I'm actually somewhat interested to see something like this hit mainstream. Like smartphone-levels of mainstream. Because one of the first apps for it will likely be one that looks at people's faces and immediately digs up everything about them available online. There's already been videos of it working with older tech, so I'm sure it'll work even better now with newer hardware and AI.
Anyway, once it goes mainstream and people see what we've done to ourselves, maybe it will open people's eyes and we'll start fighting for our privacy again.
wmeredith 3 hours ago [-]
I'm reminded of the "Gargoyles" in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. These are people with wearable computers that are plugged into the VR/AR internet at all times. The relevant passage...
"Gargoyles are no fun to talk to. They never finish a sentence. They are adrift in a laser-drawn world, scanning retinas in all directions, doing background checks on everyone within a thousand yards, seeing everything in visual light, infrared, millimeter wave radar, and ultrasound all at once. You think they're talking to you, but they're actually poring over the credit record of some stranger on the other side of the room, or identifying the make and model of airplanes flying overhead. For all he knows, Lagos is standing there measuring the length of Hiro's cock through his trousers while they pretend to make conversation."
sunrunner 2 hours ago [-]
> You think they're talking to you, but they're actually poring over the credit record of some stranger on the other side of the room, or identifying the make and model of airplanes flying overhead.
So, the average Zoom call in 2025?
sunrunner 2 hours ago [-]
> Because one of the first apps for it will likely be one that looks at people's faces and immediately digs up everything about them available online.
How am I meant to opt out of this? A device that broadcasts an (inevitably ignored) do not scan signal? CV Dazzle? Am I resigned to just never leaving the house again?
For now I’m hoping that the major factor against people adopting this is that you’ll look like a wanker. I’m not sure what to do once that becomes the norm though.
potato3732842 3 hours ago [-]
If this was possible at a reasonable price point the cops would already be wearing them.
serf 3 hours ago [-]
volume is what makes things like this reasonably priced.
koolala 3 hours ago [-]
Alternatively, the good version of that is AI giving knowledge on anything that exists naturally or artificially that we look at. To flourish we just need a distinction between general knowledge and individualized personal knowledge.
ortusdux 2 hours ago [-]
I wonder if any US states will ban the practice? Many states have laws in place that govern license plate reader use by individuals.
tootie 3 hours ago [-]
I remain convinced that AR glasses will never ever be mainstream no matter how good the hardware is. They just don't solve any actual problem. Interacting with UI using voice or gesture is just way too hard.
craftkiller 2 hours ago [-]
They could still be useful as a dumb display without voice or gesture. Imagine being in an airplane and wanting to use your laptop. You'll be hunched over with terrible posture. With a pair of AR glasses that support displayport alt mode, you could plug in your glasses and sit with proper posture, your screen displayed in front of you as a virtual 40" display, while you touch type on your laptop sitting on the food tray. Perhaps you're in bed and want to watch a movie. You could pop on the glasses, plug in your phone, and enjoy while while fully reclined, achieving the most comfortable least effort movie viewing experience. Maybe you're traveling and staying in hotels where you want to get some work done. Programming on tiny laptop screens sucks if you're opening more than 2 files at a time, but what if you could just pop on your glasses, plug them into your laptop, and program on a virtual 40" display?
My understanding is the current tech is not sharp enough for serious productivity, is too heavy for extended wear, and has a short life due to overdriving tiny OLEDs, so I'm not ready to purchase one yet. But some day those problems will be solved and I'm absolutely going to jump on that.
sunrunner 2 hours ago [-]
The thought of an airport full of people all seated with perfect posture, all looking ahead but not really seeing, tapping away at their oh-so important work, feels both worse than the current status quo but also somehow no different. Maybe it’s the posture thing.
mrandish 3 hours ago [-]
As someone who's been avidly following and sampling VR/AR since the 90s, in recent years I've changed my opinion. While I'm not as confident as you seem to be, I do now think it probably never goes into widespread all-day consumer use. Although, I do believe certain gaming, entertainment and workplace use cases will become much more common.
mintplant 2 hours ago [-]
I want an HUD mini-map that displays directions for navigation. That solves an actual problem for me (having no sense of direction).
whimsicalism 3 hours ago [-]
oh i think we will see voice becoming a much more popular interface in the very near future, now that it’s actually getting very good
haijo2 2 hours ago [-]
Highly doubt it. As a species we have gotten accustomed to talking through text as opposed to voice/audio over time.
