• Smart glasses bans are being introduced and considered
• There are growing concerns over smart glasses privacy
• Could hardware changes solve people's concerns?

I’ve written a lot about the high likelihood of major smart glasses regulation being introduced in various regions as the technology garners more and more bad press, and as expected, we’re starting to see bans and other restrictions take shape.

No nation has yet to all-out ban smart glasses, but a few have outlawed their use in certain scenarios while others are investigating harsher measures. Some private companies, such as event organizers, have also banned smart glasses on their premises and at their conferences.

Of course, this is bad news for smart specs owners who now could be facing restrictions on where they can/can’t wear their intelligent eyewear. For anyone considering adding smart glasses to their technology arsenal, these possible restrictions should be taken into account when making your final purchase decision.

So where are we starting to see smart glasses bans? Here’s a selection of the countries investigating and introducing anti-intelligent eyewear rules.

United States

Generally, smart glasses can be worn freely in the US; however, New York State has banned them from being used in any of its courts. Smart glasses with recording capabilities could be seen as an attempt to intimidate those involved in the case, and some cases contain sensitive private information where unauthorized recordings could impose serious risks.

Other states have introduced less widespread bans in courts — including Philadelphia, Hawaii, and North Carolina.

Meanwhile, the US Air Force includes in its rules for service members that they are “Unauthorized to wear mirrored lenses or smart glasses with photo, video or artificial intelligence capabilities while in uniform.” This seems like more of a presentation thing than an anti-smart specs rule (especially given the inclusion of mirrored specs), but it does mean you can’t wear intelligent eyewear in uniform regardless.

Further, attendees of conventions such as major hacker conference DEF CON 34 have been barred from wearing Meta glasses or similar. These bans focus on the possibility of glasses recording folks without their knowledge — with organizers arguing the recording light some glasses offer isn’t the most obvious.

UK

In the UK, things are much the same. Courts don’t ban their use, though after one person was being coached by their glasses’ AI mid-trial, their usage is generally advised against. There are also recording restrictions in UK courts, so while glasses aren’t explicitly banned, using them to snap photos or videos would be against the rules — the same as it would be for using your phone or a regular camera.

We have seen companies like Monopoly Events ban camera glasses from its Comic-Cons after secret filming complaints, and there’s a petition to the Government to ban the sale and promotion of smart specs in the country. These petitions don’t always go anywhere, but it shows there’s at least some public unrest over smart specs, and that could lead to rule changes.

EU

The European Data Protection Board is currently drafting a report on smart glasses, with it expected to land sometime in the next few months. However, while more general EU rules are being discussed, some individual members are making their own individual decisions on the tech.

Germany’s data protection authority commissioner has warned camera glasses could be banned under existing laws prohibiting recording devices hidden in everyday objects.

Netherlands digital rights activists have expressed frustration at smart glasses' ability to record people without their knowledge, while France’s privacy regulator, the National Commission on Informatics and Liberty, has highlighted the privacy risks camera glasses pose.

South Korea

Rounding things off, we have a different kind of ban in South Korea, with the country specifically restricting smart glasses access in exam halls after cases of students being caught trying to cheat using intelligent eyewear.

Smart devices are generally banned from exam rooms in most schools across the globe to prevent cheating, though given the importance of South Korea’s College Scholastic Ability Test, their very explicit ban makes sense so as to remove any possible confusion over whether students can even bring smart specs into the room with them.

Could things change?

Of course, very few bans have been brought in yet, but they could be unless things change on the hardware side.

A big concern is over privacy for non-glasses wearers caught in the gaze of someone's camera — especially if they don't know they’re being recorded. An obvious fix here would be to make smart glasses much more obvious when they're recording — perhaps brighter camera lights, a loud audible camera sound when snapping a photo, some kind of audio indicator when video is being recorded.

For users, they’ll want better control over what is and isn’t accessed by smart glasses makers when using their tech, and more certainty about which images are and aren’t shared, or which videos can or can’t be seen by contractors.

We’ll have to wait and see how the situation develops, though I’m not sure how much longer smart specs can go before we see serious regulations.

• Cheap smart glasses are selling out as people look for Meta Ray-Ban alternatives
• More camera glasses are leading to more privacy concerns for many
• I wouldn't buy them for plenty of other reasons

If you want a pair of smart glasses, you’re spoiled for choice in terms of what they can do technologically, and over time we’ve seen more and more budget options appear. These cheaper models are the first step in making emerging gadgets more accessible, but for smart specs there’s a fear they might simply exacerbate the growing concerns over the tech.

Australian discount store Kmart recently went viral after the AU$89 Anko glasses it was selling sold out entirely (via The Guardian). In the US and UK, you don’t have to look far to find equally affordable camera glasses available through reputable digital marketplaces such as Amazon.

