Meta VR Glasses

It will be interesting to see how this product is differentiated from the Meta Ray Ban Display. They now have the line up: Meta Ray Ban Audio Meta Ray Ban Display Meta VR Glasses Meta Quest 3

• epmaybe · 8 hours ago

  This feels closer to the quest 3, so maybe consider it a successor in a way? Since meta is moving away from VR gaming, it may end up cannibalizing sales in a "good" way for the company.

• qingcharles · 8 hours ago

  On the bottom of the page it says they are called: Meta Ray-Ban Display and Ray-Ban Meta Audio Which really grinds my OCD.

Youtube video Meta released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyD_bmMy5nQ And another random youtube influencer who tried it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J8oIs1GA0o $1300 price

• crooked-v · 7 hours ago

  According to the influencer, the weight is 100 g. I have 25 g (+lenses) glasses I wear often, and even that is right on the upper edge of what's comfortable and needs almost-uncomfortable tight arms to stay steady when my head moves. And, that's all as somebody who's worn glasses all my waking hours since like age 10, complete with nose-indent calluses. Either those Meta glasses are clamping uncomfortably hard on the sides of your head all the time or they'll fall off the first time you lean forward.

  • scun · 6 hours ago

    Maybe users will develop a distinctive posture.

  • cubefox · 9 minutes ago

    Strange complaint. 100 grams is extremely light compared to every other VR headset.

• titzer · 7 hours ago

  Is it just me or do those angles deliberately obscure how thick it is lens-wise? I have a pair of X-real airs, 2 years old now, and they're pretty thick. They're 1/4th the price and basically work as a head-mounted display. Is that what this, but way fancier and more sleek?

• HelloUsername · 22 minutes ago

  > Youtube video Meta released: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyD_bmMy5nQ That video is on the page itself as well, right top

I tried VR and, as many others have said, it's a novelty that wears thin quickly. I'm amazed though at the amount of effort and corporate money that keeps being thrown at VR trying to make it a thing . It feels like, to the public, it's like some tired The Beverly Hillbillies re-run that keeps popping up from time to time.

• bottlepalm · 8 hours ago

  The younger generation uses VR a lot. It's like Nintendo in the 80s.

  • JKCalhoun · 8 hours ago

    Must be younger than my (20's) daughters then. Their crowd would rather touch grass.

    • bottlepalm · 8 hours ago

      I'm sure they touch their phones a million times more than grass.

      • deadbabe · 8 hours ago

        Touching grass is actually not that good for you. You get itchy or could have an allergic reaction.

        • bottlepalm · 8 hours ago

          Virtual reality grass is much safer, maybe that's what he meant?

          • deadbabe · 7 hours ago

            Touch glass

      • JKCalhoun · 6 hours ago

        They dumb down their phones.

  • asveikau · 7 hours ago

    Who? I have a teenager and a 9 year old and I've never heard this from anyone. I think nintendo for that generation is nintendo switch. Or roblox.

    • bottlepalm · 5 hours ago

      Gorilla Tag alone has millions of monthly active users.

    • chaostheory · 3 hours ago

      Adults understand the Switch because it’s familiar, but they didn’t understand the NES because it wasn’t familiar (Atari was a failure) One of the big complaints of online VR games is that it’s overrun by Gen Alpha children. The only mystery is why meta keeps targeting adults instead of Gen Alpha. It’s a marketing strategy that has already failed multiple times now. Judging from most of the comments here, it will continue to fail. IMO only Apple can breakthrough to adults and even they failed with AVP.

• colordrops · 8 hours ago

  It's a novelty because you had to put on a big uncomfortable headset that required wires up until recently went was really fidgety. Once you get the form factor fixed and comfortable everything will change. This looks like a big step in that direction. Too bad I don't want Meta looking through my eyes.

  • JKCalhoun · 8 hours ago

    You could be right. But I also keep hearing that excuse (since the Jaron Lanier, power-glove VR days) so color me skeptical.

  • bigyabai · 8 hours ago

    > Once you get the form factor fixed and comfortable everything will change Will it? Even if you offer people AR glasses and smartphones at the same price, I'd expect most people to pick the phone. Nobody wants to tap their glasses on a Square reader to buy coffee, or ask their specs to take a picture. The VR/AR modality struggles when OEMs rely on unique native experiences as a selling point. There's no "killer app" for VR a even decade after the original Oculus DTK. Palmer Luckey sold Oculus to go work on building cruise missiles, to give you an idea of how awful VR's prospects are.

    • colordrops · 7 hours ago

      You'd use it in conjunction with a phone, just like a smart watch. It wouldn't replace your phone.

      • bigyabai · 7 hours ago

        Smart watches aren't particularly popular, even at the sub-smartphone price point.

        • colordrops · 4 hours ago

          Not sure where you live but everyone is wearing them in LA. And they are super popular in China, especially among children who use them in place of a phone.

    • sublinear · 7 hours ago

      > Palmer Luckey sold Oculus to go work on building cruise missiles, to give you an idea of how awful VR's prospects are. I too once abandoned a bowl of cereal for a steak dinner, but that says nothing about the quality of the cereal.

      • bigyabai · 6 hours ago

        Luckey owned a cereal bar. He sold it to Zuck, who spent $46 billion and a business rebrand trying to make breakfast compete with dinner.