People prefer it. Pure and simple.
sunrunner 34 minutes ago [-]
I think it's helpful, perhaps even necessary, to differentiate between different kinds of text.
Let's start with text intended to convey information. Good documentation-type text that acts as a one-way communication channel is an example of this. A small number of writers and contributors to something that can be read by thousands or more can be incredibly powerful and can be incredibly information dense and valuable if written well.
Text intended to entertain? Well, that's just art and people will choose to engage in that way when they prefer the medium itself, so that's really just personal preference and enjoyment.
Text as the de-facto replacement for voice/face-to-face feels like something that's been forced into a lot of situations now. It's beneficial (or really required) when it's the only option such as for long-distance communication, and favours slow-changing content. But I think in a lot of cases we've been forced into having to use text over voice for raw human communication (thinking of course about remote working now).
I think text has a lot going for it. It can be incredibly information dense, it's easier for writers to take time to prepare something well, it's persistent, it's searchable, it's easy to make available historically. But I'm not convinced that it's a blanket replacement in every way. As the equivalent of voice it's also just slower.
As for video telephony, well David Foster Wallace had a bit to say about that [1]
Then how come in face-to-face interactions people generally communicate using speech rather than text?
Clearly there's a disadvantage to using text in that situation, and I think it's that it almost always takes longer to express thoughts/intents using text. ISTM a sufficiently advanced computer voice interface would have the same advantage.
haijo2 39 minutes ago [-]
People communicate with their friends more over text than in person.
Am I really having to explain basic stuff like this? Lmao.
sunrunner 32 minutes ago [-]
Because it allows people to communicate when they're not in close physical proximity. Would you rather go out to dinner with friends and just speak to each other or sit there and type your conversation out in a WhatsApp group chat?
It's a convenience/necessity thing, pure and simple.
haijo2 2 hours ago [-]
Yes it is highly economically inefficient.
People seem to underestimate how wonderful it to be able to touch and tap an interface and how minimal effort is exerted.
giobox 3 hours ago [-]
I'm not so sure there is no problem to be solved. Being able to see the world around me annotated visually has massive potential - I for one would love the Google Translate camera feature that lets you translate text seen by the camera in real time and overlay the translated text on the document but built into a pair of normal looking glasses, freeing my hands etc.
While I accept some will take issue with calling it an "AR device", the current Meta RayBans have sold very well with major YoY growth and I only expect them to get more popular as they get more capable and add more "AR"-esque features in future versions. I see them already as a first step on road to real AR products much, much more than I do the Quest line.
varispeed 3 hours ago [-]
They don't let you record phone calls (at least in my country, call recording is blocked), but they'll let people look up other people etc?
I guess as long as the data is shared with three letter agencies and data mills, then why not.
With phone calls that would be tricky, so at least they disabled it to protect scammers.
When that feature did work, I was able to get money back from insurer as their sales person misrepresented the policy I paid for. I had it recorded and they had to pay up.
With call recording no longer available, I don't do any calls if I don't have a tablet with me to record it.
3 hours ago [-]
cyanydeez 3 hours ago [-]
battery usage will continue to limit the commercial->public usage.
sunrunner 2 hours ago [-]
It doesn’t seem to stop people being okay with <42 hour smart watch charges, so I’m not so convinced this will be the limiting factor unless you need the prescription version of these (which rules them out for me, I’m happy with my dumb-glasses that I’ve never had to plug in to anything)
cyanydeez 1 hours ago [-]
no ones playing games, recording videos, taking pictures or doing any kind of immediate activity with smart watches.
Those sensor input-only arn't what would push people to want whole-ass screens & VR overlays. It's weird you think there's a similar power profile to a smart phone and a smart watch. They are not a gradient in use cases.
sunrunner 1 hours ago [-]
> no ones playing games, recording videos, taking pictures or doing any kind of immediate activity with smart watches.
This is a good point, but my point was more that if a smart watches are doing less than a smart phone and people still seem to be happy to have to charge them everyday, I'm not so convinced that having to fast-charge a set of AR glasses for time-limited use would put people off if they felt it was useful enough.
For context, I was imagining that most of the AR/VR overlays would be time or context dependent. Perhaps when travelling to aid with directions or on a commute for entertainment.
Are people really going to be walking through life with an always-on HUD? If they are then yes, completely fair point around battery usage. Perhaps once a global network of wireless charging is fully operational this will be a problem of the past...
cyanydeez 43 minutes ago [-]
Right, they're _passive_ devices that don't need active engagement.
