This week, at Meta’s software developers conference in Menlo Park, California, Mark Zuckerberg took to the stage with great fanfare, ready to unveil his latest groundbreaking invention: a pair of sleek glasses, complete with integrated cameras and a miniature screen subtly projected into the corner of the frame.
Zuckerberg’s presentation echoed the ambitious product launches once championed by Steve Jobs at Apple, where Macs, iPhones, and iPads were introduced as revolutionary. Meta’s CEO painted a vivid picture of these computerized glasses as the inevitable future of personal computing. Priced at $800, the new Meta Ray-Ban Display, essentially a smartphone for your face, was intended to showcase Meta’s vast technological lead. However, the initial public demonstration, and then a subsequent one, fell short, plagued by technical difficulties.
Far from the flawlessly orchestrated ‘big tent’ events that Steve Jobs masterminded, Zuckerberg’s performance garnered more chuckles than cheers. His glitch-ridden presentation quickly turned him into a viral meme across social media platforms, with tech news outlets widely ridiculing the unfortunate display.
Accompanying imagery of a screen ominously displaying ‘Live demo — good luck’ underscored the technical struggles, as Mark Zuckerberg’s live demonstrations indeed ran into glitches.
These public missteps, notably a failed video call during the presentation, severely undermined the carefully curated image Meta’s marketing team had built around Zuckerberg. For years, through polished press interviews with Meta’s leadership and slick influencer videos, the company had positioned itself on the verge of revolutionizing computing hardware, poised to challenge giants like Apple and Samsung.
In reality, however, Meta is far from achieving this grand ambition. Its smart glasses continue to occupy a niche market. Since their 2023 launch, only about two million of the $300 Ray-Ban Meta camera glasses had been sold by February. While Meta aims for 10 million annual sales by late 2026, this volume is minuscule for a company of its scale. Over the past decade, Meta has poured more than $100 billion into its virtual and augmented reality division, which encompasses these smart glasses, yet the division remains unprofitable, reporting a $4.5 billion loss last quarter—a figure consistent with the previous year.
To put this in perspective, Apple moves hundreds of millions of iPhones and tens of millions of smartwatches annually. It’s worth noting, though, that Apple’s Vision Pro headset sales are considerably lower, estimated at a few hundred thousand, contrasting with Meta’s tens of millions of Quest headsets sold.
Should smart glasses ever genuinely become a mainstream product, many believe it’s more likely to emerge from a brand with greater consumer trust. Companies like Google, which showcased a prototype powered by its Gemini AI chatbot this year, or Apple, reportedly developing its own similar hardware, are often cited as more credible contenders.
A video demonstration showed New York Times reporter Eli Tan trying out the new Meta Ray-Ban Display, where a wristband designed to detect hand gestures for app control proved inconsistent, occasionally failing to register finger swipes.
Industry analysts predict the Meta Ray-Ban Display will see limited sales for the foreseeable future. Its steep price point, combined with public hesitation about wearing a screen on their face in daily life (a concern reminiscent of the Google Glass era), poses significant challenges.
Despite these hurdles, Meta seems to be addressing some of the most persistent issues associated with wearable computers. Unlike the clunky, often off-putting designs of Google Glass and other early headsets, the Meta Ray-Ban Display offers a comfortable fit and a design that closely mimics regular glasses. Furthermore, its estimated six-hour battery life might be enough to last through an average day.
Alex Himel, Meta’s augmented reality executive, explained in an interview that the product was engineered for longevity, meticulously utilizing every millimeter within the glasses for components. The screen is also designed to power down quickly after inactivity, conserving battery.
Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s founder and CEO, was present at Meta Connect, promoting his vision. This investment is significant, especially considering Meta has funneled over $100 billion into its virtual and augmented reality division in the past decade.
However, during our own 30-minute test of the Meta Ray-Ban Display, set to hit stores on September 30, the experience proved just as unreliable as Zuckerberg’s onstage demo. A companion wristband, intended for gesture control of apps, frequently failed to register finger swipes. Meta representatives attributed these problems to congested Wi-Fi networks.
Even assuming the glasses perform flawlessly once they reach consumers, Meta faces a more fundamental brand challenge: a persistent lack of trust among its users, stemming from its history of mishandling personal data.
The inclusion of cameras in these glasses amplifies concerns about surveillance and privacy. These devices discreetly capture what wearers see and hear, with only a small, easily overlooked light indicating when recording is active. As these glasses gain popularity, privacy worries are destined to escalate, noted Carolina Milanesi, a consumer technology analyst at Creative Strategies.
Social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok have already seen backlash against influencers using the glasses to film discretely, often without consent. One viral TikTok from influencer Aniessa Navarro described her discomfort upon realizing her aesthetician was wearing Meta Ray-Bans during a Brazilian wax appointment. (The salon later clarified to a major publication that the glasses were turned off.)
Further fueling controversy, the Meta Ray-Bans garnered headlines this year when the F.B.I. disclosed that the individual responsible for driving a truck into a crowded New Orleans street had utilized the camera glasses to survey the area weeks prior to the incident.
An image highlighting the glasses’ integrated camera reminds us that their ability to subtly record surroundings could deepen Meta’s existing privacy issues.
“The issue extends beyond the privacy of users sharing their own data,” Milanesi emphasized. “It’s about the privacy of everyone in their vicinity who might be unknowingly filmed. And frankly, people simply don’t trust Meta.”
Nevertheless, Milanesi conceded that if Meta’s smart glasses manage to deliver superior performance at an affordable price, many consumers might overlook their privacy concerns in favor of a desirable product experience.
However, a quick scan of online forums and social media comments reveals a clear sentiment: many potential users express a deep-seated distrust of Meta, often stating they would consider purchasing the product only if it were offered by a different company.
Even on platforms like Hacker News, a prominent forum for tech professionals, discussions around Meta’s new glasses quickly veered into themes of surveillance and privacy, with many likening the Meta-branded product to a dystopian scenario from ‘Black Mirror.’
Ultimately, these public perceptions may hold little sway for Meta. Bolstered by its highly lucrative online advertising business, the company reported a massive $18.3 billion profit in its latest quarter. This financial might allows Meta to continue investing billions in Mark Zuckerberg’s other ambitious, yet currently unprofitable, passion: artificial intelligence, enabling them to iterate until they achieve success.
“Should we misallocate a couple of hundred billion dollars, that would certainly be regrettable,” Zuckerberg remarked on a recent podcast, referring to his AI investments. “However, for a company like Meta, I believe the greater risk lies in not pursuing these ventures aggressively enough.”