    • fragmede · 6 hours ago

      > Nobody wants to tap their glasses on a Square reader to buy coffee, or ask their specs to take a picture. Nobody used their cell phone to take pictures, that's what a camera is for! And music came from a Walkman. But then the iPhone came out, and the rest is history. A pair of glasses that takes pictures could very well be the future. We won't know until after it's happened though.

• khazhoux · 8 hours ago

  I no longer bother watching movies or shows on my (very big) TV ever since I got an AVP. The experience (lying down on my bed, with gigantic movie screen floating above me) is unmatched.

  • sublinear · 8 hours ago

    For that use case, why would you choose wearing anything over just having a couple of projectors in the bedroom and living room? That is far more common than owning a vision pro because it's cheaper, more comfortable, more social, etc. On the audio end of this, you can even throw in some properly righteous speakers in both rooms. All combined, this is still cheaper than or equal to the vision pro price for an objectively better movie experience. The projector image will always be bigger than your TV and speakers that expensive will rattle the walls with bass and shatter your eardrums. It doesn't matter how good earbuds get, there's no replacement for displacement (of air). Don't you like feeling the power?

    • khazhoux · 7 hours ago

      > a couple of projectors… it’s cheaper I’m not saying AVP is cheap, I’m saying visually it’s better. > more comfortable Nothing could be more comfortable than lying flat on bed with head propped up just a bit, and screen floating at 45 degrees in front of me, which I can easily reposition and resize to perfectly hit my FOV. > more social Heh, I’m not looking to socialize while enjoying a movie at home The only way a physical setup would win is righteous speakers. I suppose I could connect physical speakers, but that breaks the awesome immersion of enjoying a movie in perfect (to the rest of my family) silence. But really all I can say is that the visual experience and physical comfort (when lying down) of a movie on AVP is unparalleled, and this is not at all why I bought it, and it’s probably something one really has to experience to understand.

  • shonenknifefan1 · 8 hours ago

    I sometimes wish that I could read a book like that. But I think the reality is that it would make me tired and fall asleep.

• sublinear · 7 hours ago

  It really is a joke. Where are my AR contact lenses? It's 2026 for fuck's sake.

• krapp · 7 hours ago

  The only thing I've consistently used VR on is virtual biking/walking videos for when I'm on my exercise bike, and a Google VR app called Wander. I don't have the space for anything that can't be done sitting down and I don't have the memory to run VR Chat. I agree it's a novelty, it's never going to be the mainstream thing that replaces all existing interfaces and transforms the very concept of reality like some people want it to be. But it is fun within its niche. I think what's holding it back is price more than anything. I'm still hanging on to my Quest because it just isn't worth the money for me to upgrade, even though half the apps no longer even work (fuck you very much DeoVR.)

  • pazimzadeh · 5 hours ago

    I was just thinking, I hope meta/apple are hooking up with companies like Peloton, etc for cycling and rowing experiences

If Apple released a product with the same form factor, it would likely be a winner. The issue with Meta is that its brand is tarnished for anyone older than Gen Alpha. I don’t have hard data, but I am guessing the majority of VR users are children under their parents’ meta accounts. I’m still buying this for myself. I enjoy the private movie theater experience and turning every video game session into a decent cardio workout; I’ve lost 60 lbs with VR to date.

• qmr · 8 hours ago

  What are you doing in VR for fitness?

  • chaostheory · 8 hours ago

    The list is too long, but essentially almost every VR game will force you to move since you’re no longer controlling an avatar with buttons. You are now inside the game instead of viewing it from outside of a box, so you’re going to be moving and punching. For me the biggest calorie burners are boxing games. Beat Saber and others like Synth Riders are great too. Then there are fitness focus apps like Body Combat and even one for rowing machines. Hopefully, Meta can convince HR firms that this is a fitness device that is eligible for FSA like benefits.

  • mey · 7 hours ago

    Not sure how to date this list is, but here is one way to look at it. https://vrhealth.institute/vr-ratings/ I have found VR an easy way to get moving in a fun/low friction way at the end of the day, instead of heading somewhere else. Depending on what you are doing, it isn't going to cover everything, but moving something is better than nothing. Personally, I found Synth Riders a good way to queue up 60min continous activity that I enjoy.

Some of the key specs cause the page is rather thin on details: * Display Type: Micro-OLED * Resolution: 2412 × 2288 pixels per eye * Angular Resolution: 37 PPD * Field of View: 70° × 66° * Chipset: Snapdragon Reality Elite * Memory & Storage: 12GB RAM with 128GB internal storage (expandable up to 1TB via microSD on the puck) * Tracking & Sensors: 6DoF positional tracking, depth sensing, autofocus, 4-camera eye tracking, face tracking, and hand tracking * Passthrough: Color RGB passthrough cameras at 26 PPD * Price: $ 1300,- USD plus your data Similar PPD to an AVP at, what I as a former owner of one (alongside a Quest 2 and 3, a Magic Leap, Xreal and Viture) would call is a far more appealing implementation for actual productive work. Really wish Apple had gone down this route, have the puck incorporate an A series chip rather than shoving a M series one into the headset itself and heck, I could see such a design being doable for them back when they first launched the AVP if they hadn't forced that utterly ridiculous eye display and stupendously heavy metal body. There is, unless I am mistaken, nothing here that isn't established technology as found in the AVP, all the fancy display and lens experiments from Starburst, over Holocake to Mirror Lake seem to remain in the lab, this seems to be "just" pancake lenses plus Micro-OLED once more.

