Google's First AI Smart Glasses Launching This Fall With iPhone Support

[Dirk Pieters]

Funny how the most 'advanced' Smart Glasses are all from companies that stand to gain a lot of money hoovering up all the data of exactly where you've been and what product's you've glanced at the longest....

If you have an Android phone then Google doesn’t even need images. Based on gps Google has a pretty good idea which stores you visited. If you watch YouTube they already know what products you’re interested in.

What Google knows of you is downright scary as is, even without glasses.

 

[ChrisMac47]

Only if you ignore the very bright light they emit while recording and decide to continue interacting with a person who is recording you without consent.

Heard of black tape? That "bright light" will be removed one way or another.

 

[ChrisMac47]

Except, no one does that. Tourists who travel and take pictures in cities they visit put those pictures on Instagram, Flickr, whatever. It’s literally impossible to get the permission from any person who happens to be in that picture.

This entire reasoning that someone wants privacy in public just isn’t there. Cameras film your car, you are being filmed by cameras in shopping malls, in stopping streets, inside stores. They could probably recreate your entire day out in the city based on camera footage.

Actually privacy laws relating to street photography are quite strict in some countries (France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and others in Europe) and in those countries it's illegal to post photos taken in public places of identifiable individuals on social media (that's also in GDPR regs as well). There is obviously some leeway but things like close-ups and portraits are a no-no.

In most other European countries the guideline for photographers is to ask permission, at a minimum, when taking close-up photos ... it's the polite thing to do anyway.

I do urban/street (stereo) photography as a hobby but avoid close-ups or any photo that could be interpreted as intrusive, unless I explicitly ask the subject's permission. I do not post any of my photos on social media, or sell them. This is something that every serious street/urban photographer understands.

It's a minefield and I'm worried (as a hobbyist photographer) that these camera-equipped glasses are going to lead to heavy-handed regulations that defy common sense. As others have pointed out, the main beneficiaries of these glasses are the companies who make them, sweeping up huge quantities of data to boost their finances.

 

[turbineseaplane]

As others have pointed out, the main beneficiaries of these glasses are the companies who make them, sweeping up huge quantities of data to boost their finances.

This 👆
I wish more people understood this is what it’s really about.

 

[Digital Dude]

when Apple does it what will you say ?

Apple will make them cool. Google will make them work.

 

[Dirk Pieters]

Actually privacy laws relating to street photography are quite strict in some countries (France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and others in Europe) and in those countries it's illegal to post photos taken in public places of identifiable individuals on social media (that's also in GDPR regs as well). There is obviously some leeway but things like close-ups and portraits are a no-no.

I live in Belgium and I can tell you that this law is as good as worthless. There must be millions of pictures shared every day on social media where an individual accidentally passes in the frame of someone else's selfie. Trust me, we have other problems.

Kudos to you, though, for taking it seriously. 👍🏼

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm sure it'll barely function as advertised and get cancelled, like most everything Google has done.

8 years ago:

Google’s Reservation-Making Robot Sounds Totally, Terrifyingly Human

AI can communicate with a restaurant more naturally in the next Duplex update

www.eater.com

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

Wait, they have no display?
So they’re just voice activated spy glasses then?

 

[yapofire]

What are you talking about?

Just seems like another product created first, before trying to work out the use cases second.

Most of what is listed is either possible with ear buds today, or doesnt even need glasses in the first place

Just dont really see the glasses use case for a product like this. Even the features that need a camera like giving you live revierws of a restaurant seems a large stretch for most people. How many times are people wondering around a street looking for a place to eat without planning it ahead of time? Enough to need to wear these glasses 16 hours a day.

• Manage calls, send texts, and summarize messages - ear buds do this now (no need for glasses)
• Listen to music. - ear buds do this now (no need for glasses)
• Translate speech and writing in real time. - ear buds do this now (for speech)
• Complete multi-step tasks like ordering coffee via DoorDash. - ear buds do this now with Gemini etc, hopefully Siri when improved (no need for glasses to do this)
• Use apps on a connected smartphone with voice-based commands. - Mic on ear buds would let you do this as long as the LLM could

 

[transpo1]

I'm not sure who enjoys all of it, but many people find some of it useful.

I can see many people finding this useful. I was just overseas, and was using Google Maps to find local restaurants while on the move, determine ratings, etc. If I could do this without having my head down in my phone the whole time, that would be quite handy. Would rather use Apple Maps but Google Maps is just lightyears better outside the U.S.