Given the proven popularity of Meta’s Ray-Ban and Oakley specs, it’s no surprise the market would see an influx of smart glasses, especially cheap pairs that aim to mimic much more expensive rivals while keeping costs low — typically by downgrading their technological capabilities and not partnering with premium design brands.

However, cheap smart glasses aren’t as universally celebrated as cheap TVs or affordable smartphones — scrolling through online forums discussing this news, the replies aren’t kind about smart glasses, discussing the pitfalls of smart glasses in general and more affordable options specifically.

The most prominent concern is that cheap camera glasses expand the range of people with the technology. More people with these glasses means more people possibly recording people in public without their knowledge.

There are also fears that cheap camera glasses might not come with the same sophisticated tamper protection glasses from more recognizable brands boast. Either through tape coverings or minor electrical modifications, folks could disable the camera light and use the specs even more covertly than they otherwise would — they’ve tried the same with Meta specs, but Meta has patched out these workarounds so far.

Privacy and other problems

Beyond the impact on the general public, cheap smart glasses users might want to consider the privacy implications of wearing cameras from unknown brands.

We’ve seen that even super well-known brands like Meta aren’t perfect — for example, there are reports that contractors could see videos (including intimate or otherwise private content) taken using the glasses if it involved the AI in some way — so why should we expect completely unknown brands with nothing to lose to be any better with privacy?

In fact, considering their lack of notoriety makes them less likely to get investigated in the way Meta was by journalists who uncovered the sharing of videos with contractors. The ease with which tiny brands can dissolve and pop back up under different names, I for one would be a lot less trusting of what they do with my data and of their phone apps.

Of course, many lesser-known brands behave responsibly, but when there’s so much room for things to go wrong, for private information or video to get leaked, I just have this extra layer of paranoia I can’t shake.

Even ignoring my personal privacy concerns, as someone who has tested countless smart glasses at this point, I’ve found that better-known brands are simply better at making hardware and software.

I’ve worn so many uncomfortable specs with tinny audio, awful camera quality, terrible AI, and apps that are worse than useless. They’re sluggish. They’re ugly. They’re not worth even a budget price.

Just don’t buy them.

If you do want smart specs, save up for something proper — it doesn’t have to be from Meta, but I’d recommend choosing a brand with plenty of solid independent reviews. While I’m using them less for reasons better explained by other writing, I have gone weeks on end wearing a good pair of smart glasses thanks to comfy yet fashionable design and solid tech. Whereas the cheap (and terrible) glasses I’ve tried I’ve wanted to rip off my face within hours.

You get what you pay for.

Meta may dominate the smart glasses zeitgeist, but it's far from the only player — my favorite brand in the space is actually Xreal, with its range of impressive but pricey wearable-display specs. And with the launch of its new xbx brand, Xreal's lineup now includes more budget-friendly options too.

If money were no object, Xreal’s One Pro glasses are easily the crème de la crème of smart specs. Their Bose-tuned audio is impressive for such a small package, their electrochromic dimming tech is perfect for swapping between clear vision and shaded for optimal viewing conditions, and their unique optic engine displays their image more vividly than the competition, with fewer visible distortions.

The only issue is their price — $649 / £579 (they aren't available directly in Australia), absent any discounts, although they can be found on sale occasionally.

If you’re on a budget, my preferred pick has instead been RayNeo. Its Air 4 Pro specs debuted earlier this year, and not only are they affordable at just $299 / £289, they still come with solid specs, including HDR10 support.

With its new xbx a01+, however, Xreal might have just claimed the budget crown for itself.

Budget brilliance

Now the elephant in the room is that Xreal's specs cost a bit more. At their current $299 / £269 discounted price at Xreal.com they're on par with or cheaper than RayNeo's glasses; however their official price is $359 / £349, and while they aren’t discounted at the moment, we’ve regularly seen the RayNeo Air 4 Pros selling for $249 / £249 (RayNeo also doesn't seem to sell directly to Australia) or cheaper.

At the same time, the Xreal xbx a01+ glasses boast a handful of improvements which warrant a slightly higher price.

For a start, their brightness tops out at 1,600 nits, while the RayNeo Air 4 Pro can only hit 1,200 nits. This extra brightness should allow you to get more out of the HDR10 support, offering more room for the light vs dark contrast and vivid colors to breathe across the video format’s visual range. Highs can look more high, helping lows look lower by comparison.

Aiding the image quality are the swappable lens covers.

While advertised as giving you the ability to choose which color of sunglasses cover you most want to complement your style, the xbx's box also includes a completely opaque black cover you can use with your specs. Because the specs are essentially virtual projectors, a darker environment ensures the highest-quality viewing conditions, though I found the regular sunglasses were fine even in bright sunlight.