That's not a good case to make that active devices that consume orders of magnitude more power are going to make it on the market if they can't last 8-10 hours on a charge doing active things.
Maybe people misunderstand just how much power AR/VR require and think it's similar to wireless ear phones.
There's just a huge band gap in power requirements. EVs have similar issues in the consumer confidence when it comes to matching range requirements.
No matter how much on paper you explain to people what they actually do vs what they want to do, the salesman needs to sell at what they want to do.
SUVs and Trucks are similar, except inverse: people want to do a bunch of things, but what they actually do is very little. They'd still never drive a small vehicle just because it gets them good range.
So, when I say the tech/battery isn't there for the consumer, it's recognizing the consumer is an idiot, and the nerd-requirements are different than average consumer expectations.
lovich 4 hours ago [-]
> Anyway, once it goes mainstream and people see what we've done to ourselves, maybe it will open people's eyes and we'll start fighting for our privacy again.
lol
dottjt 2 hours ago [-]
Perhaps this is an aside, but for my anniversary my partner bought me a pair of JBL glasses that also act as headphones.
Absolutely love them. They're not absolutely essential, but they're a nice-to-have and they're a lot more convenient than putting in ear buds.
The problem though is that I would never have thought to ever buy them myself. I feel this way about these AR glasses.
Nice hardware. What a shame that any product that runs a Meta platform is completely dead to me.
adamors 4 hours ago [-]
My thoughts exactly, looks nice, waiting for a non-Meta company to move into this space so I can try it out.
username135 3 hours ago [-]
Thirded
sunrunner 2 hours ago [-]
Fourthed. Or should that be Forth’ed, as this is HN after all.
ranger_danger 5 hours ago [-]
Since the article didn't seem to mention... can someone explain why this is newsworthy? My smoothbrained self just doesn't get it.
modeless 4 hours ago [-]
The Meta Ray-Bans have been extremely successful for a completely new consumer device form factor. But they don't have a screen. Meta is releasing new glasses with a screen and this is a look into the display technology they are using. It is "newsworthy" for tech people who are interested in the development of new technology in displays and optics, and new computing devices more generally.
This is the kind of content HN was made for, much more so than the Israel/Gaza or Bertrand Russell stories I see on the front page right now for example.
throw10920 4 hours ago [-]
Periodic reminder to flag submissions that are off-topic, and comments that break the guidelines. HN is mostly moderated by users - dang and tomhow don't do as much moderation as you might think.
Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago [-]
> The Meta Ray-Bans have been extremely successful for a completely new consumer device form factor.
Do you have any sources on them being a successful product by any measurable standard? I honestly wasn't aware that they were even being sold, and I'm sure I don't know anyone that owns a pair. I'm not exactly their target market, but I think at least some in my social circle are.
nickthegreek 2 hours ago [-]
over 2mil sold since oct 2023.
haijo2 2 hours ago [-]
.... thats nothing. Id hardly call that a success when you consider Meta's resources for marketing.
Google is also finding that blasting YT with ads of Google Pixel does not work very well.
palata 2 hours ago [-]
To be honest the best adverstisement for the Google Pixel series is GrapheneOS :-).
davedx 3 hours ago [-]
My friend in England has a pair. They’re selling extremely well
adhamsalama 3 hours ago [-]
My mate Paul says they're not.
_giorgio_ 2 hours ago [-]
Thanks for posting, your comment was informative and didn't contain hate and boring tropes.
jamiek88 4 hours ago [-]
2 million sold in three years is hardly ‘extremely successful’.
paxys 3 hours ago [-]
Compare it to devices with similar form factors or use cases sold by competitors:
- Snapchat - has been trying for a decade and has sold ~220K Spectacles.
- Amazon Echo Frames - Reuters estimated less than 10,000 units sold.
- Humane AI Pin - the less said about it the better.
- Google Glass - neat but way ahead of its time, and barely made it to consumers before being quickly discontinued.
- Hololens/Magic Leap - both duds.
- Lengthy list of startups with smart glasses and other wearables that have gained no traction.
Meta glasses are noteworthy because there's finally a company making an AR wearable catch on among a mainstream audience.
rpgbr 3 hours ago [-]
Or they are all failures, including Meta’s…?