Glasses like these will be much more useful once they have a small screen in them (like a HUD).

Yes-- this technology will really come of age once there is a HUD in the lenses. The killer feature for me is looking at a restaurant or coffee shop and immediately seeing how many stars it has to see if I want my espresso there... 🤣

 

[jole]

So exactly like Meta glass, but instead of trusting Meta for privacy (f no), you would need to trust Google for privacy (better, but I still would want an educated legal opinion on terms first).

What you see beamed to an AI is such a privacy minefield that you'd want to only use a company whose main business in not selling ads. Apple will be in a pretty good spot here.

 

[surfbutler]

Except, no one does that. Tourists who travel and take pictures in cities they visit put those pictures on Instagram, Flickr, whatever. It’s literally impossible to get the permission from any person who happens to be in that picture.

This entire reasoning that someone wants privacy in public just isn’t there. Cameras film your car, you are being filmed by cameras in shopping malls, in stopping streets, inside stores. They could probably recreate your entire day out in the city based on camera footage.

Agreed. Also this idea that taking photos of people in public is against the law in most countries is completely wrong, just google it.

 

[Royksöpp]

They'll sell more of these in a month than the entire lifetime run of the Vision Pro.

 

[MiamiFL]

so uglier, know-off Meta Wayfarers?

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

Slapping people who wear these isn't socially acceptable.

I’d say wearing these isn’t socially acceptable

 

[ChrisMac47]

I live in Belgium and I can tell you that this law is as good as worthless. There must be millions of pictures shared every day on social media where an individual accidentally passes in the frame of someone else's selfie. Trust me, we have other problems.

Kudos to you, though, for taking it seriously. 👍🏼

I agree it's not enforced and for everyday still photography that's common sense in my opinion.

I guess the law is there for extreme cases.

 

[Tim Jobs the 2nd]

I’d say wearing these isn’t socially acceptable

They are just glasses when not recording. You know when they are recording so you're making an issue out of something that isn't a problem.

 

[Tim Jobs the 2nd]

Wait, they have no display?
So they’re just voice activated spy glasses then?

"Spy glasses" that emit a bright light when recording. Pretty poor for spy use then

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Surely, SURELY this will succeed where Google glasses failed before.

SURELY.

You drip sarcasm. But yes, this often the way tech usages evolve.

 

[jlnr]

What a terrible day to have to wear glasses. Now people may trust me less than people with good eyesight because they can't tell if I am filming them or not.

Of course we get this kind of progress first, and not a new way to repair our eyes (besides LASIK)...

 

[Tim Jobs the 2nd]

What a terrible day to have to wear glasses. Now people may trust me less than others because they can't tell if I am filming them or not.

Of course we get this kind of progress first, and not a new way to repair our eyes (besides LASIK)...

When the Meta glasses are filming, there is a very bright light that turns on. I have to imagine Google will use a similar setup.

If your glasses don't light up, nobody will suspect you're recording them.

Don't get convinced by all the fear mongering.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

They are just glasses when not recording. You know when they are recording so you're making an issue out of something that isn't a problem.

you can easily disable any recording indicator

we've already been through this

 

[Tim Jobs the 2nd]

I wish people would do 5 minutes of research before suggesting things that were already proven to not work.

If you block the light, the camera is disabled.

You can't record without people noticing.

 

[Tim Jobs the 2nd]

you can easily disable any recording indicator

we've already been through this

No you can't. You suggested things that don't work. If the light is blocked, the glasses disable the camera. End of story.

We've already been through this.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Perv goggles are just creepy. Their function is to evade the social stigma of recording people without consent.

People choose to act differently when someone is shoving a camera in their face. Walk up to anyone with your phone held up recording and you can see their reactions are different.

Tech like this exists to hide the cameras/sensors and deny the other person informed consent. It’s gross.

Yet there are people like me who capture images as a very large part of my daily work. Many situations involve hazardous locations where having image-capturing glasses would be very useful (if decent image quality).

As to "deny the other person informed consent," sorry but that ship sailed a long time ago. Public places are public. Personally my pix never intentionally involve people, but I certainly would not concern myself with informing consent of incidental humans in public. Folks just need to keep their pants on in public.

However IMO informing consent is important whenever a human is a primary subject matter of an image capture.