 |
|
|
|||||
Its game time for Metas wearables: The tech giant has bought two ad spots for its Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses during Sundays Super Bowl broadcast, including one that has Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pratt wreaking havoc on Kris Jenners art collection. The star-studded spot is part of a bigger push to bring AI-powered wearables to the masses. Last week, Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the company had sold more than one million of its high-tech Ray-Bans in 2024, and hinted at plans to sell many more in the near future. This will be a defining year that determines if we’re on a path towards many hundreds of millions and eventually billions of AI glasses, he told investors during the companys Q4 2024 earnings call. To that end, Meta plans to introduce new versions of its smart glasses later this year, including a high-end model that reportedly includes a small display capable of showing notifications and real-time translation. And the competition is not waiting around. Samsung has hinted at plans for developing its own AI glasses, and Chinese startups are looking to target U.S. consumers with Ray-Ban copycats this year. All this means that millions of people could soon walk around with cameras on their faces, challenging our understanding of privacy, and inevitably leading to friction. An AI wearable that sees what you see Meta released a first version of camera-equipped glasses in cooperation with Ray-Ban maker EssilorLuxottica in 2021, followed by a second-generation model in the fall of 2023. At first glance, the glasses look very similar to a typical pair of Ray-Ban sunglasses, save for a camera and a recording indicator that are visible upon closer inspection. The glasses also have dual speakers integrated into their temples, and an array of five microphones that can be used for both voice control and communication. Ray-Ban Meta glasses can take photos, record short video clips, and livestream via Instagram when paired with a smartphone. They can also be used as a replacement for wireless earbuds, allowing wearers to listen to music or podcasts, or take phone calls when paired via Bluetooth to a smartphone. The feature set that Meta leans into most these days is the ability to directly query the companys AI assistant: Ray-Ban owners can ask Metas AI assistant to tell them about anything theyre looking at, which results in the glasses taking a photo and uploading it to the cloud. They can ask Meta AI what a street sign says, have it translate text, and even ask it to come up with recipes based on what the camera can spot in their fridge. Earlier this year, Meta even added the ability to have continuous conversations with its AI assistant using its Ray-Ban glasses. During those chats, video of everything the wearer is seeing is sent to the cloud and analyzed, allowing for complex back-and-forth interactions with follow-up questions while browsing store shelves, looking through record collections, or shopping at the farmers marketa pretty impressive feat, despite Meta AI still occasionally getting confused by very basic objects. Surprisingly little backlash, so far Inevitably, these features can also lead to bystanders getting captured by Metas glasses. When Google pioneered camera glasses in 2013, it faced a huge public backlash against this perceived invasion of privacy. Users of the Google Glass device were being called glassholes by critics, and the company discontinued the device soon after. Meta has gone to great lengths to avoid a similar fate. The glasses include a visible recording indicator, and second-generation Ray-Ban Metas block any photo and video capture if a user tries to cover that indicator light in any way. Meta also advises Ray-Ban wearers to respect other peoples privacy, and for instance not to wear them in public bathrooms, schools, or houses of worship. That hasnt stopped some Ray-Ban owners from accidentally getting into trouble. Last fall, a Ray-Ban owner reported on Reddit that they had gotten thrown out of a movie theater over piracy allegations. I wear RaybanMeta with prescription lenses so I can see, the user in question wrote. I did not live stream or anything, but apparently they’re banned from cinemas. Other users have said they have gotten reprimanded for wearing their Ray-Bans in airplanes; two Harvard students made waves when they combined the glasses with image recognition technology to figure out the identity of random people on the street (a feature that the glasses themselves do not support out of the box). More insidiously, the alleged New Orleans bomber reportedly wore Metas smart glasses to scout locations for his attack. Despite all this, there has been relatively little backlash against the device yet. That could change once there are millions more in use. There will be bad actors with that many pairs of glasses in market, acknowledges Moor Insights & Strategy analyst Anshel Sag. He thinks Meta could do more educating people about the way these glasses function. I’ve had some people assume it’s just always recording, he says. That’s not true. Next up: New devices, including one with a display Meta has plans to launch half a dozen additional wearables in the future, the companys CTO Andrew Bosworth recently told staffers in a leaked memo. Part of that line-up will reportedly also be a first model with a visual component. With an integrated display in just one lens, it will be a far cry from the kind of augmented reality glasses