alt.hn

6/17/2026 at 12:02:02 PM

Snap Smart Glasses

 https://www.specs.com/smart-glasses/specs-27

by hmokiguess

6/20/2026 at 5:25:09 AM

Not a thing about privacy. I assume they are streaming the world back to their servers. Where are the guarantees that nobody sees what you see? Nobody gets telemetry on what you are looking at, etc etc. I'm not prepared to have those things near me and will likely ask people wearing them to put them away without understanding the privacy implications. This should be a front page discussion instead of not mentioned.

by jmward01

6/20/2026 at 5:37:05 AM

Wdym? There's a "Privacy by design" section:

> You’re in charge of what gets captured, and a glowing indicator light lets others know when you’re recording. We prioritize on-device processing, so you’re in control of permissions when third parties request camera or microphone access with internet connectivity.

I still don't know if I'd trust them, but they at least address it.

by JeffeFawkes

6/20/2026 at 5:51:22 AM

Overly specific and not more than feel-good blurb. “When you’re recording” - what if they record it for, say, debugging purposes? Are images send into the cloud even if that light is off? “Prioritize” on-device processing is a meaningless promise, on the contrary - it means that some things will not be done on device. There is nothing in this text stopping them from streaming and storing whatever they want and need.

by grumbelbart2

6/20/2026 at 5:59:17 AM

[dead]

by jrndnfmfm

6/20/2026 at 5:37:39 AM

They have a privacy section. Not the best most reassuring:

> You’re in charge of what gets captured, and a glowing indicator light lets others know when you’re recording. We prioritize on-device processing, so you’re in control of permissions when third parties request camera or microphone access with internet connectivity.

by HWR_14

6/20/2026 at 6:24:08 AM

Don't worry about that. Nobody will buy these things.

by ulfw

6/20/2026 at 5:56:09 AM

Bodycams designed to do exactly this cost $50-100. This is clearly an issue, but directly linking it to smart glasses isn't going work.

by m0llusk

6/20/2026 at 5:27:02 AM

I don’t know why people make such a big deal about the look like that’s going to matter for an early adopter spatial computing device. Two things matter: ergonomics and utility. The number one issue continues to be long term comfort and among that primarily weight/pressure. These weigh almost twice as much as xreal, but about a quarter of a quest. Given that they put power and compute onboard and seem to distribute weight across pretty large frames I think this might be getting close to a “oh wow” kind of moment where they crossover into everyday utility. The most basic killer use case ironically is 2D screen replacement, whether for mobile, laptop, desktop, or TV/home theatre. For broader adoption sure there’s looks, battery, price, etc. but if they can make it comfortable and useful enough that’s it’s better than using the alternative for some hours of the day, then the industry will sell billions of units over the coming decades.

by laser

6/20/2026 at 7:33:44 AM

The problem with that "look" is that it's a dead end. These things won't be having a real glasses form factor and high enough specs to be useful anytime soon. They'll remain comically oversized for years/decades to come. So why bother with glasses form factor? I'd rather have something like Hololens or VisionPro, that's big enough to fit in a larger battery, more sensors and more compute, and can be comfortable at the same time because it has room to include a top-strap. With a glasses form factor all the weight is resting on your nose and with anything over 60g that's going to get pretty uncomfortable.

And all that aside, the real killer-feature with AR/VR is the software and so far it doesn't fell like anybody has figure out what people are even supposed to do with these things.

by grumbel

6/20/2026 at 5:45:34 AM

I think Apple has convincingly demonstrated that the look matters A LOT for high-end technology consumption.

by paytonjjones

6/20/2026 at 6:24:49 AM

And yet they've released the "Vision Pro"

by ulfw

6/20/2026 at 5:53:29 AM

Two things about smart glasses:

1. If I'm wearing smart glasses, whether I'm filming or using it for something else is nobody's business. I paid for it, I can do whatever I want with my computer glasses.

2. The fact that someone wearing them can snap my picture and unveil my entire history with one glance is terrifying. If they don't, the company can still do it "accidentally".

3. You can't have one without the other. So i hope these things crash and burn.

by firefoxd

6/20/2026 at 5:55:12 AM

Mine have no cameras, that fixes it.

by anonzzzies

6/20/2026 at 6:07:24 AM

> 3. You can't have one without the other. So i hope these things crash and burn.

Unfortunately they won't.

by rvz

6/20/2026 at 5:23:17 AM

I'm split on this.

On the one hand, this solves the problem of smart glasses being too stealthy to tell when you're being filmed/broadcast in public by someone wearing them; where Meta's glasses look like Wayfarers, these look a lot more distinctive.

On the other hand, the reason these won't be too stealthy is because they look like those standard-issue glasses the US army was know to give out (upon looking it up: S9 glasses), and those have a reputation.

On the third, mutant, hand, I don't have a fashion sense and I really don't care about smart glasses as a technology, so maybe I'm the wrong person to judge this thing on is merits.

by verandaguy

6/20/2026 at 5:55:31 AM

We need legislation that there’s a big bright red light when these things are recording.

Do we really want to live in a world where people have hidden cameras strapped to their faces?

Normal people don’t want this, it’s creepy

by albertgoeswoof

6/20/2026 at 6:00:47 AM

It’s no more creepy than every person in the world holding a camera in their hand/pocket and every business and home in a city recording passers by 24/7.

