Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Businesses Privacy Social Networks

Snapchat's 10-Second-Video Glasses Are Real And Cost $130 Bucks (techcrunch.com) 92

Long-time Slashdot reader bheerssen writes that Snapchat "announced a new product yesterday, Spectacles, which are sunglasses with a camera built into the frame." TechCrunch reports: Snapchat's long-rumored camera glasses are actually real. The startup's first foray into hardware will be a pair of glasses called "Spectacles" and will go on sale this fall for $129.99, according to the WSJ... To start recording you tap a button on the side of the glasses. Video capture will mimic Snapchat's app, meaning you can only capture 10 seconds of video at once. This video will sync wirelessly to your phone, presumably making it available to share as a snap.
The cameras will be using a circular 115-degree lens to mimic the human eye's natural field of vision, and in the Journal's article, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel remembers his first test of the product in 2015. "I could see my own memory, through my own eyes -- it was unbelievable... It was the closest I'd ever come to feeling like I was there again." The camera glasses will enter "limited distribution" sometime within the next three months, which TechCrunch believes "could end up being like Google Glass when it first launched -- officially on sale to the public but pretty hard to come by."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Snapchat's 10-Second-Video Glasses Are Real And Cost $130 Bucks

Comments Filter:
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday September 24, 2016 @10:39AM (#52953407) Homepage Journal

    I was picturing something more like Oakley's MP3 glasses, but with a super-flat little camera between your eyes. Instead it's a child's toy. They got the button on the device right (because it makes it obvious when you're recording) but they seem to have everything else wrong, including the price. That's too much for something that goofy.

    • >> they seem to have everything else wrong

      Well they did get *one* other thing right. TFS says:

        using a circular 115-degree lens

      Genius. I would have tried a triangle lens, or perhaps square.

    • Um... didn't we learn something from the abhorrence of google glass. I'd tolerate being in the room with someone wearing these as long as I knew ti was painful for the wearer to use them and put them in visible agony when they were activated. I'm thinking something like glass shard ear pieces and a 50Kv electro shock to the brain when turned on for ten seconds.

      • Um... didn't we learn something from the abhorrence of google glass.

        Yes. We did. We learned that people want to know when they are being recorded. You have to touch your glasses every ten seconds to record continuously, assuming that's even possible. I think this addresses that problem fairly brilliantly.

      • As far as I could tell, the main reason people were annoyed about Google Glass (besides the ostentatious bragging of wearing $1500 glasses) was that somebody wearing them could be taking your picture at any time, without obviously holding up a camera or a phone or wearing a lapel-pin camera or having a pen-sized camera in their shirt pocket or something clipped to their backpack straps or whatever else. These glasses still do that, just not as well as a cheap camera or phone.

        But the display inside the glas

  • "could end up being like Google Glass when it first launched -- officially on sale to the public but pretty hard to come by."

    Then will fade away as people realize they don't want to wear dorky glasses with cameras on them.

    • Then will fade away as people realize they don't want to wear dorky glasses with cameras on them.

      Plenty of people wanted Google Glass, but they were threatened and bullied by the Luddites, so they stayed silent.

      • Unfortunately, even a lot of people who weren't threatening to punch others were still put off by them. Penny Arcade summarized the issue pretty well [penny-arcade.com].
    • by Megane ( 129182 )
      Well at least they got the dorky part right this time!
    • Having at different times had fairly strong alkali (fortunately not strong enough to burn, just to hurt. A lot.) spray into my eyes in the darkroom, and picked metal shards out of the front surface of my sun glasses, I'm perfectly fine with dorky glasses for regular wear and Triplex safety glasses for when I'm actually working.

      You don't like dorky glasses? Well, they're you're eyes. Enjoy them while you've got them.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Didn't we already go through this with Google Glass? People don't want to be recorded.

    • google glass was always on recording. This is snap-button recording, like taking a photo.

    • People want to share, though. These things are going to be more successful than Glass because:

      1. They're cheaper than Glass ever was
      2. They're ugly, but ugly in a way that screams "bad fashion" instead of "I'm a cyber-creep"
      3. Snapchat is a massively-successful social network platform built around images and video. Google had... uh...

      I think we will see (and should see!) a lot of the same issues that were raised with Glass be raised with these. But with the Spectacles there's at least a clear-cut use c

  • This is the retarded, short-video version of Google Glass.

    Google Glass users were branded as "glassholes" and fittingly so, in my humble opinion.

    Also, 10 seconds seems way too short for almost any useful purpose except cranking out stupid Vine videos.

    • This is the retarded, short-video version of Google Glass.

      Google Glass could only record for a few seconds as well.