Meta wants to sell in a few years. Users wont be able to view 3D holograms or play immersive games with it, and the size of the virtual display will be comparably small. Still, by positioning its first generation of AR glasses as supercharged smart glases, Meta may have found a way to make people embrace lower-end specs. Keeping these kinds of devices simpler comes with lots of added benefits, says David Goldman, the VP of marketing of AR optics startup Lumus. Youre going to have a much longer battery life with a smaller display, he explains, adding that functionality like live translation of a person talking to you actually is less disruptive with a smaller display. People will be pleasantly surprised by the added value, Goldman says. At the same time, Meta will continue to make AI glasses without displays, with a recent Bloomberg report suggesting that the next wave of models will include at least one optimized for outdoor sports. Zuckerberg told investors recently that the company was aiming to sell up to ten million units of its next-generation AI glassesa number that Sag believes is within reach. The Super Bowl ad will most likely be a planting the seed moment in a lot of people’s eyes who haven’t met someone wearing them yet, he says. Then, we might get a new model this year paired with an aggressive ad campaign to push sales into the 510 million territory.
Category:
E-Commerce
As Los Angeles reels from deadly January wildfires that destroyed thousands of homes, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday he will order the state to advance long-delayed regulations requiring homeowners in high-risk areas to clear combustible materials around their homes. His office didnt immediately say if the executive order will set a timeline for implementing the rule, which was passed by lawmakers in 2020 and originally set to take effect by January 1, 2023. Newsom is expected to sign it after his trip to Washington to advocate for disaster aid. The rule requires homeowners to clear materials like dead plants and wooden furniture within 5 feet (1.5 meters) of homes in fire-prone areas. As multiple fires roared through L.A. neighborhoods in January, the regulations still werent written, and the state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection told the Associated Press last month it had no firm timeline for completing them. State officials said in a November meeting that the draft language likely wont be considered by the board until late this year, though the state has already encouraged homeowners to take up the practice on its website. In response to questions from the AP last month, lawmakers who sponsored the original legislation said they were frustrated by the delay. Experts said it is likely the more stringent requirements could have saved some homes from the Palisades Fire, which became the most destructive fire in Los Angeles city history. Most of the neighborhoods ravaged by the Palisades Fire are in areas that must follow state requirements to keep the immediate surroundings of their homes free of combustible materials and would be subject to the new rules because they are deemed at highest fire risk by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The fire, driven by hurricane-force winds that spread embers by air, destroyed at least 5,000 structures across areas including Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and Topanga Canyon. Under the latest proposal, existing homes would have three years to comply with the regulations, so it is not clear how many homes would have been saved. But clearing the immediate area around homes likely would have made some difference, several experts said. These steps will spur proactive actions to defend the most vulnerable homes and eliminate combustible material within five feet of homes to reduce the risk of a home igniting in an ember-driven fire, California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot said. His agency oversees the board that is responsible for writing the regulations. The executive order will also direct CalFire to add about 1.4 million new acres of land onto the fire-prone map, which will subject homeowners in those areas to the home-hardening rules. Some cities and homeowners are already taking on the practice voluntarily. To meet the needs of increasingly extreme weather, where decades-old buildings werent planned and designed for todays realities, these proposals are part of a bigger state strategy to build wildfire and forest resilience from forest management, to huge investments in firefighting personnel and equipment, community hardening, and adopting state-of-the-art response technologies, Newsom said in a statement. State officials told the AP last month that Newsom has proposed to spend $25 million to help homeowners follow the rules and other defensible-space requirements. California already enforces some of the most stringent defensible-space laws in the West, which require homeowners in fire-prone places to keep the area immediately around their homes free of landscaping and other materials that could catch fire. The state began requiring homeowners in high-risk areas to clear flammable materials within 30 feet (9 meters) of their houses in the 1960s and then expanded the rules to include areas within 100 feet (30.5 meters) of structures in 2006. The latest measure creates a new ember-resistant zone, dubbed zone zero, that bars things like brush, wooden fencing, furniture, sheds, and mulch within 5 feet (1.5 meters) of homes. The