Is it not currently always available on the phones we're carrying?

Do you strap your phone to your face?

No, but like many people I've seen while travelleing and hitting a bunch of tourist spots this past summer, I do openly carry my phone in my hand, and I'm in a sea of people doing the same. And if I'm commuting to work, I'm reading on my phone, if I'm in the waiting room at the doctor, I'm reading on my phone. My phone is always out and so is everyone else's.

Anyone could be filming at any time with their phones and go unnoticed, so I'm not sure what glasses are actually enabling.

It's intentionally a camera that doesn't need to be held and it matches the the POV of the wearer. Where has Meta said it's intentionally designed to be hidden?

No it looks like a pair of glasses.

People who don't know these "Meta glasses" exist (and they shouldn't need to), would have no idea that the thing is even capable of recording.

It's subterfuge and while you could argue that this subterfuge was "unintentional", but imho that's mincing words, and also given that it's Meta, not entirely in good faith.

Can I assume that you have good enough eye sight that you don't need to wear glasses if you choose to? Because as somebody who is absolutely dependent on glasses as a serious aid, it leaves a very bad taste they are literally hiding the recording device in a disability aid.

I first needed glasses in 4th grade. There hasn't been much time I can remember in my life where I haven't required them to function normally. Save for like, walking to the bathroom in the middle of the night.

I don't think making them glasses is "gross". It seems like a natural evolution of cameras to me. Even before Google Glass they were thrown around as an idea in scifi for decades. It's cool to me, but I understand public opinion isn't with me, and I'm fine with that.

Does Meta have a reputation about being honest about what it's doing? This is the company that just lost a $17 billion lawsuit for endangering children.

Asking genuinely: what are you saying? Do they intend to use the cameras for evil, and the physical form enables them beyond how they are currently enabled by iPhones and non-iPhones now?

Are you asking if people intend to use pervert glasses for evil?

I am asking if Meta intends to do so. And to the new question you've added, I guess my question back is "why not just ban cameras from smartphones if they can be equally used for evil"?

It's already possible for people to surreptitiously record/snap on their phones in their hands today, because walking around with your phone in your hand is common. What additional evils are the glasses enabling, if your stance is that they are evil? Or why aren't phone cameras evil?

Just looking for a consistent principle here. First it was "Meta is evil" and then you switched to "the public is evil and Meta is enabling them with clear intention". If the second is true, then you must have clear stances on the current popular technology that everyone owns already.

We already have thousands of videos made by way more hostile people, who test the patience of people in public and even get themselves occasionally arrested, and they're very obviously holding cameras and shoving those cameras in people's faces.

I'm not sure how it follows that glasses will encourage more of that behavior.

From a shadow-of-its-former-glory-20-years-ago company to a budding industry reliant on dollars from outside Canada?

Considering the most important parts of the Duo are the screen and the hinge, yes it's a first generation device.

They bought that stuff from Samsung, and Samsung has been doing it for a while now. So no, the screen and hinge aren't really first gen.

The screens are made by Samsung, but aren't designed by Samsung. Samsung's display and their phone division are completely separate.

React Native and Flutter are way more popular than KMM/CM, and yet both have struggled to support even small iOS visual changes in a timely fashion.

This is ignoring the fact that developers who choose these cross-platform frameworks don't seem to care much about quality and general polish.

It only proves just how hard people’s lives were in order for them to prefer actual revolution over the status quo.

What is useful marketing in saying "we could have made more money but accidentally didn't"?

They literally announced the products early and profiting on this coverage.

So is the news outlet that is speculating for clicks.

For sure... Just that wasn't the argument.

So are video games. The GTA6 pricing controversy has been really confusing, this is one of the cheapest games of its story/depth size in all video gaming history.