IshKebab 3 hours ago [-]
Well let's just agree to call it "the most successful smart glasses ever by a long way".
paxys 2 hours ago [-]
The original iPhone sold 1.3 million units in its first year. I suppose you consider that a massive failure as well?
3 hours ago [-]
3 hours ago [-]
modeless 3 hours ago [-]
It is "for a completely new consumer device form factor"
devmor 3 hours ago [-]
New? “wearable camera with headphones” is not exactly groundbreaking.
Even a new model with a screen would only be semi-new, other AR glasses have existed for over a decade - with Apple releasing a consumer-focused product last year.
modeless 2 hours ago [-]
Vision Pro is the same form factor as Meta's glasses in the same sense that a semi truck is the same form factor as a moped.
justapassenger 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
0x303 4 hours ago [-]
My understanding is that this specific type of lens projection technology hasn't been available at the consumer level before, and is a step up from previous AR approaches.
Noteworthy because it's an interesting extra technical insight about a soon to be announced Meta product, if that's your kind of thing
bee_rider 5 hours ago [-]
The site’s “about us” page appears to be lorem ipsum, so
I guess it is probably just somebody’s blog. Showing up there doesn’t make it necessarily newsworthy I guess.
Lumus is just a company. So “Lumus waveguide” doesn’t seem to tell us much other than the supplier.
But I found his blog a couple years ago and have been reading it ever since. Karl follows VR/AR display tech obsessively, goes to all the shows/conferences and talks with all the companies - then does highly technical, in-depth write-ups of what's new and notable - which often includes his unvarnished opinions. His blog is read by basically everyone in the industry, so all the companies give him briefings and demos despite the fact he'll call it like he sees it. Which is why he's pretty much my go to source when any new VR/AR display tech gets announced.
Even more valuable to me, he'll mention when companies are lagging or falling short of expectations and he'll even speculate about where things could (or should) go. His blog is basically like having a buddy who's an expert industry insider who'll tell you what he really thinks over a beer - which is pretty invaluable if you're someone who's interested and technical but doesn't follow this space that closely. That doesn't mean Karl's opinion is always correct but it is certainly well-informed and usually supported with technical data - although he did say this post was just a quick note that a video was leaked. He'll probably have a real post after it's announced and a deep dive once he gets his hands on one.
Interesting fact: Karl's career was as a chip architect. He designed key parts of the the Texas Instruments 9918 - the first general purpose video display processor which was used in dozens of 80s computers and game systems including Sega Master System (and coined the term "sprite"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMS9918https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_%28computer_graphics%29https://kguttag.com/2025/07/01/tms9918-the-first-sprite-chip... So yeah, he's just "some random retired guy with a blog" but a guy with 150 patents and dozens of published technical papers. But being some random retired guy with a blog, he makes little effort to be accessible to first-time visitors or do design, marketing, etc. You just have to read-in and when you do, you pretty quickly figure out this guy knows his stuff.
ericskiff 5 hours ago [-]
Folks have been predicting that the next big shift in computing will be onto glasses that we wear and away from our phones.
The tech just hasn’t been there yet and most of the devices that do this are heavy clunky and hot
Meta is investing billions to get out ahead of this shift and to own the entertainment and data (and thus advertising) layers that sit on top of the real world through these glasses
The rumor mill is abuzz that Facebook finally making a play for it in the next set of smart glasses after a few years of sticking to VR headsets and audio/camera only glasses
adrr 4 hours ago [-]
Why do they call the smart glasses when they just send everything to the smart phone? Nothing is done on device.
delecti 4 hours ago [-]
They're also called smartwatches, when most of them are pretty useless without a phone. Even if they offload everything to the phone, they're still much "smarter" than normal glasses, which just sit there doing nothing but correcting vision.
withinboredom 4 hours ago [-]
You know, I never thought of this until I took my phone into a repair shop. I was just like “give me a call, I have my watch.”
Two seconds after I walked out … I was like, “oh, that’s not going to work…” so I just sat around for an hour.
adrr 3 hours ago [-]
If you have wifi calling enabled on your mobile account and your watch has wifi connection, you can receive calls to it. Or you can get a watch that has mobile data connection.
wmeredith 3 hours ago [-]
It's a marketing term not a technical term
sqircles 4 hours ago [-]
The "old man yelling at the sky" part of me can only hope the side effects of something like this gaining traction might be that physical-world advertisements fade away.
wmeredith 3 hours ago [-]
I'd love ad-blokcer in my glasses. Replace every billboard I see with fine art.
sunrunner 2 hours ago [-]
They’ve actually had this cool feature at art galleries and museums for quite a while now ;)
privatelypublic 3 hours ago [-]
Or dad jokes.
actionfromafar 4 hours ago [-]
Facebook is trying so very hard to be Innovative Online Industries.
