Summary
The concept of “smart glasses” burst into the mainstream with Google Glass in 2013. Since then, there have been numerous iterations of glasses with augmented reality, heads-up displays, AI, and social media connections. While cool, none of those features give me what I really want: a camera on my face.
Why a Camera on Your Face?
First of all, I should probably explain why I want a camera on my face. I’m the type of person who likes to take a lot of photos, and I don’t just take them to take them. I love looking back at old photos. Pretty regularly, I openGoogle Photosand scroll back through time to see what I was up to on this day a year ago, two years ago, etc.
I’m also a parent, so a large chunk of my photos and videos feature my son. I think most parents would agree that it doesn’t feel great to be behind a phone while you’re doing something with your kids (which is why Apple’s original Vision Pro demo video was so odd). That’s what’s so appealing about glasses with a camera built in. I could just tap the frame to capture what I’m looking at and stay present in the moment.
Speed is another thing to think about. I’m pretty good at launching the camera app quickly and snapping a photo with my phone—Android makes that easy—but there’s no question I’d be even faster if the camera was already out and pointed at the subject. All of this is to say a camera on my face would be a handy thing to have in certain situations.
Smart Glasses are Overcomplicated
Now, I’m fully aware thatsmart glasses with cameras exist. In fact,most of theminclude cameras. The problem is there’s always a lot more going on beyond the camera. I’ve yet to see an established brand release a pair of glasses with a good camera—and nothing else.
Snapchat Spectaclesare a good example. The main point of Spectacles was to take photos and videos without needing to pull out your phone. You could capture moments more easily, stay present, and keep your hands free. However, while the captured media could be exported to be used elsewhere, the videos were in a weird round shape with a white frame unless they were viewed in the Snapchat app.
Facebook’sRay-Ban Meta glassesare a somewhat similar story. You must use them with the Facebook View app that requires a Facebook account. Exporting photos and videos to your phone is better than the Spectacles, but this is a product tied to Facebook, and you’re paying no less than $300 for it. No thanks.
Some of the other top smart glasses available right now include theXREAL Air2, stuffed with augmented reality and tiny screens, the Razer Anzu, which just has speakers, and theVITURE Pro XR Glasseswith the same features as the XREAL. All these glasses are trying to do too much.
Wanted: A Good Pair of Camera Glasses
While the aforementioned smart glasses don’t appeal to me, I’m not saying they’rebad. There’s a market for all sorts of interesting gadgets—I just wish there was one for simple camera glasses. Even something like Google’s failed “Clips” camera would have been so much cooler without all the extra fluff.
If you search for “camera glasses” on Amazon, you will find glasses that only have a camera. However, they’re usually ugly, from no-name brands, and almosttoosimple. No, I do not want a microSD card in my glasses. This is why I’d love for a big tech company to tackle the problem.
How cool would it be if Google made “Pixel Glasses” with a nice camera and automatic uploading to Google Photos? I’d be just as happy if Apple or Samsung tried to pull off the same thing. I think the average person would rather have the ability to take photos without constantly pulling out their phones than strap a screen three inches from their eyes.