The xbx glasses are lighter too, weighing just 62g compared to the RayNeo Air 4 Pro's 76g. Admittedly I haven't found them majorly more comfortable, but as I kicked back with them in a sun lounger while on vacation for hours on end I was relaxed enough to doze off on several occasions.

The only tradeoff is, I'd say, the audio, which doesn't seem to involve Bose tuning this time, and isn't quite as impactful as the Air 4 Pro's. That said, I'll almost always use earbuds or headphones with my display glasses, because they’re better in terms of quality and minimize sound leakage, so this downgrade didn't bother me.

Who wins? You decide

You'll also have to contend with Xreal's standard optic engine too. This is the prism that reflects the micro-OLED display into your eyes, and the standard design is susceptible to external reflections — most commonly light bouncing off the top of the specs and into your view. Pictures will also be a little smaller thanks to a reduced field of view, and can be a little blurrier at the frame edges.

Only Xreal's One Pros boast the improved design, but having experienced it, it's tough to go back to the standard optic engine.

To be fair, though, that’s mostly a me problem, and if you’re new to the display glasses world the Xreal xbx a01+ and RayNeo Air 4 Pros should be perfectly adequate performance-wise.

As for which of the budget specs you should go for — whichever is cheaper would be my suggestion.

The technical improvements of the xbx specs are solid, but if you can save $40/£40 or more on the RayNeos, their few deficiencies can be overlooked.

That said, if stylish, colorful designs are a must, alongside a marginally better image quality, then you'll be very pleased with the new Xreal xbx a01+ glasses.

I’ve tested dozens of smart glasses for TechRadar, but every time I get a new pair of Meta Ray-Bans to try, I’m reminded why they’re so popular — because yet again my past three weeks with the Ray-Ban Meta Optics have been a joy.

Mostly.

Much like Meta’s previous smart specs, you’ll find a host of technological features crammed into the eyewear.

There are speakers for open-ear audio, which is perfect for listening to casual tunes, taking a call, or hearing the AI’s responses to your queries — with the glasses’ microphones also doing a great job at picking up what you’re saying with minimal noise disruption.

Dedicated earbuds will sound better for sure — the bass isn’t as emphatic as I like with Meta’s Optics glasses (or its other models) — though I did enjoy listening to music through my glasses for hours on end with no major complaints.

As mentioned, there’s also Meta’s AI, which is accessed through the connected phone app and voice commands on your specs. It can answer questions you ask it and, with your permission, see what you see by accessing the Meta Optics’ camera to provide additional context to your questions, and interact with connected apps to play music requests or tell your health and fitness stats.

I’m not a big AI user except when I’m on holiday or just generally acting like a tourist. On our honeymoon, my wife used Look and Ask to check the ingredients on hair care products to make sure she wasn’t allergic, and I got the AI to supply me with phrases to use when I realized my limited Spanish wasn’t going to cut it.

The AI’s also perfect for identifying landmarks and telling you more about historic sites. I relied on it so much on a trip I took to Italy with my other Meta glasses a while ago — it helped me understand the ruins of Pompeii and better learn the history of the Colosseum.

Beyond identifying foreign signs and buildings, the cameras are ideal for first-person video. I used them to snap photos and videos of my wife and me, and they came out really well — they're the ideal way to record memories digitally, as you can still live in the moment rather than being cut off behind a phone screen.

I’ll talk more about cameras in a moment, but before that I want to focus on the key way the Optics is different to Meta’s other Ray-Ban smart specs: it's comfort and fit.

Built to last all-day

Meta’s smart glasses are chunkier than non-intelligent eyewear, which can make them feel more rigid and less comfortable than regular specs. To make the Optics better suited to all-day wear (something I can confirm they handle effectively after wearing these glasses for hours on end over the past few weeks), you’ll find interchangeable nose pads and adjustable temple tips to help you sculpt them to your face shape.

The correct nose pads have helped the specs sit better on my head without slipping down, while the temple tips can be carefully manipulated (either at home or at an optician) to help the Optics grip your face without applying too much pressure to the sides of your head.

If you’re considering getting some yourself, my final design note is this: pay extra for transition lenses.

The Ray-Bans I’ve been testing are outfitted with the Transitions XTRActive option, meaning they change between clear and shaded when exposed to sunlight — even when I’m in the car — and the lenses changed so quickly as I moved between different environments (something I noticed a lot when going between indoor and outdoor spaces on my honeymoon to Tenerife).

My non-smart eyeglasses boast Transitions Gen S lenses, and I’m also happy with them, or you can opt for polarized Transitions if you want even more light protection, if you’re also willing to pay a bit extra.

Regardless of which type you opt for, Transitions lenses are essential because they maximize the usefulness of your smart specs. Without them, you’re limited to either clear glasses you can only use indoors or on darker days, or shaded glasses that can only be worn outdoors when the sun is brightly shining.