Mr_Eri_Atlov 4 hours ago [-]
"I get that reference."
Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago [-]
And that's the whole book
actionfromafar 3 hours ago [-]
No deep insights there, but it was a beautiful romp while it lasted :)
Anyway, once it goes mainstream and people see what we've done to ourselves, maybe it will open people's eyes and we'll start fighting for our privacy again.
"Gargoyles are no fun to talk to. They never finish a sentence. They are adrift in a laser-drawn world, scanning retinas in all directions, doing background checks on everyone within a thousand yards, seeing everything in visual light, infrared, millimeter wave radar, and ultrasound all at once. You think they're talking to you, but they're actually poring over the credit record of some stranger on the other side of the room, or identifying the make and model of airplanes flying overhead. For all he knows, Lagos is standing there measuring the length of Hiro's cock through his trousers while they pretend to make conversation."
So, the average Zoom call in 2025?
How am I meant to opt out of this? A device that broadcasts an (inevitably ignored) do not scan signal? CV Dazzle? Am I resigned to just never leaving the house again?
For now I’m hoping that the major factor against people adopting this is that you’ll look like a wanker. I’m not sure what to do once that becomes the norm though.
My understanding is the current tech is not sharp enough for serious productivity, is too heavy for extended wear, and has a short life due to overdriving tiny OLEDs, so I'm not ready to purchase one yet. But some day those problems will be solved and I'm absolutely going to jump on that.
People prefer it. Pure and simple.
Let's start with text intended to convey information. Good documentation-type text that acts as a one-way communication channel is an example of this. A small number of writers and contributors to something that can be read by thousands or more can be incredibly powerful and can be incredibly information dense and valuable if written well.
Text intended to entertain? Well, that's just art and people will choose to engage in that way when they prefer the medium itself, so that's really just personal preference and enjoyment.
Text as the de-facto replacement for voice/face-to-face feels like something that's been forced into a lot of situations now. It's beneficial (or really required) when it's the only option such as for long-distance communication, and favours slow-changing content. But I think in a lot of cases we've been forced into having to use text over voice for raw human communication (thinking of course about remote working now).
I think text has a lot going for it. It can be incredibly information dense, it's easier for writers to take time to prepare something well, it's persistent, it's searchable, it's easy to make available historically. But I'm not convinced that it's a blanket replacement in every way. As the equivalent of voice it's also just slower.
As for video telephony, well David Foster Wallace had a bit to say about that [1]
[1] https://ochuk.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/my-favorite-pieces-of...
Clearly there's a disadvantage to using text in that situation, and I think it's that it almost always takes longer to express thoughts/intents using text. ISTM a sufficiently advanced computer voice interface would have the same advantage.
Am I really having to explain basic stuff like this? Lmao.
It's a convenience/necessity thing, pure and simple.
People seem to underestimate how wonderful it to be able to touch and tap an interface and how minimal effort is exerted.
While I accept some will take issue with calling it an "AR device", the current Meta RayBans have sold very well with major YoY growth and I only expect them to get more popular as they get more capable and add more "AR"-esque features in future versions. I see them already as a first step on road to real AR products much, much more than I do the Quest line.
I guess as long as the data is shared with three letter agencies and data mills, then why not.
With phone calls that would be tricky, so at least they disabled it to protect scammers.
When that feature did work, I was able to get money back from insurer as their sales person misrepresented the policy I paid for. I had it recorded and they had to pay up.
With call recording no longer available, I don't do any calls if I don't have a tablet with me to record it.
Those sensor input-only arn't what would push people to want whole-ass screens & VR overlays. It's weird you think there's a similar power profile to a smart phone and a smart watch. They are not a gradient in use cases.
This is a good point, but my point was more that if a smart watches are doing less than a smart phone and people still seem to be happy to have to charge them everyday, I'm not so convinced that having to fast-charge a set of AR glasses for time-limited use would put people off if they felt it was useful enough.
For context, I was imagining that most of the AR/VR overlays would be time or context dependent. Perhaps when travelling to aid with directions or on a commute for entertainment.