idea is to clear all materials that could catch fire from flying embers carried by winds and spread to the structure. State officials and researchers said embers are responsible for 90% of structures destroyed by wildfire. The zone-zero law passed with bipartisan support after California experienced record-breaking fires in 2017 and 2018, including a fire that wiped out the town of Paradise, destroying more than 17,000 structures and killing 85 people. Trân Nguyn, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Less than three weeks into his second term, President Trump has made it clear that his years-long attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion is a core priority for his administration. Across a slew of executive orders, Trump has set his sights on dismantling DEI initiatives in the federal government and militarybut he has also gone a step further and targeted the private sector. Trump has revoked a critical executive order dating back to 1965, which addressed discriminatory hiring practices across federal contractors and was critical to promoting racial equity; in the same executive action, he also directed federal agencies to open investigations into private sector companies to snuff out DEI programs that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. All this comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action sparked a wave of lawsuits from conservative activists, who have taken aim at DEI efforts across the public sector and private companiesleading some major employers to alter or roll back parts of their diversity programs. Several companies, among them Walmart and McDonalds, have made notable changes to their DEI goals and stopped participating in the Human Rights Campaigns annual survey that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ employees, while Meta will no longer have a dedicated DEI team. But the wave of executive orders Trump has issued since taking office could pose a new threat to corporate DEI, whether or not they hold up to legal scrutiny. Employment lawyers like Aaron Goldstein worry that the vague language of Trumps executive order targeting the private sector will push companies to take an extreme position on DEI. We don’t know what the Trump administration is necessarily going to be going after, and we don’t really know what the consequences are, he says. When the government doesn’t tell you precisely what you can or cannot do, or the consequences for doing it, it makes rational people run for the hills. The executive orders have sparked chaos and panic among corporate leaders, according to Kenji Yoshino, though he points out that Trump has limited legal authority over DEI work in the private sector. He can put the muscle of the executive branch behind lawsuits targeting the private sector for illegal activity, but what is illegal is not going to depend on standards set by him, says Yoshino, a constitutional lawyer and the director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at NYU Law. Ultimately, these cases filed against the private sector are going to be resolved in the federal courts, according to federal statutes. The bigger question, Yoshino says, is whether companies will feel even greater social pressure to retreat on DEI issues that they might view as controversial or under attack by the Trump administration, like gender identity and trans rights. There’s no law that says you can’t participate in a survey, he adds, citing the Corporate Equality Index, HRCs annual survey. But if [employers] lean out from social issues too much, then they’ll get hit from the left and their own employees saying: We thought you were committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. You said that a million times. Why are you backtracking so quickly at the first sign of resistance? How companies are reacting to the executive orders Some experts in the DEI space argue that many corporate leaders are unlikely to entirely cut diversity work, despite the public statements companies have made in the last year that signal a wavering commitment to corporate DEI. Most companies with sophisticated internal legal teams aren’t that concerned because they have already been looking at and evaluating their practices even before Trump took office, says Joelle Emerson, the cofounder and CEO of culture and inclusion platform Paradigm. Now that doesn’t mean the administration might not seek to create a lot of distraction [with] attacks on companies, even though ultimately the investigation might be frivolous. I do think high-profile companies may have some concerns about that. In fact, Emerson believes that some of the changes companies have been making to their diversity programsboth since affirmative action was overturned and more recently, in light of Trumps anti-DEI effortsare not nearly as extreme as they might appear on the surface. In certain cases, the changes could even be a corrective to some of the more hollow commitments companies had made in response to public pressure during the pandemic; some of the employers that have pulled back on DEI may never have been genuinely invested in advancing those efforts. When looking closely at 15 statements put forth by companies that have seemingly rolled back DEI programs over the last year, Yoshino and his team concluded that only one employerTractor Supplyhad effectively disavowed all diversity efforts. “The other 14 companies were saying, ‘We of course still believe in inclusion and belonging; we’re just retreating from these