  • Does it come with a disclaimer that says.. "When you get punched in the face because of these glasses, and you will get punched in the face because of these glasses, you cannot hold SnapChat legally responsible because you are an asshat."

  • So first we had "glasshole" (asshole),
    I guess now we can have "snaphat" (asshat)!

  • by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt@nerdFORTRANflat.com minus language> on Saturday September 24, 2016 @11:22AM (#52953577) Journal

    ... whether or not somebody else records them in a public place? For fuck's sake, if they are within earshot, they are recording your audio and if they are in eyeshot, they are recording your video... the only difference is that the device that is doing the recording is their brain. When wetware becomes a thing, even that distinction to external devices such as cameras or microphones will be irrelevant. The *only* thing that really protects your privacy when you are in a public place is whether or not people are interested enough in paying attention to you.

    Obviously,. you could still prosecute people that distribute content that was recorded without permission of the subject, but I see no point to the outcries against people who might record for their own personal use, and in all honesty, are probably not actually *that* interested in you in the first place to notice you, specifically, among everything else they might be recording and actually *are* interested in.

    The only caveat to this I would suggest is that without clear signage to the effect that states that an area is being monitored or recorded, a person doing the monitoring or recording must be physically at the location the recording is occurring... I do not think it should necessarily be externally obvious that they are recording anything, however... any more than it should be required that if a person is simply observing people as they go by should be carrying sign saying that they are watching you.

    • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @11:44AM (#52953669)

      ... whether or not somebody else records them in a public place? For fuck's sake, if they are within earshot, they are recording your audio and if they are in eyeshot, they are recording your video... the only difference is that the device that is doing the recording is their brain. When wetware becomes a thing, even that distinction to external devices such as cameras or microphones will be irrelevant.

      Because currently a memory is only usable to the witness, and is often forgotten. It cannot be saved in perfect detail, duplicated (only described), or packaged and sold for monetary gain. When wetware comes to be, as you point out, these issues will need to be dealt with at an ethical and legal level, but the that's not coming as soon as you believe, I think.

      • +1

        I love how clueless these "if you have nothing to hide people" or "you are in a public place people" are. One day it will come back and bite them and they won't know what hit them.

        Just because one is a "public" place doesn't mean everyone should have everything they do and say documented for all time, to be shared with anyone at any time. Sitting at a table with someone at a restaurant, one should reasonably expect their conversations are not being recorded or have close-up video being stored, secretly.

        • by mark-t ( 151149 )

          Just because one is a "public" place doesn't mean everyone should have everything they do and say documented for all time

          The people who take exception to this should note that they,. like most other people around them, are not likely to be interesting enough for other people to even *want* to document everything they do or say in a public place for all time in the first place.

          The brain is a recording device too... the fact that we happen to consider it fallible is immaterial... you can record something us

      • by mark-t ( 151149 )

        It doesn't matter if wetware is not coming as soon as I supposedly think... I mention it to point out that if it were even hypothetically a thing, our existing objection to being recorded with devices should mean that it would be equally objectionable to simply have people *observing*... clearly this is absurd, even in an age where mind-machine interfaces are viable, and so by extension, it must be equally absurd to object to the idea of being recorded in the first place when you are in an area where someo

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree

          They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes. Sufficient measures thus taken, effective privacy is restored.

          )there's no rational basis to be worried about it

          Says you. Most people see it differently.

          When I want privacy, I go somewhere private. I step outside, however... and it's fair game.

          Says you. Most people see it differently.

          • by mark-t ( 151149 )

            If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree

            They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes

            This is assault, and illegal. Your so-called "right to privacy" does not extend to the right to beat up anybody who you think may be infringing upon it. If someone is breaking the law to infringe on your privacy, your course of action should be to report the crime, not to beat the person up.

            • by lgw ( 121541 )

              You'll find that, throughout most societies, throughout most of history, blatantly breaking core social expectations will get your ass kicked. Complaining about it to the police after the fact (who likely won't care or act) won't change that.

              • by mark-t ( 151149 )

                Beating someone else up just because they offended you is breaking a pretty core social expectation too.

                But might does not make right. There are those who believe that it does, but I'd argue that is symptomatic only of a failure in those people to use higher reasoning to draw their conclusions, and not founded on any actually morally justified grounds.

                • by lgw ( 121541 )

                  I prefer not to be carried away, thinking "but I was right" as I lose consciousness. Better to just not be a titanic asshole in the first place.

                  • by mark-t ( 151149 )

                    I'd think it's better to not be resorting to violence to resolve a violation of social protocol.

