The killer app for AR glasses is shipping a version without a camera installed.
There is just no getting around the social awkwardness of being a walking camera, not even getting into places like hospitals where it is questionably legal.
The functionality of something like Google Glass, or even the more basic Meta Ray-bans, are pretty desirable to a lot of people, but no one, wearer or community, wants to deal with people having a permanent camera on their face.
The first mainstream, well-built, pair of smart glasses that ships w/a version without cameras will be the first to be truly successful, I would bet on it. It's so unnecessary, you have a better camera in your pocket, people just aren't buying a need for one on their face.
I would absolutely buy a pair of Meta Ray-Bans immediately if there was a camera-free version. I know there are other people out there who feel the same or just dismiss them out of hand b/c of the camera. It's just not socially acceptable to have a face camera and may never be.
And it really baffles me why companies are so fixed on attaching cameras to everything. Just pair with my phone and I'll handle the camera with my hand, k?
If we have to get real cynical about this, just think of it this way: if you have a camera-free version then you have two product categories and can upsell people. That's good market-making for a cynical monopolistic tech company.
It still baffles me that Google wasn't just like 'here's Google Glass 2 - we took the camera out and replaced it with nothing, or maybe a projector, and painted it a different color so everyone knows it doesn't have a camera in it'.
—
— Via link