FRESH
Hacker News
Hacker News Hacker NewsHuge kudos to Meta for breaking new ground and doing a ton of R&D/M&A to get to this point. Once MicroLED comes on a little further and the form factor shrinks this could be the next consumer electronics platform.
Silicon carbide is really interesting, we need high RI materials to make this work.
Hopefully glass 3D printing or similar will make cheap, Rx waveguides possible.
https://www.theverge.com/24253908/meta-orion-ar-glasses-demo...
Wireless compute puck. 70 degree FOV. Resolution high enough to read text. Wrist band detects hand gestures and will be used in another product.
But this is really interesting: it sounds like the display works, and it sounds like the puck is workable, and it sounds like both can squeak above the line in terms of battery life. If those things are true I may turn out to have been completely wrong.
I don't know the first thing about silicon carbide display substrate thingy yields, so I can't remark on whether or not that's a "scale will make cost acceptable", but I bet some mega geniuses at Meta think so or they probably wouldn't be showing this much.
If it turns out that I was dead wrong on this I'll be glad I was, it would be really cool if it works.
I'm curious if people think that that's worth worrying about, or if the idea of optimizing ad placement based on whether it makes your pupils respond in the desired way is the kind of thing that's only effective in sci-fi.
Reminds me of the old 80's NHS glasses in the UK (which you could get for free if you couldn't afford otherwise).
Or for those of you old enough, Brains from the old Supermarionation versions of the Thunderbird show (https://i2-prod.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8451975.ec...)
I am more likely to cruise around already logged into Google as a result of using those things, which obviously plays into their ad business, but those products that I pay for aren't vehicles for advertising and I don't think Google would ever try to make them that.
Likewise, Apple does obviously advertise some of their own services (like iCloud backup) in mildly annoying ways through their devices, but by and large I'm buying a thing from them and only to the extent that I am engaged with one of their Apps (like TV+ or Music) do they try and advertise at me.
In neither case are their platforms inherently about advertising.
Facebook just strikes me as a fundamentally different company. Even if I were to pay them for these glasses I would have no confidence that it wasn't just a gigantic suckhole being fed into their slush fund of data.
Currently at my co, seeing most day to day use out of XReal, and keen for Visor.
AR/XR/MR/VR app I'm most looking forward to is a 360 location share with the sharing user in AR, and the receiving user in VR, with additional virtual objects shared between. Orion would be great for the send side, with a few extra cameras and Vision Pro on the receive side.
The main thing letting down tech today is how open the platforms are for external developers.
The lack of projecting black I don't see as an issue, clip on something for VR (ok 70 degress isn't quite enough but getting fairly close), or just dim and use gradients for day to day work.
I think we're still at the most basic level in terms of understanding optical physics and ultra high resolution much smaller devices will come out, probably not too soon though.
Edit -- the home page says 70-degree FoV. Not bad, better than HoloLens (45-degree FoV if I recall), but perhaps not enough to turn your head to the person next to you while still having game elements persist in vision
Then you see what Facebook wants you to do with it - see screens in front of you all the time. One with Facebook's "Recommended" page, and a video of some talking neckbeard. There's a feeling of "we were promised virtual reality, and all we got was talking heads of influencers." The hardware apparently has GPS, but that's turned off. So, no Pokemon Go yet. Not even Hyperreality.[1] It's all about ads and clicks.
It can't draw dark. The workaround seems to be to dim out the world and draw light overlays, like almost everybody else. Will it work in bright daylight?
1. wireless data transfer and how that affects the performance
2. EMG: this is alright, but seems to be a bit overhyped
3. MicroLED: clearly the best display technology available, but how close is color display to consumer price levels?
4. silicon carbide: great material, interested in seeing it at scale
5. magnesium frame: super awesome to see this being pushed as wel
This link weights in 115MB. It loads a 30MB GIF for its hero image. That's from a company that was born on and from the Web. The people that brought you React.