Are people really going to be walking through life with an always-on HUD? If they are then yes, completely fair point around battery usage. Perhaps once a global network of wireless charging is fully operational this will be a problem of the past...
That's not a good case to make that active devices that consume orders of magnitude more power are going to make it on the market if they can't last 8-10 hours on a charge doing active things.
Maybe people misunderstand just how much power AR/VR require and think it's similar to wireless ear phones.
There's just a huge band gap in power requirements. EVs have similar issues in the consumer confidence when it comes to matching range requirements.
No matter how much on paper you explain to people what they actually do vs what they want to do, the salesman needs to sell at what they want to do.
SUVs and Trucks are similar, except inverse: people want to do a bunch of things, but what they actually do is very little. They'd still never drive a small vehicle just because it gets them good range.
So, when I say the tech/battery isn't there for the consumer, it's recognizing the consumer is an idiot, and the nerd-requirements are different than average consumer expectations.
lol
Absolutely love them. They're not absolutely essential, but they're a nice-to-have and they're a lot more convenient than putting in ear buds.
The problem though is that I would never have thought to ever buy them myself. I feel this way about these AR glasses.
This is the kind of content HN was made for, much more so than the Israel/Gaza or Bertrand Russell stories I see on the front page right now for example.
Do you have any sources on them being a successful product by any measurable standard? I honestly wasn't aware that they were even being sold, and I'm sure I don't know anyone that owns a pair. I'm not exactly their target market, but I think at least some in my social circle are.
Google is also finding that blasting YT with ads of Google Pixel does not work very well.
- Snapchat - has been trying for a decade and has sold ~220K Spectacles.
- Amazon Echo Frames - Reuters estimated less than 10,000 units sold.
- Humane AI Pin - the less said about it the better.
- Google Glass - neat but way ahead of its time, and barely made it to consumers before being quickly discontinued.
- Hololens/Magic Leap - both duds.
- Lengthy list of startups with smart glasses and other wearables that have gained no traction.
Meta glasses are noteworthy because there's finally a company making an AR wearable catch on among a mainstream audience.
Even a new model with a screen would only be semi-new, other AR glasses have existed for over a decade - with Apple releasing a consumer-focused product last year.
Noteworthy because it's an interesting extra technical insight about a soon to be announced Meta product, if that's your kind of thing
Lumus is just a company. So “Lumus waveguide” doesn’t seem to tell us much other than the supplier.
But I found his blog a couple years ago and have been reading it ever since. Karl follows VR/AR display tech obsessively, goes to all the shows/conferences and talks with all the companies - then does highly technical, in-depth write-ups of what's new and notable - which often includes his unvarnished opinions. His blog is read by basically everyone in the industry, so all the companies give him briefings and demos despite the fact he'll call it like he sees it. Which is why he's pretty much my go to source when any new VR/AR display tech gets announced.
Even more valuable to me, he'll mention when companies are lagging or falling short of expectations and he'll even speculate about where things could (or should) go. His blog is basically like having a buddy who's an expert industry insider who'll tell you what he really thinks over a beer - which is pretty invaluable if you're someone who's interested and technical but doesn't follow this space that closely. That doesn't mean Karl's opinion is always correct but it is certainly well-informed and usually supported with technical data - although he did say this post was just a quick note that a video was leaked. He'll probably have a real post after it's announced and a deep dive once he gets his hands on one.
Interesting fact: Karl's career was as a chip architect. He designed key parts of the the Texas Instruments 9918 - the first general purpose video display processor which was used in dozens of 80s computers and game systems including Sega Master System (and coined the term "sprite"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMS9918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_%28computer_graphics%29 https://kguttag.com/2025/07/01/tms9918-the-first-sprite-chip... So yeah, he's just "some random retired guy with a blog" but a guy with 150 patents and dozens of published technical papers. But being some random retired guy with a blog, he makes little effort to be accessible to first-time visitors or do design, marketing, etc. You just have to read-in and when you do, you pretty quickly figure out this guy knows his stuff.
The tech just hasn’t been there yet and most of the devices that do this are heavy clunky and hot
Meta is investing billions to get out ahead of this shift and to own the entertainment and data (and thus advertising) layers that sit on top of the real world through these glasses
The rumor mill is abuzz that Facebook finally making a play for it in the next set of smart glasses after a few years of sticking to VR headsets and audio/camera only glasses
Two seconds after I walked out … I was like, “oh, that’s not going to work…” so I just sat around for an hour.