Why did there have to be a but?

Now, the elephant in the room is that Meta’s smart specs are facing increasing amounts of scrutiny from the public because of their cameras.

News stories showcasing bad actors harassing women, recording secretly by modding their specs, or revealing that Meta contractors might be able to see more of your recorded content than you realize have been populating our timelines throughout 2026.

The upshot seems to be a wave of negativity: I conducted a poll through one of my recent stories, and over half of all respondents said they think smart glasses should be banned.

For its part, Meta is doing plenty to combat these issues: it cracked down on Facebook Marketplace listings for glasses modding services and issued an update to prevent the camera from working if the recording light on your smart eyewear is disabled, and it’s also tackling Instagram profiles belonging to creeps like pickup artists who promote using the glasses to harass people.

I still think more needs to be done on the privacy side of things — at the very least being much more explicit about what features share captured content with Meta, though ideally all of your content would remain private through an Apple-like Private Cloud Compute server setup.

As of now, I’m admittedly very nervous to wear my Meta Optics. I haven’t been worried about going around wearing my Meta Ray-Ban and Oakley specs in the past, but with growing public anger over the way smart specs are being misused, I have a genuine concern someone will see me wearing them and act violently towards me.

Or I could simply be banned from entering a space while wearing them. Some Comic-Cons, offices, and courts don’t let you in wearing Meta-style smart glasses. Especially for something as essential as prescription glasses, and pricey ones at that, being constantly nervous while wearing them or barred from entering certain spaces isn’t ideal.

There is genuinely so much to love about the smart glasses, and if you haven’t yet got a pair and wear prescription eyeglasses, the Meta Ray-Ban Scriber Optics styles are the ones I’d most highly recommend.

• SyLC 3D Player supports everything from 3D Blu-ray to Apple spatial videos, and it can convert 3D video to display it on Apple Vision Pro headsets
• It's backwards and forwards compatible — and the creator says it can get dual-HDMI output for dual projection, for future-proofing
• The app runs on Windows, and is free via Github 'because this format deserves better than a slow death'

One of the great tech disappointments of the last few decades was 3D TV. Like many movie fans I was excited by the possibilities, invested in a 3D TV, and watched the entertainment industry ensure that yet again, 3D movies were a short-lived trend. By 2013, it was already generally agreed that 3D TV was dead and that smart TVs and 4K were the way ahead.

Not everyone got the memo [I had mine until 2020… -Ed]. Over on the r/audiovisual subreddit, Jarod-The_Centre is determined to ensure 3D never dies — so they have been making a free player that now "plays EVERYTHING in 3D" from Blu-ray to Apple spatial videos.

And that's just the beginning of its talents. If you're a fan of things pointing out of the screen for no good reason, Jarod's player is fascinating.

I refused to let 3D die ! So I spent months building a free player that plays EVERYTHING in 3D: Blu-ray MVC, 4K HDR side-by-side, even Apple spatial videos. And it converts your 3D Blu-rays to Vision Pro format... from r/audiovisual

What does the 3D player do?

What doesn't it do? The player, called SyLC 3D Player, is a Windows app that's now in its fifth release. It's designed to play three different generations of 3D content: Blu-ray 3D/ISO/MVC MKV; HEVC/H.265 3D up to 4K 10-bit HDR; and Apple's MV-HEVC spatial videos. "The MVC of the 2020s, playing on your 2010s 3D TV," Jarod writes. "There's something poetic about that."

The app outputs in frame-packed 3D for compatible 3D TVs and projectors, and it can do something else that's really impressive: it can export 3D content as MV-HEVC, so you can take a 3D Blu-ray and turn it into a spatial video for Vision Pro.

I love Jarod's explanation for making the app. "It exists because this format deserves better than a slow death, and because apparently I don't know when to stop."

Jarod's in good company. Reddit's response to the latest announcement has been really positive and packed with good ideas, so for example Acceptable-Rise8783 suggests that for future-proofing, the app should be able to "send the two fields separately but in sync through two HDMI outputs."

With 3D TVs and projectors becoming increasingly hard to find — as they point out, "projectors are dropping support left and right because the chips that do 3D are becoming hard to come by" — the choice of viewing platforms will be reduced to dual-projector 3D or VR headsets.

The creator says this is something likely to appear in the player in a future version as the player already drives two windows simultaneously — and it means that dual projectors is the most 'future-proof' option for 3D, and the app supports it as best it can.

The whole discussion is fascinating, and I think Jarod sums it up beautifully. "Keep the faith. The format's not dead while we're still building for it 🔥".

Thinking of buying a new TV?

Try our TV size and model finder! You tell it how far you sit from your TV, we'll tell you what size to buy based on viewing angle advice from image quality experts, and we'll recommend our three top TVs at that size for different prices.