• bottlepalm · 8 hours ago

  70 degree FOV is such a deal breaker for gaming. That and the price. In a world where people already have tons of screens, monitors and TVs in their face - the practical use case for this is relegated to trains and planes. Very niche.

  • michelsedgh · 8 hours ago

    exactly i dont see the appeal or use cases other than planes or trains and stuff.

  • mey · 7 hours ago

    The form factor itself is also a killer. Couldn't imagine doing anything besides using it as large private display for 2D games. You aren't going to be moving your head around quickly with just pressure on your temples to hold it in place. Not sure where this lands functionality wise. I feel like it's most direct competition would be as a cheaper Apple Vision. You would need to pair it off with a Windows system for heavier productivity work most likely. Even though their OS is "android", it doesn't have the Google ecosystem behind it, let alone matured on that front. Media consumption on the go seems to be the other use case. So, compare them to either XREALs plugged into a laptop/phone, or Apple Vision Pro I guess.

  • NBJack · 5 hours ago

    What's worse is that, due to the motion tracking many of these devices have, you often have to enter a travel mode that disables some of the better features.

• pj_mukh · 8 hours ago

  There was mention of a DisplayPort, so is there a way to just stream your MacBook into it? Closing the lid and working in one of these would be great, but there's always a caveat that blocks this.

  • Topfi · 8 hours ago

    The Quest series supports both wired and wireless streaming, so I'd be surprised if that wasn't an option.

    • chaostheory · 3 hours ago

      From my experience, wired streaming never really worked well even with the expensive fiber optic cable.

  • bottlepalm · 8 hours ago

    You can, but the FOV is narrow so not great for multiple screens, and the focal length is probably around 4 ft so you're not going to be able to use a screen closer without eye strain.

• mohsen1 · 8 hours ago

  "100 grams" is the headline here

• porphyra · 8 hours ago

  meanwhile the Bigscreen Beyond 2: * Display: also micro-OLED * Resolution: 2560 x 2560 per eye * Angular resolution: 32 PPD * Field of view: 116°D, 108°H x 96°V * Chipset: none lol plugs into your computer * Tracking and sensors: needs base stations * Weight: 107 g * Passthrough: no * Price: $959 (+$200 for eye tracking) * needs base stations, a PC, and has a cable, and looks kinda like dorky swim goggles (but still pretty futuristic and cool) meanwhile the Steam Frame: * Display: LCD * Resolution: 2160 x 2160 per eye * Angular resolution: 20 * Field of view: 110 degrees * Chipset: Snapdragon 8 gen 3 * Memory and storage: 16GB of ram with 256GB UFS plus microSD * Tracking and sensors: inside out camera based tracking * Weight: 185 g core headset, 440 g including strap, rear battery, facial interface, and audio * Passthrough: idk * Price: $1059 for 256GB, $1299 for 1TB

  • tapoxi · 7 hours ago

    Steam Frame has black and white passthrough but it's not good enough for AR. They sell a third party's passthrough camera as an add-on though which is $130 I think and clips on the front. Since the Frame runs open Linux with KDE this is really interesting to me.

  • TiredOfLife · 4 hours ago

    With bigscreen you also need to have 2-3 tracking stations ($500-750) with stands (another $100) you need to setup everywhere you want to use it.

• busymom0 · 8 hours ago

  How is it powered? External battery? Or what's the built in battery life like?

  • dmarcos · 8 hours ago

    Battery and computer puck. There are photos on the site

    • busymom0 · 7 hours ago

      I somehow missed the pics where one of the arms had a cable attached to a battery

• dmitrygr · 6 hours ago

  > would call is a far more appealing implementation Said the guy who has not checked this thing for head-turn-to-pixels-changed latency. That is the one metric that nobody has approached the AVP on -- the one that keeps me (and many others) from being nauseous.

As long as this is mixed reality and not a clunky VR-only headset like the previous Meta Quest devices, then this far exceeds what ever the Vision Pro hype was and any other XR device in the market. This is XR for the rest of us and a worthy competitor to the Xreal.

• mey · 7 hours ago

  Not sure what you mean. The marketing video shows pancake optical stacks and specs have mentioned OLED displays. While the marketing video attempts to play up an immersive fantastical reality, the experience will function like a Quest 3 or Apple Vision Pro, where there are external cameras that then get projected onto the internal screens.

oh man playing halo and jumping off the ship and falling through the sky will feel insane with this i imagine. i just hope people have enough open space around them when enjoying the limitless expansion of VR world. DOnt want people to hurt their knees and heads and knock off their furnitures all the time.

• aranelsurion · 8 hours ago

  two weeks ago I basically punched my coffee table while trying to stab a guy on the floor in VR. My left hand still hurts. So yeah, be careful of the play area. :) Obligatory subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/VRtoER/

37 PPD is dogshit man. I understand this is quite good, but I also have something like 20/12.5 eyesight. To me, using these things feels like looking through a coarse screen door. E: For reference, I can comfortably count pixels on a 24.5" 1080p screen from a normal seated position. I've been buying HMDs since the first Oculus, and I promptly sell them to somebody else. 37 PPD is a little more than halfway to "perfect" for someone with 20/20 eyesight

• Dylan16807 · 8 hours ago

  Notably the standard resolution of 96 DPI at 28 inches is 47 PPD.