It is incredibly clever, and you have to respect the technology, but the endgame here is horrific.
harumph. This tech is cool, but there's a worrying trend of important tech companies creating larger than life PR announcements without anything I can actually get my hands/eyes on
When I had a Note 2 in 2012, many found its size impractical or embarrassing. Acceptance came through clear utility, not just ubiquity.
For AR glasses to succeed, they need to prioritize seamless functionality. The more obtrusive the design, the higher the utility must be. Focus on a small set of functions— Loads can be done with voice, sound, and a simple visuals like 64x64 pixels. And offer a range of frame styles where the tech is noticeable but no more than an "ah, smart frames" from others.
*Edited for brevity of my run-ons
I don't personally see the appeal of hands-free as a paradigm in most cases. Do we really want people talking on and looking at Zoom as they walk around the office? Or as they drive? Or as they are out shopping? I also see ESPN and YouTube, so yeah... this thing better detect when you're moving at speed and disable video apps.
I'm just struggling to see when you would be in a setting where you should use these, that you shouldn't be using a device you already have. It's like trying to sell me on using a smartwatch to take voice calls: sure, there is exactly 1 situation I can think of where that's useful, which is getting a call when I'm out running and don't want to "lug" a whole phone with me. But I sure don't want to be wearing glasses when I otherwise don't need to (and these aren't prescription, so you are), just in case someone tries to Zoom me unplanned.
Can you imagine how goofy you'd look sitting at a coffee shop and just sort of staring into the middle distance and talking, as you take a Zoom call?
I'd be interesting in knowing what the battery life of this thing is... I get that the compute is being done on the puck, but there seems to be almost no room for battery in those lenses... And even the puck looks small to be honest... Surely no more than a couple of hours of power, likely quite a bit less.
I also wonder what the latency is like between the puck and glasses... Latency is such an important aspect of creating a convincing AR experience and judging by the video the Verge posted it looks like latency is pretty bad. I thought the reason compute for AR/VR is typically done on device is because it's the quickest and most reliable way to do it.
Which is a long way of saying that even if this generation of AR devices don’t take off, they will eventually. And they will most likely become the default way most people use a computing device. I cannot imagine a future where people prefer to hold a little black box in their hands instead of putting on a pair of glasses. In a century we may look back at the screen phone model as a curious anachronism.
> Micro LED projectors inside the frame that beam graphics in front of your eyes via waveguides in the lenses
> [requires] wireless compute puck that resembles a large battery pack for a phone
> [glasses weigh] 98 grams
> the battery only lasts about two hour
> Orion was supposed to be a product you could buy.
> $10,000 per unit [to build]
Generally, a large magnitude of value is created during "platform shifts" and they have now placed (really good) bets on VR/AR and AI (LLMs).
is about the worst conceivable decision a consumer could make, technology and oo ahh notwithstanding.
They have not only proven durably resistant to even their own tepid self-constraint, hostile to oversight, entirely willing to violate the law, and disinterested in basic moral restraint,
the story—literally today—is about Zuckerberg's now open disregard for ethical action, under the tutelage of Thiel.
I made a bet 10 years ago with a friend that VR headsets would never gain wide adoption among the general public (back when Facebook bought Oculus), and I think it's fair to say I've won this bet. With these glasses, I'm not so sure, but if I had to, I would bet against them as well. Time will tell...
The lack of any fast head movement in all the demo videos also makes me think that they did not at all solve the latency problem, and all the slow deliberate movement is to hide that.
CTRL+F-ing for "occlusion" or "latency" has zero results, further compounding the worries
Yes, you can keep improving the hardware, but you'd think we would have figured out something that is better enough in VR or AR on current hardware. Even gamers, who are notoriously interested in buying silly peripherals, care almost zero about VR gaming. Even with huge games like Half-Life: Alyx that are universally praised and part of huge franchises from AAA developers.
* Looks very cool and more natural. (In comparison, look at Snap XR Glasses)
* No wires sticking out.
* Not a huge VR headset.