Not ideal, but also nothing different or new.

by unsupp0rted

6/20/2026 at 6:10:29 AM

It's way more creepy than a phone. I can see you holding up a phone to snap a picture, I cannot tell if you're recording me while looking at me.

Also, in the country where I live, it's illegal to record passers-by, so this is also way worse than that, but ymmv.

by riffraff

6/20/2026 at 6:07:23 AM

There's a huge difference. With a smartphone I can almost always see that people are filming.

by zufallsheld

6/20/2026 at 6:07:39 AM

These are ugly $2200 bricks as soon as this company finally goes bankrupt and there is no home they can send their data to, right?

You mustn't be smart to buy 'smart glasses'..

by meta-level

6/20/2026 at 5:10:03 AM

Are they pricing it like this because they actually can't produce them at scale? Seems like an unserious price.

by killingtime74

6/20/2026 at 5:25:42 AM

These microdisplays and microlenses and holographic waveguides are complicated. Snap seem to use technology from WaveOptics it acquired, and it require entire glass(not just display area) to be micromachined like silicon chips, of this size. The microdisplay is LCoS based, which needs to be front lit and front viewed through a tiny prism as well. And they would all have to go together with micro scale precision without defects.

by numpad0

6/20/2026 at 5:50:48 AM

You’re making it sounds like the margins on this are probably not great. Do you know if it’s likely that these aren’t meant to be directly profitable, or is it possible to get all of this technology together for around $1000–$1500 USD?

by steve_adams_86

6/20/2026 at 7:36:41 AM

I don't know, I just know that these components used are both individually and collectively expensive to make. But a hypothetical $1500 per unit cost with delta between it and $2200 covering initial costs do sound somewhat plausible to me as an enthusiastic layperson.

The most costly part would be the transparent waveguide plates. They look like thin sheets of glass, but also virtually work as series of lenses and mirrors against light entering a small designated spot. WaveOptics[1] that reportedly supply that device seem to build them by stacking three plates for RGB made with electron beam lithography and nanoimprinting, which are both relatively slow, low volume semiconductor processes. The PR reel shows 10 monochrome waveguide plate patterns on one 200 or 300mm wafer, so theoretical wafer to RGB stack ratio is only 1:3. Nowhere in product pages of both Snap and WaveOptics says the wafers are glass, so I assume it's something else.

R&D costs are also not trivial considering that this isn't first gen product, but 5th or 6th gen. They'd have to be recoup costs of those devices as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was technically sold at small losses or at cost from accounting perspective.

1: https://waveoptics.ar/manufacturing/

by numpad0

6/20/2026 at 5:02:43 AM

Looks awful and costs way too much. This feels like it should be a prototype from a university lab, not a consumer product from a social network.

I can only hope there is amazing work being done with this kind of tech in industries I know little of. Surgeons, precise mechanical engineers… they’d surely benefit from this stuff and have the reason to pay for it. But as a consumer product, nope.

by afavour

6/20/2026 at 5:49:22 AM

It’s telling that there are exactly zero photos of these glasses on a human face

by cush

6/20/2026 at 6:18:27 AM

There are videos of their CEO wearing them. They don’t even fit his face.

by throw03172019

6/20/2026 at 5:59:34 AM

There's one at the bottom of the page -- ugly, as you might have expected.

by positus

6/20/2026 at 5:16:23 AM

Frustrating the site doesn’t give any idea of what you’re supposed to be able to see with them on.

by elefanten

6/20/2026 at 5:19:16 AM

on-foot navigation, web browsing, translation, and multi-player AR games like "EyeConnect," triggered when two wearers make eye contact

and they’re seemingly attempting an app ecosystem.

by DANmode

6/20/2026 at 5:43:26 AM

At this price, ain't two people going to make eye contact, ever.

by nnevatie

6/20/2026 at 5:55:45 AM

First iPhone seemed useless and expensive.

by DANmode

6/20/2026 at 6:13:01 AM

No, it didn't. The first iphone looked incredible and expensive.

People complained it didn't have apps and didn't support java, but it was very cool.

Also, it cost $500.

by riffraff

6/20/2026 at 5:47:55 AM

This is the product you get when you are surrounded by yes men.

by cryo32

6/20/2026 at 5:35:33 AM

Yeah i am not paying 2 grand to have that on my face, better things to put on it

by altmanaltman

6/20/2026 at 5:14:10 AM

Never buy the first version of a new product, especially if it is an Apple product. Otherwise, who is using their Vision Pro right now?

All I see is people giving them free feedback. So I would expect Snap to reduce the frames and the bulkiness of these glasses in the next version and finally, the price.

by rvz

6/20/2026 at 5:35:32 AM

I use my Vision Pro like 5x a week, it's rough around the edges but I figured it's niche enough that it wouldn't get a meaningful upgrade and be obsolete for 3+ years - seems to have played off well. If you travel a lot it's also amazing.

by shmoogy

6/20/2026 at 5:40:41 AM

I used my M2 version of the Vision Pro every day last week, as did one of my colleagues and at least three of our clients.

by robeastham

6/20/2026 at 6:14:14 AM

What for... ?

by blobbers

6/20/2026 at 6:49:31 AM

ugly , fugly frames.

always with the thick ugly frames

by senectus1

6/20/2026 at 5:46:30 AM

Looks dorky.

by antfarm

6/20/2026 at 6:24:21 AM

And creepy.

by antfarm

6/20/2026 at 5:05:55 AM

is this what we have become

by nitroedge