• jachee · 8 hours ago

  37PPD is triple the Index’s density. What in the world are you using as your benchmark to call 37 “dogshit”?

  • zamadatix · 8 hours ago

    Probably comparing something like a normal monitor at standard distance.

• GuB-42 · 8 hours ago

  It is all a compromise. 37 PPD is well under the standard for normal "good" eyesight (aka. "retina" in Apple marketing), which is 60 (aka. 1 arcminute). Doing more with a narrower field of view is easy, it is even cheaper. Doing more with the same or better field of view means you need more pixels and more computing power to drive them, so more expensive, heavier hardware that gets hotter and with less battery life. People at Meta consitered 37 PPD to be a good compromise, and I kind of agree.

• rhyperior · 8 hours ago

  Just give yourself time and you’ll be the target customer then!

And still capturing audio where (in my state) you can't record conversations without consent?

• plantain · 8 hours ago

  Sounds like you shouldn't use them in your state then? You can't open carry in my state... so I don't.

• cheema33 · 8 hours ago

  > And still capturing audio where This may come as a surprise, but most phones can capture audio these days. Has your state made them illegal yet?

  • djierardi · 7 hours ago

    Not yet! although its not legal to do so.

Coming from Quest 3, everything about it sounds great BUT for that FOV. Even on Quest with 103 x 96, I sometimes feel like I'm looking around through a mask or binoculars. Can't imagine how restrictive it might be on 70 x 66. Hopefully it's not so bad. Oh BTW they showed a new Beat Saber game, and among the logos I've seen Ace Attorney VR among a few others. Let's see if those come for Quest 3 and maybe even PCVR.

• bpye · 8 hours ago

  > Can't imagine how restrictive it might be on 70 x 66. Ouch, that's a tough sell. Maybe useful for AR type stuff, but I wouldn't want to go from a Quest/Index/Frame/etc to that for VR.

• jdprgm · 5 hours ago

  70 is crazy! I was thinking years ago that surely by this point headsets would be standardizing on a baseline of like 140+. Progress has really stagnated and over the past few years new headsets never seem to just be universally better than whatever they are replacing. It always seems to be pull one lever to improve one aspect while regressing somewhere else. I really wish VR had followed an iPhone like trajectory over the past decade where we got a new Quest/etc every year and it got consistently better across the board every iteration.

  • ilaksh · 5 hours ago

    It's not a headset, it's glasses.

    • kshmir · 3 hours ago

      It's a headset

  • chaostheory · 3 hours ago

    > I really wish VR had followed an iPhone like trajectory over the past decade where we got a new Quest/etc every year That didn’t happen because you would need market demand for that. Only Gen Alpha likes VR as a demographic.

  • meric_ · 3 hours ago

    It has progressed. The tech is just expensive and heavy and... all sorts of tradeoffs. Meta had a prototype (Boba) with a 180 horizontal and 120 vertical FoV But it of course is large and heavy like the quest pro and expensive most likely. Things that when you market to consumers don't pan out. So they are optimizing on the other dimension (weight) which of course trades of many other dimensions.

• Svoka · 4 hours ago

  From description I thought this is more 'View on a Virtual TV' rather than a full VR thing, I may be wrong. This is good, because I, honestly, find that a lot of my VR time is sitting or lying down.

  • dgellow · 58 minutes ago

    So, xreal competitor?

• nicman23 · 3 hours ago

  quest 3 is sooo heavy though

  • bpye · 2 hours ago

    I'm very interested in Valve's approach, shifting some of the weight to the back.

This is very cool. We finally have something that genuinely looks like glasses. Now someone just needs to learn how to hack into these glasses remotely…and then we will have the Ghost in the Shell moment.

I had an Oculus Quest and it was a really great device. After the "Meta" rebrand, the quality rapidly decreased and now it wants me to upload my ID to Meta to keep using it. Absolutely not! Zuckerberg already has way too much information on me, uploading my state issued identification to them is such an insane ask, I will never do it. While this looks like interesting hardware, the company behind it has unacceptable and user-hostile practices, so I'll pass.

• Mistletoe · 8 hours ago

  How do they explain why they need your ID to use VR glasses?

  • slowin · 8 hours ago

    Age verification.

    • Mistletoe · 8 hours ago

      Yes but why do you need to verify your age to use computer hardware?

      • zamadatix · 8 hours ago

        They can't stand the idea you'd use it without a social media account. It's Facebook after all.

      • slowin · 8 hours ago

        You shouldn't have to do this and I won't. I'll vote with my dollars and never buy another device from them. It's too bad because I genuinely liked it as well, but it's not worth the invasion of privacy and normalizing sending this type of information to any consumer company.

      • dmix · 8 hours ago

        Because people are naive enough to think the huge privacy compromise will be worth the cost to society in order to protect kids. The better question is why in 5yrs we will have to use ID to buy a product on some random ecommerce site or to play a video game or use Uber or post a comment on Reddit. It will be because people pushed for this for kids on social media and opened the door for the rest of the internet companies to demand it and therefore the government.

        • vlyan · 7 hours ago

          I really hate it when some vague "people" are blamed for this bullshit. those who do -- a minority -- do it only because they've been brainwashed by the relentless public opinion campaign ran jointly by the capital and the governments.

