this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026

575 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

86633 readers

3535 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

575

Meta is adding ridiculous ‘rate limits’ and a soft paywall to its smart glasses (www.theverge.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by Wispy2891@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

158 comments fedilink hide all child comments

TL;DR: you now need to pay a $20/month "meta premium" subscription to use a 100% offline feature that runs on your own malware-ridden smartglasses.

If you don't subscribe, you can use the feature that is already included in the hardware that you already paid for 3 hours each month

The now-paywalled feature boosts the voice of the speaker in front of you, something that even low-end ANC earphones are doing now. 5 minutes of free usage per day is basically nothing.

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] vocornflakes@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Meta's finances must be in the shitter to be enshittifying a premium product.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Landless2029@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I got a pair of meta glasses for free...

Still in the damn box. Not touching it.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago

Finding ways to make an awful product even worse.

[–] cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago

Good. Enshittification of the panopticon goggles.

[–] brave_lemmywinks@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe they can occasionally block your view with ads to unlock this feature...

I love the idea behind this tech and it seems one of the more useful tech evolutions, but I'm aware this is a privacy nightmare...

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I see regulation coming for these things very soon. Most people hate them.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago

Yay! Another reason not to buy them!

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

People already pay these fees for everything from heated seats in their cars to online storage because their locked down garbage mobile OSes won't let them mount remote directories directly to their file system.

People are terrible at technological freedom and worse at tolerating even minor inconveniences to secure any kind of rights. This shouldn't even be SLIGHTLY surprising to someone in 2026. We're reaching the point where someone is going to make breathable air a monthly subscription fee.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

Fully support Meta killing this awful product.

[+] garbage_world@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] teolan@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Even if it's open source, it's still just a camera for creeps. An open source torment nexus is still a torment nexus.

[–] finalarbiter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd love a pair without cameras that have a HUD, though. Being able to pull up weather, camera, directions, etc. right in my field of view without looking away from what I'm working on would be cool af.

[–] Joelk111@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Honestly, if they were open source and only talked to my own servers, or were completely local, I'd love an instant replay feature eg. Your cat does something cute, you can clip it, like in a video game, and save that video. Of course, this would munch through battery, so I don't see it happening any time soon, and I don't really care to have a camera on my face otherwise.

All that said, the hud functionality is definitely what I'm most interested in. There is the worry of basically having your phone on your face all the time, but there are many times when I want to be using my phone, but it'd be more convenient if I didn't have to hold it. Eg. Watching a video podcast while doing chores. Reading books in the glasses while laying in a hammock sounds awesome, if it doesn't cause eye strain.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's a camera, like the millions of cameras that are around us every day.

If you're a creep then it's a camera for creeps. If you're not, then there are plenty of legitimate uses providing that all video is kept locally and not uploaded to Meta/Amazon/Google's servers.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

As someone with prosopagnosia (face blindness) these types of glasses would be an incredible assistive technology for myself and others like me, but even I'm aware of the significant privacy concerns and don't feel the benefit outweighs the societal risks.

[–] Betch@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Man I can't wait to see the first rube that pays 20$ a month for me to completely dismiss their existence.

[–] corey931@lemmy.wtf 4 points 3 weeks ago

people who vouched with their money for these asshole companies seriously had it coming. they are the lords of enshittification

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

good! why is anyone using these anyway?

[–] Superorbit@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

The cracks are showing. There's only so much investor money.

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Y'all still think things are priced according to how much it costs to produce or deliver them?

Idk, if it's offline it sure seems like meta can't sell data from it so that's costing them.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Delete Delete Delete

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

That means by simply connecting them to the internet you're generating around $20/month for Meta. Now how would they do that? :)

load more comments