It’s probably fair to say Meta is facing serious public backlash to its AI glasses.

Musician Lorde took time at a recent concert to tell her audience, “Don’t get the glasses,” many online are branding them “pervert glasses,” and activist group Everyone Hates Elon has put up spoof adverts for the glasses featuring Jeffrey Epstein wearing a pair (note: the story behind a paywall).

I myself have been unsure if I’ll keep using my Meta glasses, despite their utility making them one of my favorite gadgets I’ve tested while working at TechRadar.

Meta has rebutted with new measures to combat misuse of its glasses. It recently patched its specs to prevent modders from using the camera despite disabling the recording light, and Instagram head Adam Mosseri recently announced harassment videos shot using Meta glasses will be banned from the platform — with some high-profile accounts already getting the boot.

Among the folks still in love with the Meta glasses, however, is my wife Izzy.

When I suggested taking a pair each with us on our recent honeymoon to Tenerife, she wasn’t convinced — despite them being our only sunglasses without my prescription lenses in them — but she wore the white-and-gold Oakley HSTN specs nearly all the time we were abroad.

I was also testing out a pair of the Ray-Ban Meta Optics styles for an upcoming review, and time and again the glasses proved themselves useful. Our trip confirmed how awesome these glasses can be when used right, and why a middle ground needs to be found to maximize privacy and utility before things get out of hand.

An all-in-one AI supertool

Of course, the primary reason to rely on Meta glasses is their built-in tech.

Whether we were lounging on a sunbed, strolling through the streets and past the beaches of Los Cristianos, or kicking back with a drink in the evening, we both loved the open-ear speakers that let us enjoy our podcast or playlist of choice without tuning out the world.

For hours on end, I enjoyed Radio 1 through BBC Sounds, while Izzy drifted between Spotify hits, and both pairs lasted a good length of time battery-wise — with touch controls making it super simple to control the tunes when needed.

The AI translations came in clutch several times as well. It offered quick advice on what phrases to use when we realized our limited selection of “Hola,” “Gracias,” and “Por favor” wouldn’t cut the mustard.

Meanwhile, Look and Ask helped Izzy decipher which of the unrecognizable shampoos and conditioners would be best for her hair after a travel mishap saw the supply we packed leak into her travel bag. The AI could read the Spanish labels to her to help identify and filter out ingredients she knows to avoid, and we ended up buying a few extra bottles of the conditioner she found to bring home after she fell in love with it.

It can't be understated how useful the smart specs are simply as sunglasses too.

My Optics pair features Transitions XTRActive lenses, transitioning fast from clear to shaded as I moved between indoor and outdoor spaces, which was super handy for someone like me who wears glasses all the time. Meanwhile, the polarized gold HSTN lenses were perfect for Izzy as she spent hours of her day baking in high-UV weather.

Thanks to the charging case, my specs rarely ran out of battery, but even when they did, I could still rely on them just fine as stylish shades.

Of course, the controversial aspect is the camera. Beyond the AI assistance, it was helpful for snapping quick photos and first-person clips for the travel vlog I’m looking to cut together.

Though whenever I went to snap a photo, I had flashes of the story about Meta contractors who claimed to have seen intimate moments captured through the specs. Shots of either of us in swimwear went nowhere near the glasses’ snapper, and I kept a careful eye on who was in the background of any shots I did take.

We were also a little worried that someone might not like us using the glasses at all in their presence, though thankfully no one took any issue with us.

These fears and considerations do create points of friction when it comes to using Meta’s glasses—or any smart glasses, for that matter. While the Facebook company is the best-known for smart eyewear right now it is far from alone, and while it's making efforts to clean up its public perception smart glasses will be tarred with the same brush if any brand steps out of line.

I also don’t think Meta’s efforts are perfect so far, at least not yet. I’d like to see more work across social and hardware platforms to root out smart glasses misuse; I believe better, more thorough privacy rules are necessary to make it crystal clear what data is and isn’t shared with Meta and its staff, and I’m not convinced I could trust it with the immense amount of data its rumored super sense feature would capture from my daily life — blunders like its Instagram AI image use plan and backtrack don’t fill me with confidence in its AI decision making.

At the same time, my week falling back in love with the Meta glasses, and my wife loving her Oakley smart specs, proves there’s something really fun and useful about the tech that I equally don’t want to see taken away or banned outright.

With other brands joining in on intelligent eyewear — recently Samsung demonstrated its own pairs at Galaxy Unpacked — it’s clear the tech industry is storming ahead, just as it has with exciting emerging technologies in the past.

I just hope a middle ground can be found, because smart specs represent a serious privacy nightmare beyond other gadgets we’ve relied on. If the tech doesn’t hold itself to account, we could see even more regulation and public backlash than we’ve seen already, and that could kill off my favorite tech sector of recent years before it has a chance to thrive.