          • dgellow · 1 hour ago

            No brainwashing needed, the vast majority of people don’t care one bit about privacy

      • tyrabound · 7 hours ago

        Think of the children … or are your a chomo? Now hand over your papers for access to information and communications more that all the books have been fed into the AI shredder and paper and writing instruments were done away with to save the planet.

      • crimsoneer · 1 hour ago

        For the same reason you need to show ID to go into a bar/pub.

  • SchemaLoad · 7 hours ago

    Facebook/Meta has a system that decides if it thinks you are lying about your name or if it just isn't sure, if you get flagged for ID verification. These days it might also be because they think you are under 18, but the ID verification system existed long long before age checking. If you haven't seen it, it's probably because your account is old and they have scraped enough contact lists to believe your name is real.

    • wolvoleo · 6 hours ago

      You don't need to use a real name on a meta headset. It was decoupled from Facebook years ago.

    • hamburglar · 4 hours ago

      Odd. I’ve used a fake name with Facebook since about 2009 and now I have a meta quest and they’ve never flagged my account or asked for id verification.

• -pao · 8 hours ago

  They recently managed to crack open the bootloader, most of meta stuff can be bypassed now. I despise how it went from a great device to almost a paperweight with just horrible software updates (as it's the norm these days).

  • Tepix · 5 hours ago

    That’s the bootloader of the original Quest

    • thetoon · 2 hours ago

      The one that needed it the most. Very excited to see what's going to grow out of this hack

• ewild · 8 hours ago

  oculus didnt ship a single product not owned by facebook.

  • slowin · 8 hours ago

    Correct, but you didn't have to log into the Quest 1 with facebook until ~2024. They had "Oculus accounts" at first.

    • Benjamin_Dobell · 5 hours ago

      They have Meta accounts now, which are also not Facebook accounts. I went straight from an Oculus account to Meta account. Might be location based, but I most certainly haven't been asked to upload any ID.

      • jlarocco · 2 hours ago

        > They have Meta accounts now, which are also not Facebook accounts. How gullible can you be?

        • Benjamin_Dobell · 2 hours ago

          Well, I was going to point out the distinction between products. But I guess if people like you are able to turn HN into Reddit, anything is possible.

          • jlarocco · 2 hours ago

            And I was pointing out that they are one and the same but the "Facebook" name was so tarnished by their terrible privacy practices they had to change it to save face. But I guess if people like you are able to ignore that to make yourself feel better about giving your personal information to Zuckerberg's advertising company then anything is possible.

            • Benjamin_Dobell · 2 hours ago

              Phwoar! Thank you. It's 2026, and had it not been for your high quality informative comments. I would have not known anything about this them there Facebook. You saved me. I don't know what conversation you think you're having here, but it's not that. If you'd bothered to read... and then ready for it... stop, take a breath, and process the information. You'd have noticed I was pointing out you can use a Quest headset WITHOUT providing them your personal ID OR having a Facebook account. Almost as if, you know, I was highlighting that giving the company your personal info isn't required. Woe me though for pointing that out. I'm sorry for interrupting the indignant rants. Please continue.

        • herbst · 1 hour ago

          I got some hate from pointing out WhatsApp is the same evil corp as Facebook recently. People don't want to hear that

  • gpm · 7 hours ago

    Pretty sure DK1 shipped pre-acquisition.

    • abraxas · 7 hours ago

      DK2 also

      • benatkin · 7 hours ago

        Neither qualifies.

        • bigfishrunning · 6 hours ago

          Why? They were for sale to the public, how were they not a product?

          • hamburglar · 4 hours ago

            Because some people find arguing over semantics fun.

  • cortesoft · 7 hours ago

    That is certainly not true. I had the Oculus Rift dev kit before they sold to Facebook. It was so amazing at the time

    • seizethecheese · 7 hours ago

      “Dev kit”

      • ihuman · 7 hours ago

        You had to pay for it (Kickstarter), so its 100% a product

        • joemi · 6 hours ago

          Game console developers always had to (and still have to) pay for their dev kits. That doesn't really make them products in the typical sense of the word, though. The stronger argument for it being a product is that it was available to the public.

        • cortesoft · 6 hours ago

          I didn’t even get it from the kickstarter. I just bought it on the website.

        • seizethecheese · 4 hours ago

          Yeah, sure, my point is that obviously the original comment excluded the dev kit in their definition of product, and arguing over it is just splitting hairs.

      • gpm · 7 hours ago

        Non-devs were buying them to play games.

        • cortesoft · 6 hours ago

          I was one of them. I mean, I was/am a dev, but I had no plans to develop on it, I just wanted it to play with.

      • cortesoft · 6 hours ago

        They called it that, but I just bought it on their website like a normal product. I didn’t write anything for it. There was a site that you could download experiences that people created, which is what I used it for.

  • guiambros · 7 hours ago

    Owner of DK2 here, well before Facebook acquisition. It was for developers, but it was a shipped product nonetheless.

    • benatkin · 7 hours ago

      Not really. Pre-release baked into the name.

      • croes · 6 hours ago

        Sold for a full price, so it’s a sold product.

        • benatkin · 6 hours ago

          It wasn't though, a full price would have been more, to cover not just components and assembly but the cost of R&D.

          • joemi · 6 hours ago

            Game console dev kits usually cost more than the consoles they're for, not less. They're not mass produced at the scale that the consoles are, and they're sold or leased to companies expecting to make several orders of magnitude more back off the products they create with the dev kits.

