• atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Smartwatches don’t have cameras for the most part, smartglasses don’t need them either. Also a camera isn’t required for audio translation.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      I meant text translation obviously. You don’t need glasses for audio.

      And yeah, smartwatches don’t have cameras. They aren’t doing anything that needs them. AR, by definition, requires it to know about its environment. It needs a camera at minimum. You could have just smart glasses that can display texts or something, but AR needs cameras.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Sure. I don’t want that though. Whatever benefit smart glasses could provide can also be provided by just a phone. If you want slightly faster access, a smart watch works too, with slightly less ability for input. Smart glasses, with no camera, can only display this same information, but it’s right in your face. Also, without cameras, the only input it could have is on the side of your head, which seems horrible.

          AR has some utility I would like. Am I a fan of them putting cameras everywhere? No, so I probably wouldn’t buy a pair of AR glasses (and would discourage it of others too). Do I see the functionality? Sure, which I don’t see for smart glasses.