* Can see what you see through the lenses for XR capabilities.
* Controllable through eyes, hands and neural interface to cover almost all scenarios without looking awkward in public.
* Integrates with an existing app ecosystem.
Orion is very promising and appears to be in the lead for mainstream XR glasses so far.
In general, it appears that everyone here misjudged and betted against Meta and Zuck when they were at $93 with calls for Zuck to be 'fired' when the stock crashed. [0] Now the stock is at all time highs.
Remember. They didn't even mention Threads. At all. It is another way for them to monetize that if they want to.
That is true founder mode and the death of Meta Platforms Inc. has been absolutely exaggerated.
For this to work I essentially have to trust Facebook to film what's in front of me whenever I wear them. Not in a million years.
edit: though I got to admit it has advanced "not hotdog" capabilities...
That's a bold claim for glasses this comically thick.
If you're interested in more normal-looking glasses with a HUD, I suggest taking a look at Even Realities G1 [1] — I have not seen them in person, but at least in photos / videos they don't scream "a piece of tech".
2. "It was so challenging that we thought we had less than a 10% chance of pulling it off successfully." Definitely a targeted message to the activist investors urging FB to stick to social media haha. Love it, and believe them 100% on the specific claim! Supposedly Apple Vision came about when they finally gave up on traditional AR (for now).
3. "Zuckerberg imagines that people will want to use AR glasses like Orion for two primary purposes: communicating with each other through digital information overlaid on the real world — which he calls “holograms” — and interacting with AI." I hope to god "AI" as a term looses steam -- basically all he's saying is that this computer will be used for computing. Yes, indeed.
4. "To demonstrate how two people wearing Orion together could interact with the same holograms, I played a 3D take on Pong with Zuckerberg... Zuckerberg beat me, unfortunately." I find it somewhat hilarious how Zuckerberg, Bezos and Elon are simultaneously some of the most powerful people to ever live, and at the same time mascots for multinational conglomerates bigger than they could ever hope to truly understand or control. Zuckerberg is obviously the best mascot out of the bunch, and this is only further proof of that.
5. Wow, the Neural Wristband is insanely cool. Just... wow. I haven't seen anyone even hinting at that, but it seems incredibly obvious in hindsight. See this exploratory paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12652-020-01852-z Hilariously, it seems that the initial consumer usecase was a $200 powerpoint remote -- props to the free market! https://wearabletech.io/myo-bracelet .
6. I feel like calling EMG "neural" is a stretch, it seems to be monitoring muscle contraction events only... Is anyone else convinced that they're intentionally using the word to prepare consumers for upcoming non-invasive EEG BCI tech, now that LLM approaches like DeWave have unlocked it? They've certainly got an uphill battle ahead of them to separate it from a) scary scifi and b) scary invasive EEG BCI like Neuralink. But it's just the obvious next step; the glasses already touch your frontal cortex, even!
That is it. I have wanted just this, for decades.
I have lived a lot of my life in places where I don't speak the local language. I have Auditory Processing Disorder and a speech impediment that, if I don't have a good 'script' to go along with, makes it very difficult for me to get by in public often. I currently live in a country where my anxiety is amplified by the fact that any mis-spoken words by me often results in straight up being berated at a faster speed than I can understand, instead of being helped. I feel like am absolute idiot every time I have to just go get something at the pharmacy or ask for something new at the bakery. I've tried for years, taking courses, to learn to listen closer and work on my grammar and vocab, but I'm aging and have just gotten worse and worse.
Most interactions would go smooth if I could just have a few key moments translated for me. I feel like this is a no brainer of tech now that we have super reliable speech-to-text in multiple languages and pretty damn good audio filtering to pickout the main converstation from background noise. I'd even let the model run on a laptop in my backpack to keep the glasses down in size to something that, again, doesn't make me look like some VR dweeb. And no cameras in the glasses staring at people making them question my motives or draining the battery. Just the essentials.