            • benatkin · 6 hours ago

              There isn't a very direct comparison of Oculus products to game consoles like PlayStation, Nintendo, XBox, or those in the distant past. It is interesting, and they have a lot of the same market forces at play, but I don't think they behave by the same rules.

              • joemi · 5 hours ago

                There's at least one way where there's a direct comparison: they both have dev kits.

        • joemi · 6 hours ago

          Game console dev kits are typically _more_ expensive than the consoles they're for. So "full price" isn't a good argument. (The fact that they were available to the public is a stronger argument.)

        • serf · 6 hours ago

          i've never had the luxury of buying a cheaper dev kit. Ever.

  • reactordev · 6 hours ago

    they shipped 3. DK1, DK2, CV1.

    • benatkin · 6 hours ago

      CV1 was as a Facebook subsidiary. Acquired 2014-07-21, CV1 announced January 2016 and released March 2016. https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/21/facebooks-acquisition-of-o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculus_Rift_CV1

    • chickenpesto · 5 hours ago

      4 if you count the Latency Tester.. but yo.. Mark and Andrew.. pour these ARVR $$$ into CZI instead!!!

  • georgemcbay · 6 hours ago

    > oculus didnt ship a single product not owned by facebook. The post you are replying to doesn't claim they did...? They did change the branding in late 2021/early 2022. Prior to that the product was called the Oculus Quest, after that it was the Meta Quest. And Meta did start heavily enshittifying the product alongside the rebrand.

  • bigmadshoe · 6 hours ago

    Regardless the acquisition took some time to bring down the quality of the products. It doesn't matter if their first few products were sufficiently far ahead that they weren't enshitified immediately when Facebook bought Oculus.

• tyrabound · 7 hours ago

  It’s rather astonishing to me how the vampire squid of world domination has apparently worked out just how to neutralize any sense of self-preservation, and manipulate and gaslight anything into place if they have enough time and are patient. Everything from “freedom sticks” to get women to breath in smoke and ash like the foolish men, to going from “government IDs are just conspiracy theory” to “you have to show your papers to see information and communicate with other humans on the only method that is still widely possible; it’s all just been slowly salami sliced and microdosed into our societies. Worse yet, still a large chunk of society seem utterly oblivious as long as they can consume their particular customized and personalized opiate of the masses.

• miltonlaxer · 7 hours ago

  The aggressive push for ID verification is a direct result of massive government lawsuits regarding online child safety. As a strict condition of this settlement, Meta is legally mandated to enforce hard age gates. Plus they already have all that data... Your ID is not private information. It's an identifier that they don't need or want.

  • p-e-w · 7 hours ago

    > As a strict condition of this settlement, Meta is legally mandated to enforce hard age gates. Not for allowing you to use your own hardware, what utter nonsense. It was their choice to forcibly link their hardware to their online account system despite it working fine without it. But it’s absolutely not true that the government requires age verification for using VR goggles.

  • razodactyl · 7 hours ago

    Yeah, you beat me to this - I laughed at Meta needing any information considering shadow profiles have always existed and every company leaks data like a sieve xD

  • SchemaLoad · 7 hours ago

    Facebook was doing ID checks well before this because they want to stop ban evasion. ID checks just came to the Quest because they forced facebook accounts which already had ID checks on it. They should never have made facebook accounts mandatory for playing games.

  • wren6991 · 7 hours ago

    I think the causality is a bit mixed up here given Meta have put millions of dollars into child safety lobbying

    • reassess_blind · 7 hours ago

      What's their motive there?

      • wren6991 · 7 hours ago

        I'm honestly not sure. Often when companies lobby for regulation it's to avoid other types of regulation they would find more troublesome. I don't buy the popular narrative that Meta is lobbying for verification laws for the purpose of getting ID data because surely they have a lot of signal there already. At the same time I think it's backwards to say "Meta are behaving this way because of regulation" when they actively lobbied for it.

        • simcop2387 · 6 hours ago

          Obviously, none of us have any proof, but I'm on board with the theory that they've been lobbying for it to push things subtly. Specifically because it looks like a lot of these laws are being made to absolve the person creating the gate of responsibility and liability when the gate is there, even if it fails. The idea of the theory being that if they can push that part in then it's better off for them rather than if it's done in a vacuum where they can end up responsible.

      • raimondious · 6 hours ago

        It makes it impossible for anyone except huge existing players to have a legal social network if there are enough hoops to jump through to run one.

      • glenpierce · 6 hours ago

        Smaller entrants to the field cannot as easily comply with the law. It’s about raising barriers to entry. Trust in Meta might be low here, but to the general public, it’s higher than some small startup they’ve never heard of, so they won’t upload their ids there.

      • porkshoe · 6 hours ago

        I linked to two articles describing Meta's fight to have age verification laws put into place (even before the settlement). The most obvious reason is to try to get some sort of law in place that they believe they can comply with _without_ having to make changes to their algorithms in a way that might hurt their business. I don't think they particularly _want_ legal id (though maybe they do? who knows)... but it's obviously false that this was caused by the government when Meta itself was lobbying for such laws even before then. https://techoversight.org/2025/07/29/bloomberg-meta-google-l... https://thedeepdive.ca/who-pushes-age-verification-bills/

      • kristianc · 6 hours ago

        Creates another expensive bar for prospective challengers to clear - regulation nearly always ends up favouring incumbents, especially if they have a hand in shaping it.

