Meta to Announce Oakley-Branded Smart Glasses

[MacRumors]

Oakley today shared several social media teasers for an upcoming product that it is releasing in partnership with Facebook parent company Meta, and it's likely to be the Oakley-branded smart glasses that were rumored earlier this year.

Meta already has a set of smart glasses that it produces in partnership with Ray-Ban, but in January, Bloomberg claimed that Meta is also working to bring the technology to Oakley sunglasses. Like the Meta Ray-Bans, the Meta Oakleys will feature built-in cameras for capturing photos and videos, along with AI capabilities.

Meta AI is integrated into the Ray-Bans and able to answer queries about the wearer's surroundings. The glasses also include speakers and can play music, plus they allow the wearer to accept phone calls.

The Oakley version of the Meta glasses could be based on the Oakley Sphaera glasses, with the camera positioned at the center of the glasses frame. Meta may market the glasses at cyclists and other athletes that already wear Oakley sunglasses.

Oakley didn't confirm exactly what's in the works and the teaser is limited to the Meta and Oakley logos, but there's little else that the two companies could be releasing. We'll learn more on June 20, when the new product is set to be released.

Apple is rumored to be working to catch up to Meta, and the Cupertino company is developing its own set of camera-equipped smart glasses. Apple's smart glasses are expected to include cameras, microphones, and AI capabilities, much like the Meta Ray-Bans. Both Meta and Apple are working on full augmented reality glasses, and Meta has already shown off an "Orion" prototype. Meta's AR glasses could be ready to launch as soon as 2027.

Article Link: Meta to Announce Oakley-Branded Smart Glasses

 

[Jumpthesnark]

I'm sure there is a big market for them, but Oakleys are so stunningly dated and ugly that HBO has a show where a mullet-wearing Danny McBride's character wears them for comedy.

 

[hieranonymous]

Finally, smart glasses for Proud Boys.

Kidding aside, it’ll be interesting to see if there are any upgrades to the underlying hardware. These Oakley glasses originally got leaked alongside info about the next generation of Meta Ray-Bans.

 

[Macalway]

There's money to be made on this stuff.

But you never know. Maybe it will flop?

 

[Mr. Heckles]

So now they can show ads even more!

 

[DocMultimedia]

For marathon running with prescription shades I'm all Oakley. And half flak bifocals for regular life. Just don't know how they'll deal with the prescription issue. Same with whatever Apple comes up with. Since Cook wears glasses, you'd think this would be a concern.

 

[definitive]

are they going to have a built-in mp3 player like the older version?

 

[wlossw]

are they going to have a built-in mp3 player like the older version?

perfect accessory for violating civil liberties!

 

[Michael Scrip]

🤣

 

[stiligFox]

I’m good, dawg

 

[HiRez]

Oakleys are the ugliest glasses line in history, never liked any of them.

 

[spaxxedout]

RiFF RAFF has had these since 2008.

 

[_Spook_]

Meta logo is a copy of Australia’s state broadcaster ABC (not to be confused with ABC in America). Meta copied a logo design that’s existed here for decades, in fact long before the internet even existed.

Oakley - ugliest glasses ever!

 

[AustinIllini]

Do non-Luxxotica brands next

 

[Boeingfan]

These will be great for those looking for dated looking sunglasses. Perhaps they'll come with a built in bracket for a micro ballistic arsenal and a beer holder 😄

 

[WarmWinterHat]

These will be great for those looking for dated looking sunglasses. Perhaps they'll come with a built in bracket for a micro ballistic arsenal and a beer holder 😄

These would have looked good 25 years ago.

 

[rgeneral]

More data sucking glasses for meta to sell ads to you

 

[Boeingfan]

I must say that I'm surprised that such a litigious country as America allows these types of glasses to be sold without having some kind of warning on the exterior so others can be aware that they're potentially being filmed. I mean, they have to put 'Caution: contents may be hot' on takeaway coffee cups and 'Warning: contains nuts' on nut bars for christ sake 😄

 

[fatTribble]

Do non-Luxxotica brands next

Isn’t the only such brand Warby Parker?