While the tech world is gearing up for the debut of Samsung’s new foldables at Unpacked next week — with the company teasing some major changes to its lineup — here in the UK we’re finally able to get our hands on the Samsung Galaxy XR headset.

It's now available outside the US and Korea for the first time since its launch in October of last year, and I’ve been taking the headset for a spin after Samsung sent me a review a few weeks ago, and seeing how it compares to my trusty Meta Quest 3.

Now, I could just rehash a lot of what our Editor at Large, Lance Ulanoff, said in his Samsung Galaxy XR hands-on — praising the OLED screen, describing the comfort of the headset over several sessions, and listing the apps I love in XR that elevate the Android experience beyond what's possible on a phone or laptop. But I won't do that here.

Instead I'm putting my body (well, head and neck comfort) on the line to bring you the return of my favorite VR headset testing format: can I spend a whole week wearing the Samsung Galaxy XR?

The short answer? Yes, but it could be comfier. Read on for more about my experience.

Into the Android XR-verse

Just to be clear, I didn't wear the Galaxy XR headset 24/7 — I haven't been walking around my local supermarket immersed in XR, or sleeping in my Samsung headset .

I spent my whole working day in the headset (taking it off only for my lunch breaks, and to use the bathroom), and also wore it for a couple of hours each evening, to unwind with a movie or a game.

I also made sure to spend at least a day relying on only the hardware in the Samsung Galaxy XR’s box — i.e., the headset.

Software-wise, I used everything I’d normally rely on my PC or phone to work and stay entertained, and also had access to the Explorer Pack — a suite of software and subscriptions worth £665 that you'll get for free with a purchase of the Galaxy XR until December 16.

A quick aside on this pack: with a year's access to premium Gemini models (and 5TB of digital Google Cloud storage), plus a year of YouTube Premium, a Calm subscription, and plenty more, it's a really solid addition to the XR experience — I'll be writing more about my experience with its services soon.

Anyway, back to the headset itself…

Things got off to a good start on day one. Thanks to the XR multitasking I was able to have a giant floating Slack window keeping me in touch with my TechRadar colleagues, and a second giant floating YouTube window featuring the latest episode of one of my many podcasts or music playlists to keep me engaged, flanking a Google doc page for whatever I was working on, which I wrote in using a floating keyboard that reacts to my finger movements.

I could open Google Chrome tabs too, and conveniently flick through and between windows using eye controls — the headset relies on eye-tracking to determine what buttons I want to press, which I indicate by simply pinching my fingers while my hand rests lazily in front of me.

I was even able to join meetings virtually, with digital avatars that were good, but not yet great at representing me or mimicking my real-world facial expressions. My Galaxy avatar looked a bit too cartoonish for work meetings, and my Google avatar looked permanently distressed (which I don’t think is my general state of being), and was also missing my glasses, which felt weird — I always wear them, so it felt like the avatar was missing some of my identity.

That aside, I quickly found that any job which relies on lots of basic operations (essentially anything that isn’t something like intense video editing, though there are Play Store apps for less sophisticated video editing needs) is a breeze on the Galaxy XR headset. However, as the novelty faded, I hit my first hurdle: speed.

Gotta type fast!

Eye-tracking controls are neat, and generally XR controls are incredibly intuitive, but the keyboard is not as responsive as even the most basic physical keyboard. This slowed my typing pace to a crawl, and with deadlines looming over me I couldn’t spend my days steadily working through sentences at a snail pace.

The ideal alternative would be a Bluetooth keyboard that pairs with your headset, and most standard models will get the job done after you’ve connected one. I gave one a quick try, and it was much more effective than the virtual keyboard for actually working productively in XR — the brief pause I had to contend with between virtual key presses was eliminated.

My predicament gave me an excuse, however, to see how the headset works when paired with a PC — giving me the massive virtual displays of XR combined with the convenience of a fully powered desktop.

The perfect setup would involve a Samsung Galaxy Book, which pairs more seamlessly with the headset, like the Vision Pro and a MacBook pair for Apple users. However I don’t have a Galaxy Book, so I instead had to turn to Virtual Desktop.

It’s an app I’ve used previously to pair Meta headsets with my PC, and it’s very effective. The connection, even in a room a few meters from where my router lives, is seamless, with next to no delay between what I do on my PC and see on my headset’s view. Plus, with the ability to drag displays around and resize them, I could create the ultimate multi-monitor setup.

The downside is that you can’t access the full multitasking capabilities of the Galaxy XR headset within the Virtual Desktop app. Other apps seem not to suffer from these issues; however the trouble is that several, such as Google’s PC Connect, weren’t available in the UK when I was conducting my tests, and it seems that every app has a downside (for example, PC Connect only lets you stream a single monitor, not multiple).