                    A person with smelly armpits might make you uncomfortable to be around too... would you beat him up if he didn't just go away when you asked him to?

                    Somebody recording their surroundings of which you just happen to be a part does not in any way suggest that the person was ever interested in anything you were doing or saying, and it is undesired *eavesdropping* that is the violation of social protocol, not ind

                    • by lgw ( 121541 )

                      I'd think it's better to not be resorting to violence to resolve a violation of social protocol.

                      You seem to be missing the entire point here. It's not about what you think. It's about what the guys at that bar you walk into wearing a camera think. And they're not reading Slashdot.

                      But they do act predictably. If you go out in a storm with no rain gear, you're going to get soaked. Don't do that. If you insist on bringing a camera around people who don't think that's reasonable, it's not going to end well. Don't do that.

                      How you feel about that is about as important as how you feel about the weathe

                    • by mark-t ( 151149 )

                      If you insist on bringing a camera around people who don't think that's reasonable, it's not going to end well.

                      Only because people believe themselves to be more important to other people than they actually are... the hypothetical wetware situation illustrates that perfectly, where it is clear that even it were possible to upload everything that person sees with their own eyes into a computer, people would not immediately take offense to other people being around them... the problem isn't really recording,

            • It is illegal to assault you and I'm not even sure I have a right to privacy. But I will first threaten you, and then follow through on the threat, if you are a glasshole and in the same room as me. I will also pull a cigarette out of the mouth of someone smoking near a pregnant woman who is asked to extinguish it and refuses, even though that is "assault" as well. I do both these things in the name of common decency, a notion usually lost on the insistent close-quarter smokers and glassholes. And both thes
              • by mark-t ( 151149 )
                It's ironic that you'd claim to be acting in the name of common decency while invoking indecent violent behavior.

                Let us invoke a hypothetical situation, however, to briefly consider why recording you in a public place should not be a problem. imagine that wetware is a real thing, and it is possible to transfer memories to a computer with full and vibrant video and audio... Lossy digital recording is possible today, so any imperfections in human memory are immaterial. In such a socieity, if you didn'

    • No, people are not interested in 'you'. They are interested in that 0.5 seconds when you make the silly face when you miss the football thrown by your buddy.
      This, they will then make a meme out of.

      With no permanent record, that 0.5 sec would be totally unremarkable, not noticed, or long forgotten. With a potential continuous recording (even if only 10 secs at a time), they can review later, and extract those 2 frames where you look absolutely ridiculous.
      These glasses just move the recording from a camera
  • by Ingo Ruhnke ( 3575189 ) on Saturday September 24, 2016 @11:27AM (#52953595)

    One thing with social media is that people seem to post a lot more pictures of themselves (third person camera) than they post about experiences they were having (first person camera). Meaning video glasses point essentially in the wrong direction, as they show what the user sees, but not the user itself. Selfiesticks seem to be more in tune to how people actually use social media.

    Either way, the 10sec restriction makes those glasses a rather limited gadget without much use outside of Snapchat.

    • I thought the main function of images in social media was showing everyone a picture of your lunch.

    • Either way, the 10sec restriction makes those glasses a rather limited gadget without much use outside of Snapchat.

      Since they're entirely built with Snapchat as the exclusive use case, that's not really a design flaw.

      You've got an interesting point with the 3rd-person versus 1st-person experience, but it's not impossible to make engaging 1st-person content, assuming you're doing things a person would want to watch in the first place. Google Glass was an abomination, but some of the fashion-shoot footage that came out of the early demos was still pretty fun to watch. If you're out at a party with friends (who I might a

    • by twokay ( 979515 )
      If you watch the advert linked in TFA it's entirely parents filming their kids. The only people i know using snapchat are teens and adults that still behave like teens and have no interest in kids or a family. I guess asking teens to drop $100+ on toy glasses is a bit much, so they needed another angle.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Can they capture the full wind-up and followthrough of SnapChat glasses being slugged off someone's face?
  • Yeah, because strapping a camera to the head of American youth could not go wrong in any way. I say 2 months after wide availability before the first lawsuit. Maybe less.
  • Before we were born there was a fascinating industry around stereoscopy. Stereographers would travel the earth snapping 3D images of interesting sights that could be viewed back home in a simple device similar to Google Cardboard. Stereo projections of still images are fun, but moving images in stereo can be breathtaking.

    This Spectacles device should have two cameras for stereo. This is a public announcement of the idea, so don't try to patent it subsequently.

  • by dohzer ( 867770 )

    Why is that guy in the photo wearing women's glasses?

  • Something new in gargoyle fashion, coming our way.

Earth is a beta site.

Working...