Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Businesses Facebook Slashdot.org

Meta Invests $3.5 Billion in World's Largest Eye-Wear Maker in AI Glasses Push 37

Posted by BeauHD from the investing-in-the-future dept.
Meta has acquired a $3.5 billion stake in Ray-Ban maker EssilorLuxottica, "a deal that increases the U.S. tech giant's financial commitment to the fast-growing smart glasses industry," reports Bloomberg. From the report: Meta's investment in the eyewear giant deepens the relationship between the two companies, which have partnered over the past several years to develop AI-powered smart glasses. Meta currently sells a pair of Ray-Ban glasses, first debuted in 2021, with built-in cameras and an AI assistant. Last month, it launched separate Oakley-branded glasses with EssilorLuxottica. EssilorLuxottica Chief Executive Officer Francesco Milleri said last year that Meta was interested in taking a stake the company, but that plan hadn't materialized until now.

The deal aligns with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's commitment to AI, which has become a top priority and major expense for the company. Smart glasses are a key part of that plan. While Meta has historically had to deliver its apps and services via smartphones created by competitors, glasses offer Meta a chance to build its own hardware and control its own distribution, Zuckerberg has said. The arrangement gives Meta the advantage of having more detailed manufacturing knowledge and global distribution networks, fundamental to turning its smart glasses into mass-market products. For EssilorLuxottica, the deal provides a deeper presence in the tech world, which would be helpful if Meta's futuristic bets pay off. Meta is also betting on the idea that people will one day work and play while wearing headsets or glasses.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meta Invests $3.5 Billion in World's Largest Eye-Wear Maker in AI Glasses Push More

Meta Invests $3.5 Billion in World's Largest Eye-Wear Maker in AI Glasses Push

Comments Filter:

  • From the 'investing-in-the-future-department...' (Score:4, Insightful)

    by silvergig ( 7651900 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2025 @07:36PM (#65506486)
    Really? Like having every moment of your life recorded, tracked, sold, monetized, and abused in any way possible is somehow the future?

    This has been tried before. Microsoft tried similar with some wearable pendant years ago. It was a flop, and for good reason. The only reason to do this is to finally create the panopticon that these giant companies have always wanted, where a stream of literally every detail of your life is always coming in for them to abuse and monetize.

    Good lord, kill this shit with fire.

    • Re:From the 'investing-in-the-future-department... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2025 @08:11PM (#65506524)
      I could really use some glasses that just subtitle what people are saying for me. No camera, no bluetooth, no memory. But of course they'll way-overdo it with all that stuff.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Google has that with on-device, no recording processing for Pixel phones. It works remarkably well.

        I have heard that some of the headphones with noise cancelling have a conversation mode that gives you just the other person's voice, without any of the background, and amplifies it. I might get some later this year and try it. Some people say it's very good, other say it's just adequate to avoid taking them off.

        • It does make sense to have it on the phone for processing power. Although having the glasses to the phone raises the whole issue of where it is being sent, recorded, analyzed, on and on. The creepy factor, for people talking to you, or worried about legalities at work. Whereas if there were a way for your conversation partner to see that the glasses you were wearing could not do all that, it seems like life would be easier.

    • This has been tried before. Microsoft tried similar with some wearable pendant years ago.

      I was thinking more along the lines of Google Glass [wikipedia.org]. At the time, some folks were genuinely concerned the concept might catch on and we'd have to deal with "glassholes" who constantly filmed everything.

      All of these sorts of smart accessories seem to exist under some mistaken belief that people don't want to just use their smartphone to accomplish the same tasks.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )
        More fool to anyone who thought it would catch on or didn't think through the consequences of recording strangers without their consent.

        There have even been people who've gone further and surgically attached cameras to their heads - and then whined about the hostility and sometimes violence they've suffered as as a result. Because people resent being filmed and only tolerate in a limited capacity and certainly not by random strangers.

    • What gets me is that if the data were actually used in a meaningful way, it could be revolutionary for people. If companies actually correlated things like sleep patterns along with habits, places visited, speech patterns, and socialization during the day, it really could change peoples lives and make for a deeper understanding to help people with their health, habits, social welfare, any number of things.
      You could have an AI assistant that provides people for coaching needed to lose weight or to exercise o

    • Wait until they get to the point of removing part of what you're looking at and substituting an ad or a government-mandated image over it.

      They don't call it augmented reality for nothing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's always the same issues. Poor battery life, bulky, and the killer apps never materialized.

      I would like eye surgery to get better so that I don't need glasses, and then I'd only wear them for shade from the sun. Hopefully soon we will have lenses as good as organic ones.

    • Worse yet it's going to make glasses even more expensive.

      For those not in the know, EssilorLuxottica is basically the monopoly for everything glasses related. They're the reason you spend hundreds of dollars on 2 cents of plastic for a frame, and why mass produced optical lenses cost hundreds of dollars each.

      And they own the vast majority of stores that sell glasses - from the ones your optometrist sells (about 100% of them), to several huge chains like LensCrafters. Its basically a worldwide monopoly.

