Original Summary

When Meta first launched its AI-powered smart glasses in 2023, in collaboration with the trendy sunglasses brand Ray-Ban, it unleashed a storm of controversy. There have been multiple reports of the devices being used to harass women and girls in particular, filming them without their consent, then sharing the footage. The image problem doesn't seem to have been cured by Meta's enlistment this summer of Kylie Jenner, Kim Kardashian's sister, as their prime model. The devices have been dubbed "pervert" or "creepy" glasses. In the UK, JD Wetherspoon pubs, a handful of major theatres, Comic-Con, some schools, and Faslane, home of the UK's nuclear submarines, have all chosen to ban them. On Thursday, Meta is unveiling a new version which does not contain a camera at all, called Ray-Ban Meta Audio. They will have the audio functions of the original glasses - including the ability to make phone calls or play music, with the sound funnelled directly into your ear - but with fewer implications for privacy. To some in the industry, it looks like an interesting pivot - a response, perhaps, to the backlash over privacy. Getty Images / Mark Zuckerberg - who wore a set at an event in California last year - predicts that smart glasses will replace mobile phones The tech giant denies that the new glasses have been rushed out in response to public anger. They say the product has been in development for two years. The audio-only version is cheaper than its camera-enabled cousins, and Meta says it has a lighter frame and better battery life. When I put it to Meta Glasses' head of product Ankit Brahmbhatt that I thought they might overtake the original camera-enabled glasses in sales, there was a pregnant pause. "We have, I think, something for everyone," he said, choosing his words very carefully. Does the release of a camera-free option represent a shift in how tech companies see the future of smart glasses? And is Meta's original vision getting further away? Or should we see camera-free glasses as a niche side-product that serves a small market - a bit like how some mobile manufacturers are now releasing internet-disabled "brick" phones for people who are tired of social media? Music, maps, and washing cars There's no doubt that smart glasses have become controversial. I was lent a pair of Meta Ray-Bans – with cameras - to try out. I was initially nervous about wearing them in public, in case someone got physical: I have heard of people knocking them off wearers' heads and smashing them in the street. The reality was that I wore them on public transport and on foot in several cities including London, Glasgow and Portsmouth, and nobody batted an eyelid. It made me wonder whether awareness of them is really as high as both Meta and anti-glasses campaigners believe. That said, some people quietly told me they would not be confident enough to approach someone wearing them even if they did spot them, for fear of the interaction being filmed and uploaded. The glasses are designed to work as an extension of your phone. They use Bluetooth to sync with a handset via Meta's AI app. They are voice-activated, with open speakers in the arms funnelling sound into your ears. The result is a bit like wearing headphones without the addition of noise-cancelling features, so you can still hear the world around you. My potentially cancellable opinion is that I found many of the glasses' features useful. Interestingly, none of them included the camera. Listening to music and podcasts on the move without having earbuds stuffed into my ears felt safer. I felt more confident about avoiding the gamut of e-bike-riding phone thieves in central London without my phone physically in my hand. Meta and BBC / Left: Meta's demonstration of a user making a phone call, with an image of the person they're talking to displayed inside their glasses. Right: Zoe Kleinman wearing a set on her commute And as someone with a pitiful sense of direction, I rely a lot on map apps. It was handy to have the directions spoken in my ears. The pay-off for this, however, was having to accept allowing the Meta AI app to know exactly where I was at all times. Meta is notorious for its hunger for personal data. When I posted about using the Meta Ray-Bans on social media, I got a bit of a hard time. Less so when I showed them to people in my everyday life. My hairdresser loved the idea of using them to record her clients' hair transformations. A builder I chatted to at the gym reckoned they would be useful on sites for recording what he was doing, either in the event of an accident or even to teach others new skills. My friend who runs said he would like to wear them on a jog. Plenty of content creators are big fans. My son borrowed them to wash my car, and was proud of his film showing me how he delicately chipped away at a stubborn bit of bird poo without damaging the paintwork (I was pleased, and happy to take his word for it). More broadly, smart glasses have been welcomed by the blind community. One user described them to the BBC as a "game-changer" because they can give audio descriptions of current locations and read out visible text like restaurant menu options. Earlier this year Meta donated 15,000 pairs to a charity for the blind in Ireland. Calls for regulation But still, anger over privacy has grown. The glasses have a blinking white LED that switches on when the camera is active, but a whole industry has sprung up around finding technical workarounds to disable that light, some of which involve taking the glasses apart. Meta says less than 0.1% of the frames it has sold worldwide have been physically tampered with. Exact sales figures are unknown, but Ray-Ban's parent company EssilorLuxottica has reported that it sold seven million last year. Liz Hunter, a tech founder and parent who has set up a petition calling for urgent new regulation of smart glasses, is furious. "They should never, ever have left the lab at Meta," she told me. "It's a real

  • 情报分类：商业与市场研究
  • 分类依据：内容涉及商业、投资或市场动态
  • 信息来源：英语新闻 / BBC News Top Stories
  • 发布时间：2026/9/24 08:50:24