By John Q. Hosedrinker 
At Meta Connect, CEO Mark Zuckerberg showcased new technology, including updated Meta Ray-Bans, a neural wristband, and Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses with a heads-up display. During a demo of the Display glasses and neural wristband, technical difficulties arose when the devices failed to respond to hand gestures, resulting in a live call that did not connect. Further complicating matters, an AI assistant in the Ray-Ban Display glasses struggled to provide clear instructions during a live cooking demonstration. These incidents caused an array of reactions, despite Zuckerberg’s enthusiasm for the new products.
Read the original article here
‘Shame’: Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta ‘AI glasses’ fail live demo, video emerges – where do we even begin? It’s safe to say, the whole thing was an absolute disaster. Multiple failed demos. Comedy gold, folks. Zuckerberg, the man, the myth, the… shook? Absolutely. It was like watching a really, really ambitious college project crash and burn, spectacularly.
One of the most prominent figures in the world, brought to their knees on stage for what felt like an eternity. A truly terrible tech demonstration – possibly the worst ever witnessed. The internet, predictably, had a field day. Layoffs, as it turns out, were already in progress, and let’s just say the overall sentiment was not one of sympathy. Some, admittedly, saw potential in very specific niches, like surgery, where hands-free data access could be valuable. But the general consensus? Who exactly is going to wear these things? The last time tech companies pushed face-worn augmented reality devices on the public, people got physically assaulted for it. It does raise the question of whether the broader consumer market is truly ready for this kind of technology.
Now, before anyone jumps to conclusions, some people are arguing that people will buy it, regardless. After all, people buy cameras to put in their bathrooms too. However, a significant point of contention centers around the live demo itself, particularly the moment at 6:54 when Zuckerberg attempted to accept a video call, and the neural band motions failed to register the incoming call. It was a pivotal moment.
Interestingly, the overall demo did not go terribly, according to some. However, the reaction to Zuckerberg and Meta failing seems to have been universally delightful. A refreshing dose of schadenfreude, if you will. The glasses themselves, however, drew criticism. The design, in particular, was singled out as perhaps the ugliest tech product in recent memory.
But here’s the rub: some people are finding real-world use for the Meta Ray-Ban glasses. They’re appreciating features like hands-free calls, point-of-view video recordings, music streaming, and even quick weather checks. They’ve seemingly been spoiled by these features, finding the glasses surprisingly useful. Though the association with the individual is admittedly off-putting, leading to a sense of satisfaction when this type of public humbling is witnessed. It is interesting that the glasses themselves are not the problem, it’s the messenger, and his methods.
Meta continues to pump billions into projects and ideas that seem to be of questionable value. There’s no denying the technical complexity of this endeavor, with so many nuances that the public might easily overlook. The truth is the core technology is difficult, the user-cases are thin, and the audience is small.
And then there were the reactions. A chorus of laughter and schadenfreude. The general consensus is that this tech, and Mark Zuckerberg, have failed again. Again and again. The internet seems to agree. Marketing gimmicks, overplayed. Live demos often fail, generating clicks, leading to buying opportunities for Meta stock, and the public forgetting everything within weeks. It is a pattern.
The perception that Zuckerberg has become an obsequious lackey to the former president probably did not help his image, either. The video is undoubtedly awful. The general public seems to be waiting for all the company’s ventures to fail. Some people express their displeasure by asking people to remove the glasses when they wear them.
It is even suggested that the live demo was an intentional failure. It makes you wonder if such a high-profile demonstration wasn’t carefully rehearsed beforehand. The “Helio” and the Facebook phone, both also brought up as reminders of past tech failures, and the general sentiment is that Meta is a buggy website that rarely gets things right.
The general sense is that the United States is making unfortunate investments into individuals like Zuckerberg and Musk, leading to China winning the AI race. The public seems to prefer good old-fashioned Korean BBQ sauce over any new technologies.
Many find the whole idea of offloading our brains is baffling. Blaming Wi-Fi in front of tech experts who all know that is a ridiculous reason to fail is the kind of thing that generates both laughter and disbelief. Nobody seems to want these tech glasses.
Then there is the question of Meta’s hiring standards, as it appears that their engineers are in demand, which means Meta is attracting the top people. They’re undoubtedly working to fix these kinds of issues. All in all, the video has proven to be some of the funniest content of the year.
Ultimately, one of the core arguments made about the product is the price, which is around $800. The prevailing sentiment, the demo was a failure and many are comparing it to Elon Musk breaking the CT window during a presentation. Meta has become a textbook example of business incompetence, reminiscent of Hooli from the show “Silicon Valley”.
The last note is that the product in it’s current state may have been the result of a group of people who are unsuited to creating any product. One person did all the work and the other two didn’t.