 

[Boeingfan]

Oakleys are the ugliest glasses line in history, never liked any of them.

I love your tag line. It reminds me of a picture I saw ages ago of a kid staring in awe at a sunset on a monitor, yet that same sunset was outside the window right next to the monitor.

 

[frownface]

These are probably more of a replacement for a go-pro than a replacement for any actual glasses.

I can imagine them being used by cyclists as a "dash cam"
If it does turn by turn navigation (even by voice) that could be the selling point.

 

[BuffaloTF]

I must say that I'm surprised that such a litigious country as America allows these types of glasses to be sold without having some kind of warning on the exterior so others can be aware that they're potentially being filmed. I mean, they have to put 'Caution: contents may be hot' on takeaway coffee cups and 'Warning: contains nuts' on nut bars for christ sake 😄

1st Amendment?

No expectation of privacy in public.

And the coffee was 190 degrees Fahrenheit in a thin paper cup… boiling is 212… which was done on purpose so you couldn’t taste that it was old coffee. Coupled with the paper cup, a dangerous way to save literal pennies.

 

[Rogifan]

Seems like a strategic blunder that Apple didn’t partner with Luxottica. They own so many glasses brands.

 

[sw1tcher]

No expectation of privacy in public.

Yes, there is an expectation of privacy in public. The Supreme Court has ruled so in several cases

You Really Do Have Some Expectation of Privacy in Public

When we spend time fighting the growing ubiquity of both public and private surveillance cameras we often hear a familiar refrain: “you don’t have an expectation of privacy in public.” This is not true. In the United States, you do have some expectation of privacy—even in public—and it’s...

www.eff.org

[ . . . ]

To the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized since the 1960’s that “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” The Fourth Amendment protects “people, not places.” U.S. privacy law instead typically asks whether your expectation of privacy is something society considers “reasonable.”

This is where mass surveillance comes in. While it is unreasonable to assume that everything you do in public will be kept private from prying eyes, there is a real expectation that when you travel throughout town over the course of a day—running errands, seeing a doctor, going to or from work, attending a protest—that the entirety of your movements is not being precisely tracked, stored by a single entity, and freely shared with the government. In other words, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in at least some of the uniquely sensitive and revealing information collected by surveillance technology, although courts and legislatures are still working out the precise contours of what that includes.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a landmark case on this subject, Carpenter v. United States. In Carpenter, the court recognized that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of your physical movements, including your movements in public. It therefore held that the defendant had an expectation of privacy in 127 days worth of accumulated historical cell site location information (CSLI). The records that make up CSLI data can provide a comprehensive chronicle of your movements over an extended period of time by using the cell site location information from your phone. Accessing this information intrudes on your private sphere, and the Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires the government to obtain a warrant in order to do so.

Importantly, you retain this expectation of privacy even when those records are collected while you’re in public. In coming to its holding, the Carpenter court wished to preserve “the degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” Historically, we have not expected the government to secretly catalogue and monitor all of our movements over time, even when we travel in public. Allowing the government to access cell site location information contravenes that expectation. The court stressed that these accumulated records reveal not only a person’s particular public movements, but also their “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”

[ . . . ]

 

[Patchwork]

Although Luxxotica aren’t a monopoly they have used their market power in some bad ways. For example it dropped Oakley from its retail stores such as LensCrafters and Sunglasses Hut, which caused Oakley sales to drop a their share price to go down dramatically. Luxxotica then bought Oakley at a knockdown price and reintroduced Oakley to their stores. Unfortunately it’s quite hard to avoid EssilorLuxottica, as the group is now, as they make a lot of glasses under licence, such as Armani, Chanel and Prada, as well as the brands they own such as Ray-Ban, Oakley and Oliver Peoples. They also own a lot of opticians and stores and through their Essilor lenses they pick up even more of the market. Given how they operate they are the perfect partner for Meta!