When Meta introduced its AI-powered smart glasses in 2023, created in partnership with the popular sunglasses brand Ray-Ban, the launch triggered a massive wave of public concern. Reports quickly emerged of the devices being used to harass women and girls by recording them without their knowledge and distributing the videos online. Despite Meta enlistment of high-profile models like Kylie Jenner, the sister of Kim Kardashian, to promote the product this summer, the wearable tech struggled to shed its highly controversial image, with some critics dubbing the devices “pervert glasses.”
In an apparent shift, Meta is introducing a new model called the Ray-Ban Meta Audio, which completely lacks a camera. This version retains the core audio features of the original glasses, including their artificial intelligence capabilities, while removing the ability to record video or take photos. Industry experts view the release as a potential pivot in response to widespread privacy concerns, though the tech giant denies rushing the product out due to public outrage, stating that this audio-focused version has been in development for two years and comes with a lower price tag.
Ankit Brahmbhatt, the head of product for Meta Glasses, was cautious when asked if the camera-free model might eventually outsell the original version. He carefully noted that the company now offers “something for everyone” in its product lineup. The release raises questions about whether this move represents a long-term change in how tech companies view wearable AI, or if camera-free frames will simply remain a niche product for privacy-conscious users, similar to basic “brick” phones.
Public reception of the camera-equipped glasses remains deeply divided. During real-world testing on public transit and city streets in London, Glasgow, and Portsmouth, most passersby did not seem to notice the glasses. However, some individuals privately admitted they would feel uncomfortable approaching anyone wearing them, fearing that their interactions might be recorded and shared online. The device functions as an extension of a smartphone, syncing via Bluetooth to Meta’s AI application and using open speakers in the frame arms to deliver voice-activated assistance, map directions, and audio playback.
While many daily users have embraced the technology for practical reasons, others find the camera entirely unnecessary. A hairdresser expressed enthusiasm for using them to record client hair transformations, and a builder suggested they would be useful for documenting progress on construction sites. Content creators and families have also found novel uses, such as filming household chores from a first-person perspective. Furthermore, the blind and visually impaired community has praised the technology as life-changing, with users noting that the audio descriptions of physical environments and the ability to read printed text, such as restaurant menus, offer unprecedented independence.
Despite these benefits, anger over surveillance risks has intensified. Although the glasses feature a small white LED light that blinks when the camera is actively recording, a niche industry has emerged online sharing physical and digital workarounds to disable this indicator light. Meta has downplayed the scale of this issue, stating that less than 0.1% of the total frames sold globally have been physically modified or tampered with. While the parent company of Ray-Ban, EssilorLuxottica, has kept exact sales figures confidential, the scale of distribution remains significant, including a donation of 15,000 pairs to a charity for the blind in Ireland earlier this year.
The widespread distribution of these recording devices has sparked organized resistance. Liz Hunter, a tech founder and parent who launched a petition calling for strict regulations on smart glasses, argues that they pose a fundamental threat to public space. She stated that the devices should have never left the research lab, calling them a setback for privacy rights and women’s safety. While she supports keeping the glasses available for visually impaired individuals, she believes they should not be sold to the general public, asserting that regular consumers neither want nor need them.
Public pushback has also taken a technological turn, with a Polish developer releasing a mobile application called ZuckOff. The app uses Bluetooth scanning to detect nearby smart glasses and has already been downloaded thousands of times. Ben Wood, an analyst at tech research firm CCS Insight, noted that when the phrase “pervert glasses” began appearing in mainstream financial publications, it was a clear indicator of how deeply the privacy backlash had penetrated the public consciousness.
Even with the launch of an audio-only model, analysts do not believe cameras will disappear from wearable technology. Wood explained that front-facing cameras provide an invaluable stream of visual data for artificial intelligence engines to analyze and interpret, making them a crucial pillar for delivering the advanced features that tech companies envision for the future of augmented reality. The report also notes that 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. The report also notes that with the sound funnelled directly into your ear – but with fewer implications for privacy, they will have the audio functions of the original glasses – including the ability to make phone calls or play music. The report also notes that mark Zuckerberg – who wore a set at an event in California last year – predicts that smart glasses will replace mobile phones. The report also notes that we have, I think, something for everyone,” he said, choosing his words very carefully. The report also notes that and is Meta’s original vision getting further away. The report also notes that in case someone got physical: I have heard of people knocking them off wearers’ heads and smashing them in the street, i was initially nervous about wearing them in public. The report also notes that it made me wonder whether awareness of them is really as high as both Meta and anti-glasses campaigners believe.
Comments