      Sure, you can save by going to independent stores, of which there are a few chains, but they are much more limited in their offerings.

      Glasses frames are just cheap pieces of injection molded plastic, or a few dollars worth of metal. They hold a lens. There's nothing high-tech about any of it, yet they cost hundreds of dollars apiece. More if you want them molded with some designer's name on it.

      LIkewise, the lenses come from well known lens manufacturers - Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, etc., who make them by the millions, likely their main source of income over say, camera or projector lenses. There's no reason what is effectively a cheap piece of optical plastic coated with well known coatings (anti reflective, etc) should also cost hundreds of dollars. They don't require the precision assembly of a multi-stage camera lens which cost about the same amount of money. It's just a lens.

      Granted, someone needs to cut the lens to fit the frame, but even that's generally machine controlled - the machine finds the optical center and using the lens template (the fake lens in the frame) and your prescription cuts the lens as needed. A process which may be done on site, or automated at some factory.

      So yeah, it's concerning because the world doesn't need more expensive glasses. It's a pure profit item likely rivalling margins of popcorn and soda at movie theatres.

  • I don't really want Facebook in more of my life, let alone ALL of my life. I think I can hold out with a smartphone.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by piojo ( 995934 )

      Luxottica is the cartel that's responsible for your glasses and contact lenses being expensive, even if you've never heard of them. Luxottica and Facebook are brands made for each other.

  • Great, more monopoly price manipulation. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nategasser ( 224001 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2025 @07:39PM (#65506494)

    Luxotica owns both Pearle Vision and LensCrafters, along with Ray-Ban, Oakley, and dozens of other brands they use to keep up the appearance there's any competition on the market.

    They're why prescription glasses cost $400-$600 instead of $100.

    If Meta wanted to make glasses they could buy up a smaller brand and invest a billion or so and make all the glasses they need. But clearly monopolists are attracted to each other, so...

    • It's really difficult to buy glasses in the US that aren't part of one of EssilorLuxottica's holdings.

      • You can get non-Luxottica eyeglasses at WalMart. If you want some basic black nylon frames they start at like $13.

        • I got glasses at Walmart once, in an emergency, while traveling.

          They sucked so bad that I would have returned them if I had been able to do so.

      • What? (Score:2)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 )
        Warby Parker https://www.warbyparker.com/ [warbyparker.com] Marcolin https://www.marcolin.com/en/ [marcolin.com] Moscot: https://moscot.com/ [moscot.com] The local chain I get my glasses from only have a handful of Luxotica kiosks, most are from other companies.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )
        This is definitely one company that deserves to be broken up into chunks. Virtually every major retail outlet selling glasses / sunglasses is owned by them and they purposefully run them separately to give the illusion of choice while fixing prices. Same for their actual branded glasses. They even manufacture glasses for competing designer brands.
      • Not really. So many online platforms that offer a great product. Platforms like Zenni Optical are great. You put in your face dimensions, scan it and it will find glasses that fit your face. Then you can "virtually" try them on. My last pair of progressives was less than $80.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Luxottica is an Italian fashion house. They're dominant in glasses because they're aware people will pay silly amounts for a brand name.

      Facebook is, well, used to be, popular for a similar reason. And they reason their interest in Luxottica is because they're aware that almost nobody is going to pay silly amounts to put a pair of Facebook branded bricks on their face. They learned that from Google. But Ray Bans, Oakleys or Jimmy Choos....

  • Love the idea in theory (Score:3)

    by fjo3 ( 1399739 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2025 @07:43PM (#65506500)
    I have some memory issues - especially remembering people's names. I would love glasses that helped me with that. Unfortunately, such a device that is produced by any major tech company today is bound to be nothing but a hive of scum, villainy, and spyware syphoning away the remaining dregs of my privacy.

  • They earned their billions through billions of eyeballs. So they doubled down by investing a few billions to squeeze yet more billions.

    Are your eyes feeling the squeeze? Look away then, and gently cup the palms of our hand over your eyes like the see-no-evil monkey emoji.

    Unscreen yourself every 15 minutes. (I'm logging off Slashdot now)

  • Another $3.5 billion wasted by Meta. They'll go bankrupt eventually.

    • Luxottica brings in something like $1bn/yr net profit. Seems like not a bad deal for zuck at $3.5bn... well not a bad deal for zuck, but even more consolidation for the consumer.

  • Starting with them being overpriced to do what ????
  • More wearable e-waste that is a) limited in what it can do (AI or not), b) looks ugly, c) has terrible battery life, and d) acts as a punch to face magnet and hostility amplifier for anyone creepy/stupid enough to use it where it isn't welcome. I'm sure a few people with more money than sense, and no shame will buy it like usual before it dies on its ass again.

  • Both of these companies have near monopolies and should be broken up.

    No reason why Facebook should own any other social media company, doing so eliminates what little competition exists among them.

    Similarly no reason why a single company should make all glasses.

Slashdot Top Deals

PLUG IT IN!!!

Close