policies,'” Yoshino said, describing the response from companies as a “performance of retreat.” As for how corporate leaders should proceed, given the threat of legal action, many DEI experts are urging companies not to make rash decisions about the future of their diversity work. I think the orders are designed to have a chilling effect and get companies to stop doing way more things than the law actually requires them to stop doing, Emerson says. And thats what I worry about. I just keep encouraging companies to read the executive orders carefully and not over comply. Employers dont need to eliminate employee resource groups, for example, or stop conducting pay equity audits, she says. Alvin Tillery, a professor at Northwestern University and founder of the consulting firm 2040 Strategy Group, has counseled many employers to hold tight and wait until youre sued. If companies overcorrect or take extreme measures to protect against the Trump administrations scrutiny, they could also risk inviting more traditional discrimination claims. (In a new regulatory filing, Pinterest actually cited the attacks on DEI as a potential business risk, noting that if its diversity programs are “perceived as insufficient or overdone,” the company might struggle to attract talent or face legal action.) What’s funny is when most of these companies started to do DEI work, they found it [was] actually helping the bottom line, Tillery says. Lawsuits go down. The workers like us better. So those folks that are standing pat are either smart enough to see that it helps their business, or they’re worried about some further regulatory shifts coming down the pike for other parts of their business. What companies can do to continue DEI work Even amid conservative backlash and the threat of legal action, corporate DEI remains popular. In surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center, support for these programs fell between 2023 and 2024but more than half of respondents still said they believed DEI was largely a force for good. Tillery points out that a lot of workers appreciate DEI programs, including white employees. When I go in to consult with a company, most of the white male managers say, thank God you’re here. Please teach me how to not insult anyone, he says. They want guidance to not do harm to other people. At companies that remain committed to DEI work, Emerson recommends leaders take a hard look at any initiatives that are costly or need to be retired, such as training programs that use outdated language. Yoshino and his team at the Meltzer Center help companies do a risk analysis of their DEI programs, which involves looking at whether the initiative gives preferential treatment to a protected group that translates to a palpable benefit. The programs that tend to be most risky are fellowships or other initiatives that exclusively cater to a specific groupsuch as women or people of colorwhich is why a number of companies have opened up those programs to all applicants in recent years. Sometimes, however, a program might carry greater legal risks but also benefit a company significantly, which is why Yoshino says its important to analyze DEI efforts on an individual basis before scrapping them altogether. One of the benefits of these risk audits that we’re doing with companies is that they help them identify programs where they’re willing to tolerate some risk, Yoshino says. You need to chart that risk against the impact of the program to see your risk tolerance for each programnot for DEI overall. In 2020, many employers made grand gestures and public proclamations in support of DEI, which drew a lot of attention but may not have yielded tangible results; those types of performative actions can also prove riskier, according to Emerson. Some companies may shift away from representation goals, which many tech giants embraced a decade ago when they first started publishing diversity reports. So many company efforts have been focused on representation, which I think is really important, she says. But we often would see companies focus on representation but not talk about the gaps that were leading to those representation outcomes. In some cases, companies seem to be folding DEI work into other departments. But it could also make sense to expand the remit of teams that were previously structured to focus on DEI, since diversity practices intersect with so many other parts of the business and should be incorporated across the company. If you see that there’s no longer a DEI title at this company, I think that could be bad news, Emerson says. Or it could be that the company is actually very strategically embedding some of this expertise in ways that are going to have more impact on the business. For some employers, moving away from the acronym DEIwhich has become a loaded term and easy target for right-wing conservativesmight seem like the right call. But its also important that leaders find a way to effectively communicate these types of changes to their DEI programs, so employees dont feel like their company has entirely abandoned its commitments to diversity. Right now, companies are really looking for a way to signal to their employees: We care about you, Emerson says. Our values have not changed. We want our workplace to be fair. We want hard work to predict your success, not identity. We want you to feel a sense of belonging hereand to thread the needle and not expose [ourselves] to unnecessary risk.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||