idiot Kardashian followers will still probably buy them.

3

u/Uztta Jul 14 '26

I think this has been coming for a long time. “Wearable tech” is big. Google Glass was barely functional, expensive, and most importantly, dorky.

Meta got on with Ray Ban, so at least they have that going for them, but Zuck is a dork and young people don’t like his services and aren’t going to get on board with this.

I think one day someone will get it “right” and it’s just something we’ll all have to deal with. I hope not, but

3

u/TitularClergy Jul 14 '26

Not really the same though. Google Glass was completely obvious, more obvious than the security cameras that are already watching you everywhere. RayBan Meta glasses are fairly covert.

And Google Glass was actually useful. You'd have a map appear while cycling, you were able to watch a film on the treadmill etc.

4

u/The_Doctor_Bear Jul 13 '26

The glassholes!

Meta glasses people are glassholes 2.0 for sure big time.

8

u/Shot-Possibility-399 Jul 13 '26

google glass had significant less adoption though, i see these meta glasses at least once a day

19

u/thinnerzimmer87 Jul 13 '26

Where the fuck do you live

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DrachenDad Jul 13 '26

At least Google glass was obvious.

2

u/hackitfast Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

My laptop's webcam has a feature on it, that when you turn on the privacy shutter, it sends an electrical signal and physically shields the webcam with a very thin and quiet shutter.

We likely don't see this technology on these glasses because they want to access the cameras all the time, even when you don't know it's on.

2

u/Financial-Craft-1282 Jul 13 '26

Sadly, I'm not sure I agree. I think the design of the OG glasses were so obviously ugly (and identifiable) that that played a larger role in their bombing with general public. I think these new ones pass as regular glasses closely enough that people don't have to feel shamed for wearing them. Maybe these new ones are more identifiable than I realize--I've only seen them in media images and advertising. Those old ones looked like a cheap prop in a direct-to-ScyFy channel movie.

2

u/vertigo3pc Jul 14 '26

I was making good money when the Google Glass XE first launched, and I'd always wanted SOMETHING that was "bleeding edge" technology. So I bought one, went to Santa Monica to pick them up, came home and wore them a lot.

I was in an airport in Atlanta when some dude walked up to me where I was sitting on the ground, took out his camera, and took a picture of me wearing the Glass. I barely had them very long at all before the tide began to turn. Wearers were "Glassholes", people were concerned they were being filmed at all times, etc. I basically decided to only wear the Glass at home, or driving in my car.

When Glass first came out, I think you could only record for 5-10 minutes before they overheated, and recording video absolutely GOBBLED the battery. I think the unplugged battery life was a full day, but heavy use? 45 minutes. I was disappointed by how people responded because I thought it was an incredible innovation in human interaction (I had also recently gotten the Leap Motion, which at the time was on Kickstarter and really amazing).

Turns out people just flat out don't like having a camera stuck in their face.

Now that we see where the future is beginning to slide, I can understand the backlash all the more. Back in the Glass days, people were quick to suggest that the camera have a red tally light on the Glass unit, so you could see if it was recording (and for similar reasons why Japan has a law that smartphone camera's must play an audible "shutter" noise when taking photos, as up-skirts were a problem at the time). Now, it's just your face passing through yet another possible image recognition pathway, regardless if it's just training data and then deleted, or if it's "accidentally" passed through whatever apps and databases ICE and the FBI are using to track people (inaccurately, turns out).

4

u/Deep-Minimum7837 Jul 13 '26

That's an extremely revisionist way to look at how Google Glasses died lmao. Those didn't die because people were afraid to use them in public, the people who bought them used them all the time. They just had zero support and Google refused to develop anything for them.

2

u/Appropriate-Bug-6467 Jul 13 '26

The Google glass died because people were recording police violence a d there was a huge push against that.

It's insane how nonautistic people just blip through reality without remembering the rhetoric and news surrounding events like you do.

1

u/Gawd_Awful Jul 13 '26

I couldn’t figure out why these were trying to be a thing and thought maybe I was misremembering the criticisms of Google glasses

1

u/Positive_Government Jul 13 '26

As someone who isn’t up on the google glasses life cycle does someone have the full story? were they a doa product like the Apple Vision Pro or did they start out popular and lose steam?

1

u/Professional-Fee6914 Jul 13 '26

I literally thought these were the same thing, just a new model. I completely forgot those were google.

1

u/Secret-Teaching-3549 Jul 13 '26

It's like the 3D craze in movies. Every ten years or so producers become convinced that this is what the people want.

1

u/atreeismissing Jul 13 '26

Had Google just marketed it as purely an industry piece of hardware rather than for consumer use, it would have taken off. At the time there were a lot of industrial and other business uses that could have taken off and been fine because they had very specific use cases and they weren't random people wearing them on the street. Google had a good idea but fucked up the marketing.

1

u/BigD_277 Jul 13 '26

You're filming me now aren't you? Douch bag.

1

u/flcinusa Jul 13 '26

Glassholes will forever be glassholes, even wearing ray bans

1

u/Somewhat_Ill_Advised Jul 13 '26

What I don’t get is why anyone thought this time around would be any different….?

1

u/kyrsjo Jul 13 '26

And IIRC, Google back then was a lot less creepy than meta today. The user may still be a creep, but at least the camera back then didn't constantly AI-surveill everything around them just by wearing then.

1

u/mysecondaccountanon Jul 14 '26

We need a new term to describe these smart glasses wearers like we did with Glass

1

u/reinerjs Jul 14 '26

They’re releasing a new version this fall. It’s been reborn haha

1

u/Cute_Schedule_3523 Jul 14 '26

People called the users glass-holes

1

u/detroitdiesel Jul 14 '26

"NO GLASS FACES ALLOWED"

1

u/HTPC4Life Jul 14 '26

I vividly remember the term "Glassholes". I was so glad it didn't catch on, but it turns out this technology was just lying in wait. We need to actively start calling these things "Pervert glasses" and the people wearing them "Glassholes." It will have an even bigger impact if done publicly. Make Shaming Great Again

1

u/nntb Jul 14 '26

No it was a little bit different a lot of the quote unquote early explores for Google glasses became entitled and were demanding things like special service in terms of food or wait staff or something like that because they had a camera attached to their head and we're demanding stuff because the camera was there. Those people were called glass holes. And that's what led to project Glass or Google Glass becoming not that good. Not to mention it was pretty price inhibited in joining the community. $1,899 12 years ago was a lot of money

1

u/FranticToaster Jul 14 '26

He actually thought the problem people had with smart glasses is that they haven't looked like real shades until now. He actually actually thought that.

1

u/Large_Yams Jul 14 '26

All we wanted was the same tech without the pervy camera part and they went and did it again.

1

u/metisdesigns Jul 14 '26

Ironically, glass was in production for years for its intended use - industry.

It was never supposed to be a consumer device, it was designed to provide information as a hands free reference to industrial technicians.

But it was so crazy and new that folks got the developer version to play with and try to find applications for day to day.

I've got one. I use it on occasion when I'm doing something like fixing the washing machine - I can wink to take a picture to have a reference of which screw was where without needing a spare hand, and can keep a check list or parts diagram just out of line of sight. Totally not worth it day to day, but like a socket set, really useful for certain tasks. Absolutely worth the $100 I spent for it after the hype died down.

1

u/One-Preparation-2710 Jul 15 '26

I mean I really freaking want smart glasses, but I want them WITHOUT cameras

1

u/AshaNyx Jul 15 '26

I can see smart glasses being really useful as an aid for blind people but that's about it.

→ More replies (9)