• rpdillon · 7 hours ago

  Exactly where I am. Was all-in on Quest 1 and Quest 2, but had to offboard due to Meta's wild policies (that ended up locking me out of my account with little recourse -- some bug with the Oculus standalone account merge with FB and then re-split). As much as I'm a proponent of VR, I won't play by Meta's rules.

  • harry8 · 2 hours ago

    Could you get a refund for the device? Obviously that wasn't what you paid for.

• impulser_ · 6 hours ago

  What does your state ID have that Facebook can't already get?

  • afavour · 6 hours ago

    I don’t believe Facebook has my full address. Yeah, they could probably get it but that doesn’t mean I want to help them.

    • impulser_ · 1 hour ago

      I think you're underestimating Facebook if you think they don't know your address.

• theshackleford · 6 hours ago

  > After the "Meta" rebrand, the quality rapidly decreased This has not been my experience at all and there are very few headsets I have not owned. Everything else I can't really disagree with.

• wolvoleo · 6 hours ago

  I've never needed to submit any ID? I think the software kept getting better except for the latest UI redesign intended to mimic Apple which is indeed terrible. I hate the heavy use of double clicking on the controllers. The older UI was better (though even before this they constantly redesigned it every 6 months or so) But they've only improved things over time. The quest 1 shipped without passthrough or hand tracking. By the end of it's support it had both. The quest 2 and 3 also continue to receive new features like higher frame rates, keyboard view etc.

  • matsemann · 2 hours ago

    If you already had a long standing fb profile you were probably good. But if you had to make a new one just for Quest, you could sometimes end up having to go through all kinds of hoops to prove you weren't making a spam bot account. Or if you tried to access a long forgotten account.

    • Kbelicius · 54 minutes ago

      You don't need a fb profile for quest. I'm sure that you could use one but you can create a new meta account for which you just need an email.

• ryandrake · 6 hours ago

  I was so excited by Oculus’s technology, and then Facebook of all companies bought them and it was such a let down. It felt like finding out that Charles Manson likes the same TV show as you. Yuck!

• nicman23 · 3 hours ago

  well a 200-day (dirtyfrag) just dropped yesterday. you can remove most of that

  • jmiskovic · 32 minutes ago

    More info? Couldn't find anything about it and now the Quest communities are swamped with these glasses.

Looks fun, but it'll most probably need a Meta account, won't run open firmware, and most importantly wearing it in public instead of using my MacBook will make me look like an idiot. So: meh.

• the_wolo · 8 hours ago

  Although looking like an idiot is probably better than being one of those Meta Glasses perverts

Seeing a person at a coffee shop typing with his fingers on a table and moving his invisible mouse would be…interesting. I can see value on a plane. But I’d rather use my MacBook then look like a crazy person pretending to work.

• juiceland · 8 hours ago

  I’ve used the Vision Pro in public. I don’t care what people think of me, but I did get annoyed at people tapping me on the shoulder and asking about it.

• phyrex · 8 hours ago

  That's what people used to say about Bluetooth headsets

  • cmrdporcupine · 8 hours ago

    guess i'm old cuz i still feel like it's weird and antisocial

    • GaryBluto · 5 hours ago

      Surely you mean asocial?

  • walrus01 · 7 hours ago

    It's still creepy and weird to have a full conversation on a bluetooth headset in a public place where everyone can overhear your side of it.

    • ncphillips · 7 hours ago

      Isn’t that the same without a headset?

      • spencerflem · 7 hours ago

        No, talking into a phone feels more natural than talking to nothing in particular

        • Cyan488 · 5 hours ago

          Plus when you talk into a phone, your voice bouncing off the glass causes natural tendency to control vocal volume. With buds, people just shout into the void... Or the bus...

    • al_borland · 7 hours ago

      Better than the people who walk around using speakerphone… which I see at least 3 people do on every trip to the grocery store.

  • the_af · 7 hours ago

    It still seems weird to me when I hear people seemingly talking to themselves as if hallucinating. It always surprises me until I realize what's happening.

• Apocryphon · 8 hours ago

  I’d mostly be concerned about getting robbed while having my vision obscured.

  • throw03172019 · 7 hours ago

    Luckily they can’t steal your invisible monitor, keyboard and mouse.

• NBJack · 5 hours ago

  I've been that guy, though with a portable keyboard and wireless mouse using my Xreal glasses with a Samsung device in Dex mode. It is as close as Ive gotten to the cyberpunk dream so far.

It’s HoloLens reinvented I guess. What problem does it solve? I see a bunch of potential uses but I don’t see any problems looking to be solved. Will I like gaming better if I control the games with my hands instead of a controller? Will I like working in my glasses better than my laptop screen? Or even a dual laptop screen like a ZenBook Duo? Or a cheap second portable display? Do these glasses fit better in a backpack than a laptop and a second portable screen? They can’t collapse flat. Are these glasses more portable and convenient than a smartphone? What are the benefits to watching an NBA game on this compared to a phone or my TV screen at home? I can’t believe Meta is blowing their money on this stuff still.

• garciasn · 8 hours ago

  From the video they have on their site: watching movies in places where you normally would stare at a tiny screen; they also show folks using virtual floating keyboards in front of a VR desktop to work. So: no problems solved.