Please. I've been seeing promises of this for literally 20 years. I just need those few lines of text in ~640x200 pixels in front of me to help me get by. Fuck it, give me a 9600 bps serial-over-bluetooth to the display and make it 'dumb' and I'll write the software myself..
AR experiences on headsets and on phones have been bouncing around for years. There was a big push with new XR toolkits from Apple and Android a few years ago. Yet no one has ever produced anything more than a demo of something nifty. The one and only "killer app" remains Pokemon Go which is really just a clever gimmick. I think this is a classic solution in search of a problem.
While the tech is great, It should be affordable and usable, On the Interface
Voice - More and more, i feel like Voice is not a good interface as not many wants to speak aloud to get things done (see Alexa and Google home - only used as timers mostly) except for dictation.
Hand Tracking - We all know usable how touch screen on a laptop or big screen monitor is , the time and distance for travel with hand is too high compared to a mouse.
Eye Tracking - Seems to Lacks precision
Neural Link - Not sure how neural link is for using keyboard and stuff. Until we get neural link to read our thoughts, we may rely on keyboards and using multiple fingers are the fastest way.
Did they say what it is, specifically?
This is solidly in that category. It's a good thing they don't mean to release it to the masses, but this is going to put a negative impression if the overwhelming majority of people who actually see the thing in real life.
Just a prediction, but Meta's going to regret having people wear this in the wild.
I am a bit concerned to see advertising companies at the forefront. This is a great video that demonstrates some of the risks: https://youtu.be/YJg02ivYzSs?si=KOQD8RtLR1Il1ZQl
Or it's just muscle flex and show off?
In another category, we have PCVR and Vision Pro, which are optimized for high-end computing experiences, and compete with high-end PCs with multiple displays in terms of capability. This category pushes the boundaries of what's possible to do with computers, and has the chance to elevate productivity to a completely new level. There aren't yet any devices / software that do this, but the idea is there.
These two categories might converge into a similar form factor somewhere in the far future, but as of now they represent the polar opposites of computing experience. However, I simply don't want the "mobile" experience in my life at all, and I don't think anyone wants it.
When I'm moving or spending time with friends, I try to put away all devices, and expect everyone to do the same. Also, I hate notifications and pop ups, and definitely don't want them on my face. On the other hand, when I'm alone, I want to immerse myself in CAD, programming or games, and I want to use the most capable devices and software. Only PCVR and Vision Pro are devices which might elevate the experience beyond of what we have today.
Sometimes consumer devices don't have widespread appeal but are so useful for some groups
For example, my grandfather when basically completely blind in his 60s. When Alexa came out in his 90s it made such a different to his quality of life in his final few years.
Assuming I have the money and don't mind the looks - why should I buy these?
This would include voice interactions where possible, but i'm sure at some point i'll see people air typing in public while they type secret messages to their assistant on their virtual keyboard.
Interesting shot at the smartphone market but you need a big “wireless compute puck” in your pocket. Apple has the most powerful hardware at the moment that fits into a pocket and they’re also working on AR.
Lex: "It just feels like we are in the same room. This is really the most incredible thing I've ever seen".
Big Tech seems determined to strap a live network-connected HD video feed with sound to everyone's head.
Not that this is a bad strategy, but it's a red flag for this particular cheap arse.
I also wanted that from HoloLens and hololens2 which I worked with for a bit but both of those were just painful for me to use and I wasn’t a fan of the display
I'll post links here that could serve as a starting point:
- The microLED display panel vendor is likely to be Plessey: https://www.uploadvr.com/facebook-plessey-microled-deal/
- The waveguides are likely being produced "directly" by a contract manufacturer working under the direction of Meta's in-house team, and reporting appears to confirm that Meta is procuring the raw materials directly: "The silicon carbide waveguides are also proving challenging to procure. The material can deliver a wider field of view than the glass waveguides used in current transparent AR headsets, but it is also incredibly expensive. Further, Ma's report explained that because the material is used in military radars and sensors, the US government imposes strict export controls on it. That means glasses using it will have to be assembled inside the US, significantly raising the production cost, despite most of the manufacturing and components coming from China and Taiwan." https://www.uploadvr.com/meta-ar-glasses-lead-claims-as-mind...
