Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Seems like a strategic blunder that Apple didn’t partner with Luxottica. They own so many glasses brands.

They probably will still outsource the manufacture to luxottica since they basically control the market.
Brandwise, i think apple would prefer to leverage their own brand. They'd want to see a rack of apple branded glasses alongside the gucci and tiffany & co glasses.
 
Been wearing ray ban sunglasses and Oakley prescription glasses my entire adult life but I will never buy anything with meta in it.

I wish Apple would hurry up with their glasses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IJustWannaTalk
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.
Well maybe the 1st amendment needs amending again to keep up with the times; I mean it has been a while between drinks.
 
Last edited:
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 😄
They should have a warning on them that says people are being filmed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boeingfan
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!
Quality noticeably dropped after they bought the company, too.
You can really feel it in the frames.
 
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.
It’s by a concern for many prescription using mine on my Raymans and G1s since they both came out.

Not an issue with my Xreal One Pros either
 
As hideous as Oakley are this just further exposes Apples failure to get new products to market. They’re even struggling with a simple home hub. All they will have to show for themselves this year is an iPhone that looks like last years iPhone. The rate in which technology is moving forward these days requires a bold ambitious new CEO, not a bean counter only interested in depleting the stockpile of last years components.
 
They should have a warning on them that says people are being filmed.
They have a very bright flashing LED when filming. It’s also got a light meter within the LED that can tell if you’ve covered the light and won’t let you film.

I own the RayBans and film short form deal shopping videos for my corporate day job so I have to film a lot in stores of my hands picking up a product and taking it to self checkout to teach people how to coupon and save money.

I thought the RayBans would be perfect for my work videos but it’s pretty awkward because of the light. Not to mention the quality is ALMOST good enough for social media but still like a 5-7 year old phone camera at best (but that’s still kind of impressive).

I don’t ever show any person in my work vids in any way but still find it least awkward to just film on my iPhone cause there’s no obnoxious flashing light to draw attention to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boeingfan
Yay, more creepy secret filming without consent glasses. Just what the world needs. At least it’s much easier to avoid the redneck types wearing Oakleys from a distance compared to the more ubiquitous urban Ray-Bans.

There’s not a company in existence I’d actively wish to see in ruins and disappear, consigned to history, more than Facebook/Meta. From its incel founder origins to the evil data mining behemoth it’s become, I wouldn’t touch any of its products with a ten-foot bargepole. Even WhatsApp are now about to run ads. FFS.

If Mountainhead (truly awful movie by the way, don’t waste your time) existed in real life, no question Zuckerberg would be the one all the other “b-nuts” tried to kill.
 
Yes, there is an expectation of privacy in public. The Supreme Court has ruled so in several cases


[ . . . ]

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.”

[ . . . ]

Ok… so there’s absolutely no expectation of privacy in public. You cannot trespass my eyes, therefore you cannot trespass a camera.

What you failed to read here is they’re saying the government can’t surveil your every movement throughout a day. Stalking. They’re saying stalking is illegal. Everyone knows that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
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 😄
Bro, many public schools won't even allow kids to bring peanut butter sandwiches from home. Instead of warning "Aiden, if you eat PB, you'll DIE!", Aiden's two moms threaten to sue the school.
 
What is the actual justification for these? What is the use-case?

Being a creeper in public spaces

Zuck is creep #1

DacWzXmWAAATl3p.jpg
Screenshot 2025-06-17 at 09.02.23.png
 
Last edited:
This!
Plus as a HUD for speed, distance, ascent, etc.
Could be a killer feature...
This would be great for cycling or other physical activities. The RayBan’s are good for music and camera for walking or sitting, but are not meant for sweaty/wet physical activity as it slides down the nose.

I doubt they are projecting anything on the glass, and will likely be the same as RayBan with water resistance, increased audio quality, better camera and better battery life.

And if they did project stuff, they probably would not allow custom data like those from a cycling computer or your watch. Would be great to get rid of the cycling computer altogether but that’s a very niche requirement
 
Waiting to see Apple's glasses. The new upcoming one from Meta definitely seems like it will be for athletes. For others it looks like the Ray Ban glasses will be better. Not sure how Meta will respect user privacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mganu
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.