This compatibility friction with non-Samsung PCs would be the biggest change I’d like to see addressed from a productivity standpoint, as otherwise the Galaxy XR excels on the software side.

My other two big changes would be to the design: the addition of a silicone facial interface and a top strap.

I can’t feel my head when I’m with you

The UK, where I’m based, has been buffeted by heat waves in recent weeks, including while I was testing the Galaxy headset. In homes designed to retain heat, and which lack A/C, this means things can get pretty hot and sweaty, which isn’t ideal when a headset is strapped to your face — and it’s even less ideal when you can feel that sweat being soaked up by the fabric facial interface.

If I was in charge of making headsets I’d mandate that all facial interfaces are made of silicone, or at least that headsets come with a swappable silicone interface, or a silicone cover for the fabric interface, in the box. Unfortunately I can't force such a change on Samsung, but hopefully it’s a change it’ll make for the Galaxy XR 2; it’s more hygienic, and makes the headset easier to share, and I’ve found it doesn’t impact the comfort at all (if anything it makes me feel more at ease in the headset, as I know I’m not immersed in months-old sweat).

As for a top strap (one which runs over the top of my head rather than simply around it), I firmly believe it would help to make the headset comfier to wear for long stretches, as it would further spread the weight of the device across my head.

Day one wasn’t too bad, but by the midpoint of day two I was feeling a little discomfort. By day four I was ready to give up my challenge; and the end of day five couldn’t come fast enough.

Samsung gets so much else right in terms of the Galaxy XR's comfort — chiefly moving the weight of its bulky battery to an external puck, so that you’re only carrying 545g on your head — so it’s a shame that the headset is let down by something as simple as its headband.

For a few hours I found it was fine, but for my extreme testing sessions it didn’t hold up.

Yet again, then, I’ve found that I don’t really want to spend my whole day inside a VR headset, even though the Samsung Galaxy XR headset represents a serious improvement in terms of visual performance (courtesy of its superb OLED screen), the usefulness of its features, including eye-tracking (which I’ve previously found is quite gimmicky), and delivering solid multitasking performance (aided by the expansive app library of the Play Store) compared to the last time I tried a similar exercise with the Meta Quest Pro a few years ago.

Even if I won’t be spending all my time in the Galaxy XR, I plan to wear it plenty more, albeit just for more casual sessions, and I’ll definitely be taking it on a flight, as soon as I have the opportunity, to see how it fares — perhaps that’s where it’ll really shine.

Tech companies large and small — including the likes of Meta, Samsung, and Google (and perhaps even Apple) — are betting that smart glasses become one of the leading device form factors of the future. But this week it became clear that they're facing an increasingly strong backlash against the technology.

There's one problem in particular: cameras. These tiny, embedded recording devices make it easier to record your kids' cute mishaps, your latest mountain bike ride, and a first-person view of anything without needing to get your phone out, but they also enable a certain level of surreptitious photo and video capturing that isn't possible with a phone.

And there's no doubt that bad actors are using these smart glasses for unwholesome purposes: some glasses owners have been paying modders to disable the warning light that should appear whenever recording is actively happening.

We're now at the stage where smart glasses owners are worried about wearing them in public, such is the growing negativity around them. Here's what we've learned in the last few days, and what might happen next.

An inevitable 'collapse into surveillance tech'

Smart glasses with cameras are nothing new of course, but stories around these devices being modded to operate without recording lights (something Meta has now moved to block), as well as reports that future Meta Ray-Bans could be recording all the time, seems to have prompted a new wave of anti-smart glasses sentiment.

Even the celebrities are weighing in: pop icon Lorde was less than complimentary about smart specs on stage recently, leaving her audience in no doubt about her feelings about the tech, while rapper and producer Tyler, the Creator has declared that "anyone who uses these glasses is a real weirdo".

Some of the rich and famous are still on board — you can actually buy Kylie Jenner-branded Meta Glasses, if you want — but most of the online reaction is critical of the technology. A quick peek at Reddit reveals comments like "all internet and computer tech seems to inevitably collapse into surveillance tech" and "people are choosing to be a walking Flock camera" (if you don't get the reference, read this).

Users are referencing Black Mirror and calling for the technology to be banned outright, and using terms like "creep goggles" to describe the devices. While a ban is unlikely at this point, there are some legal changes happening: Illinois looks set to be the first US state to ban smart glasses while driving, not because of any sneaky recording capabilities, but because they might prove to be a distraction to drivers.

Over in South Korea, meanwhile, a man is facing criminal charges after admitting to using smart glasses to cheat on a test. The camera captures the questions, on-board AI figures out what the answers are, and the person sitting the exam writes down the answers. There's more than one way to misuse the camera technology.