One thing I don't understand is whether the current Orion announcement is actually a new announcement or is re-announcing an already publicized project. This article from 2023 talks about Orion and its 70 deg FOV in the past tense as a line of development which Meta considered but then decided to abandon after Orion in its plans for the 2027 consumer version to be called Artemis: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/19/23800228/meta-ar-glasses-... "Meta’s Artemis glasses will reportedly use a glass waveguide, a component that allows light to travel through the glasses and into your eyes, potentially limiting its field of view to 50 degrees. According to The Information, Meta had originally planned to use silicon carbide, which allowed for a 70-degree field of view. The downgrade could make it harder for Meta’s consumer-focused glasses to stand out among the competition, as both Microsoft’s second-gen HoloLens and the Magic Leap One sport a 50-degree field of view."
Maybe the hope is that with the Orion test devices, Meta can see whether people care about 70 deg vs 50 deg FOV enough to justify the costs of US-based waveguide manufacturing for the generation after Artemis?
Disclaimer: I worked extensively on Snap Spectacles for a number of years so I'm highly biased, but credit where credit is due: I believe both Meta and Snap have done incredible work in their AR glasses and I am excited to see the competition heating up. I also hope that both company's efforts here can motivate Apple and Google to get in the game instead of sitting around doing more or less nothing really interesting or adventurous while cautiously sitting on piles of cash, while life passes us by and we get closer every day to old age. For heck's sake, either one of those tech giants could privately fund a LITERAL moon base, and they choose not to. Why should we have to live in a boring world? Life is short and I'd rather we get to see some very magical tech soon, in our lifetimes, instead of the tech companies conservatively waiting around for more of Moore's Law to happen first or something. Even Magic Leap, though a colossal failure, pursued a wonderful vision - to create innocent, whimsical literal magic in people's lives - like the world of Harry Potter - in our real world.
I think we still have some room to grow there in terms of aesthetic for the majority though.
undoubtedly a progressive achievement in the field, despite it all
It's crazy to me to see people in this thread calling this "bulky". It's literally the smallest this tech has ever been! Small enough to pass for actual glasses! It has a massively wider field of view than HoloLens, despite the HoloLens being like 10x bulkier! And they somehow managed to cram eye tracking and hand tracking into the thing on top of all that? This is literally the AR future science fiction has been envisioning for years, in real life, and yet this whole thread seems to be filled with nothing but cynicism!
Pretty cool
Glasses that let you record people without their awareness / consent?
Downright creepy
I think the best play here would be to release them without any camera functionality at all, or the connotations will be that weird, sweaty guy that no one wants to sit next to on the subway (see: Google Glass).
AR is a super exciting opportunity for people who spend their day looking at complicated stuff in real life- mechanics, plumbers, electricians, architects, builders, steel fabricators. This tech is definitely coming, has some really exciting and uplifting demos, and therefore marketing should be focused at this segment.
AR is a super creepy opportunity for people who want to use these in social or family settings- it comes across as sad and dysfunctional, so its baffling that this seems to be the current focus of marketing. I wonder if they are deliberately trying to impress stakeholders/investors rather than actually trying to win over consumers?
Two more silicon nodes (36 months 2027) and these will be the same size as regular sunglasses
But I just can't muster the excitement about this sort of thing anymore, the way I used to be able to.
This is a toxin. It's going to make our teenagers sad to the point of depression. It's going to stunt their physical development. It's going to replace the warmth of human connection with a shallow surrogate that will feel like we can't do without, but never quite gets us what we really want.
Let's just each for ourselves choose not to go down this path.
Let's seek out effort instead of comfort, and let's build our reality together out there in the real world.
For me, buttery smooth animation and synchronization of the physical and projected world are table stakes.
It is not enough.