• foldshift · 8 hours ago

  I might consider them if I can wire it to my laptop. I use the meta quest for development because of infinite virtual screens and due to my apartment being so small I can't fit a proper desk and office chair. But still is a very niche usage, if I had space I would very likely get a desk with a dual or triple monitor setup. If the resolution is good, it is actually nice to have a very portable infinite screen setup if you travel a lot.

  • mardef · 7 hours ago

    You can do this already with xreal glasses for like 1/4 of the price https://us.shop.xreal.com/products/xreal-xbx-a01

    • foldshift · 7 hours ago

      Thanks, i will check it out. I think I did a couple years ago but mac os support was bad at the time? I don't quite remember, but this seems great now. Do you have one? Any experience with using it for work on mac os with multiple virtual screens?

      • SkyPuncher · 7 hours ago

        It’s terrible. I’ve always wanted it to be better, but it’s just terrible. It’s like working on a projector screen where the pixels never line up.

        • NBJack · 5 hours ago

          Really? Did you ever try adjusting the text sharpness? I've a pair of Nreal Air glasses (before the rebrand) and a pair of Xreal Ones. I have found the latter remarkably comfortable and sharp enough for coding, reading text, playing games, etc. for extended periods of time. The new widescreen modes are a real treat too. Still waiting for Real 3D to get upgraded to 60FPS though.

      • drcode · 6 hours ago

        fwiw unlike the other person, I use it for hours with my macbook and have no complaints. you will like it if regular vr makes you feel claustrophobic/isolated, since you still see the real world while using it. I don't understand the obsession with extreme text crispness many people have.

        • dnpls · 28 minutes ago

          Blurry text is horribly noticeable after a while, and it also creates eye fatigue from trying to focus your vision on it. It also means you can't use smaller font sizes, which is important for some people since you can have more text on screen.

  • agar · 3 hours ago

    You can wire it to a laptop. It supports direct DisplayPort over USB 3 input, which it will display on a large virtual monitor.

• numpad0 · 6 hours ago

  I think this is a big stopgap until an actual transparent AR glasses and an admission that Meta and the entire AR industry have no instant next quarter solution for shortcomings of Meta Ray-Ban Display. The geometric waveguide technology used in the Display glasses is quite complicated and costly, the birdbath optic that Xreal uses is stupid , so to speak, and various holographic solutions used by Even Realities and likes is not so spectacular in light loss(IIUC the fancy term is "quantum efficiency"), as well as multi color feasibility(needs 3 layers with separate image sources). Prior to now we didn't know if Meta will be doing a Display 2 or Quest 4, or if they plan to do something else. This is that something else.

  • frmersdog · 6 hours ago

    They had to get something out to undercut Snap finally formally entering the market with a consumer product. That's my read. Their entire strategy for years has been doing whatever they can to box-out potential XR space competitors.

  • daemonologist · 6 hours ago

    Rumor is they are going to do a Quest 4 (late next year). I agree that these seem like a stopgap short of the thing everyone wants - Vision Pro specs (ahaha) in a pair of regular glasses. Personally, as a glasses-wearer , I'm not quite convinced it's the right target though - even my 20 gram glasses are uncomfortable to wear all day and I take them off whenever they're not needed. I'd rather have a ski-goggle device (similarly light, but with the weight more evenly distributed, and still with optical see-through) with fewer performance compromises. Of course that wouldn't let the manufacturer dominate "the next form of personal computing" or whatever.

    • Groxx · 4 hours ago

      Yeah, I've switched to ultra-light rimless glasses and I really do not want to go back. I no longer have sore nose-pad dents at the end of the day. (I have a fairly strong prescription, so the literal glass in my glasses does weigh a fair bit more than for most people. Yay modern optional media! It's so much nicer than it used to be)

• JKCalhoun · 6 hours ago

  I mentioned Jaron Lanier in another comment… I've been watching VR try to establish itself and fail for close to 30 years now.

• ffsm8 · 3 hours ago

  This product line already exists for years. Meta is just entering it. It's essentially the xr-glasses /vr glasses category. Plenty of options around on stores

I hope one day a version of this becomes mainstream enough that it justifies developing for it. It's the ergonomics that prevent that from happening, and moving toward glasses is one of the most important stepping stones. (though if you saw someone wearing "glasses" like this you would probably say it's stretching the definition of glasses) When someone gets this right I do think we're all gonna ditch the 2d screens and phones. It doesn't even matter if it's Meta that instigates this, if money is smelled there will be more consumer friendly alternatives popping up overnight (e.g. see how quickly the industry copied the iPhone).

Meta VR Glasses... and where they will be banned next!

I think I am still going to stick with the Steam Frame lmao

still worried about how much data this thing will collect about you

Upside: the Steam Frame's price is actually pretty competitive now.

I had the oculus rift, sold it when they made me get a Facebook account (they might have backtracked on that). Bought a quest 2 thinking surely they have learned their lesson by now. Nope. Some of the decisions they made around ux are so insane I feel like ripping it off and throwing it across the room. I bet there are some properly talented people at meta, but someone senior is committed to making it suck. Wouldn't be surprised if it's zuck himself. So even though I'm passionate about it, I have no VR in my life because I can't afford another one

I can't help but feel like all the tech glasses are basically a way to get more ai training data where they can get like a constant stream of human POV stuff.