While a large improvement, those are some chunky looking glasses that I do not imagine anyone wants on their face.
I hope people become afraid to wear this kind of thing in public because someone won’t hesitate to take it off their face and put it in the bin.
It’s something straight out of a cyberpunk novel, you’re going to be walking down the street getting absolutely spammed with adds.
I’m out.
No? Then its not a platform that will get my support.
Any new device in the modern era which requires permission from a third party in order for its owners to do whatever they want with it, is not a device worth supporting.
No matter how sexy it may seem, if you need permission to do something on the device, you are not the primary customer - your personal agency is being commoditized and re-sold.
Just, no. End technological feudalism, end the hegemony.
Demand development tools which free the user-developer and the platform.
Except now, it's on my face, seeing and hearing everything I'm seeing and hearing. That's a hard no, and always would be in my home and in my life.
Now, there is yet another devices that manufactures BS before it hits our eyes.
Steer clear.
Not for the sake of planting a flag and iterating toward it, but almost like there's a grasping at a sci-fi reality that current tech can't meet and what we're seeing are a series of commercial-grade Veruca Salt tantrums.
I mean, did either company use cat-names-from-the-Man-In-Black-franchise in their product line nomenclature recently?
I just wonder at how unlikely it is to collide on a high-profile name out of all the millions of other one-word options.
The killer feature of AR is that it can be omnipresent in your FOV, which enables a whole class of apps that just otherwise aren't possible.
I would love to have a set of AR glasses. I would love to have a wide variety of features that they could enable. I'd like them to be at least as open as an Android phone is, or as open as a 2D monitor is.
Standard ports / standard wireless interfaces. Install your own software, not from an app store. Ability to use with any ecosystem.
I get that this kind of form factor is exciting, but all I really want is a Pimax with these lenses.
If Facebook (Meta) put out a below-average spec headset (think Quest 1 specs, or even worse) today, and put holographic lenses in it, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
AR is cool and all, but that's not the reason holographic lenses are exciting to me. The real reason is that they don't have a fixed focal depth. That alone is the single most significant limitation of contemporary VR.
Just imagine: No more IPD adjustment (that can never be perfect, because pupils move). No more godrays. No more stretched projection. No more prescription inserts. Holographic lenses are a leap forward, and it feels like these companies have just been sitting on it, absolutely clueless, for half a decade now.
---
Dear Billionaire Oligopolists, please stop waiting until you have completely finished designing and building the distant future, and sell what you have today.
But I'm interested to see when they release these - how non-tech people will react. Anecdotally it seems computer/internet based technology is increasingly becoming more rejected by regular people. It seems people are so sick of the internet and screens that the idea of a new screen would be so nauseating figuratively and literally that wide adoption would be unlikely. As in - these big consumer facing tech companies like Meta have created addictive software, to the point where people don't even want to use their software but feel an impulse to or have nothing better to do because we have created a world in which screens are a way of life. Surely there must be a limit to the amount of digital drugs someone can take before they become sick.
I'm not very bullish on new internet based consumer technology. Technology in other areas like transportation, energy, and manufacturing seem to be the way the next billionaires will make their money. I wonder how long the screen based social experiment will last before either societal upheaval or a mass rejection of new technology.
(no results)
On the other hand, Meta is one of the very last companies that I would trust to operate a fleet of network connected always-on cameras attached to everyone's faces. The privacy implications are pretty horrifying. Imagine if Meta decided to run facial recognition on-device and upload the results to their advertising services. Your position could be easily tracked any time you walk into the field of view of someone wearing Meta glasses without your consent.
Not to mention for users that choose to use these things voluntarily, you are giving Meta an intimate look into every waking moment of your life. You think data brokers have too much on you now, just wait.
EDIT: Looks like most innocuous comments expressing privacy concerns on this post are getting flagged. That's not how HN is supposed to work, folks.
What a weird mission statement.
But since it's meta, it's mostly negative.
edit: Oh wait, they are actually animated WEBPs, just renamed to .gif.