However, lawmakers don't yet seem convinced that these AI-powered glasses represent a privacy threat. Regulators in the European Union have reportedly bowed to US pressure in deciding that wearables were exempt from having to include removable batteries, like some other gadget types are when sold in the EU.

What happens next?

While there are some limited efforts to curb the use of smart glasses then, at this stage they're small scale and localized. To try and nudge things along, activists in London have been busy putting up fake Meta Glasses ads on bus stops (below), making a point about surveillance. One of the ads uses an optical illusion to turn the face of Kylie Jenner into a creepy skeleton, with the tagline "we're always watching".

Recording everything we see and do constantly? It’s giving fascism, not fashion It’s just been revealed Meta is planning to make the glasses “continuously record audio while taking photos every few seconds” without any warning light*Literally NO ONE asked for this#noncegoggles*Source: the FT

— @everyonehateselon.bsky.social (@everyonehateselon.bsky.social.bsky.social) 2026-07-17T18:40:05.934Z

Cast your mind back to 2012 when Google Glass launched, and you'll remember that we've been debating these issues for years. There are clearly benefits to wearable specs that can give you hands-free directions, translations, and information without you having to take your phone out, but it seems the concerns over covert surveillance are outweighing the positives in the public's mind.

Given the growing influence of AI tech and how well-suited these wearables are to taking in and processing information, it doesn't seem likely that the tech will be restricted any time soon. For several years now we've been seeing demos of smart glasses that can see and understand the world around them, and those capabilities are on the way whether we like it or not.

If, as rumored, Apple does make its own version of smart glasses, it's going to be interesting to see how this famously privacy-focused company deals with the issues of surveillance. A recording light that cannot be switched off is a good start, but as we've already mentioned, existing users are already cautious of wearing their smart specs around other people.

Later this year we're going to see more smart glasses from Google and Samsung, with Gemini AI ready and waiting to tell you everything you need to know about what you're looking at — which of course requires a camera. As per Google, the company is aware that people won't wear these specs if the privacy concerns are too great, and its solution is mostly to make sure the recording light is noticeable and cannot be tampered with.

"If people don't feel comfortable wearing these glasses, and privacy is part of this, they just won't wear the glasses," Google's Juston Payne told Tom's Guide this week. "It’s as simple as that." The new Google and Samsung wearables are scheduled to arrive later this year, but the companies involved still have a way to go when it comes to shifting user opinion.

• Meta reportedly has a new AI glasses prototype
• It is helping the company finalize a super sensing AI model
• Meta execs apparently aren't yet certain what rules the all seeing AI should follow

Meta is reportedly trialling a new super-sensing AI glasses prototype that aim to offer an ultimate level of assistance, for the small price of capturing your every moment.

The basic idea is that, because personal AI assistance gets better the more the AI knows you, by having you smart specs watch every detail of your life, the assistant can then offer more insightful help.

It could, for example, know if your fridge has milk in because it has seen inside it, or remind you not to forget your keys as you go to leave home. It could remember that gift your friend was desperately hoping to get for their birthday, or remind you the name of someone you’ve met before, if you're forgotten and are too embarrassed to ask.

This kind of tool would undeniably be pretty handy, but the extreme cost would be that your glasses would have to be always on — otherwise the AI might not see or hear the crucial information you’ll need later.

However, this incredible level of insight could be very easily abused — so you’d either have to really trust the company capturing it, or just not care if it knows everything about you.

This latest super-sensing leak comes via the Financial Times (behind a paywall) which reports that Meta is currently testing a pair of specs that achieve super-sensing by capturing continuous audio, and snapping photos every few seconds.

The more staccato image feed is likely an effort to conserve battery — according to previous leaks, existing Meta glasses have all the hardware they need to pull off super sensing, but their batteries wouldn’t be able to last long enough for it to be widely useful.

According to the report, Meta is also still trying to work on some other aspects, like whether the recording light LED should be displayed or not. When you’re recording it normally would be — super sense would be capturing people around you who might wish to know if they’re on camera — though sources have told the FT that there are plans for it to not to be displayed.

Considering that Meta just made a big post about privacy, and even updating the specs to disable tricks modders have been using to allow the specs to record without the light coming on, I’d be surprised if it took the no-light approach, but we’ll have to wait and see.

Man vs machine

You might also remember a story we shared in March about Meta contractors who claimed to be able to see images and videos taken with the glasses.

Essentially, in order to use Meta’s AI you agree to allow the company to see information about your AI communications, including videos and photos. This seemingly includes photos and videos you take using hands-free voice controls — which does technically involve Meta AI, as it has to action your request.

If an always-on AI is seeing every detail of your life there’s potentially a lot more scope for you to capture sensitive data that you'd rather not let Meta's contractors (or anyone else frankly) see. Encouragingly, according to people familiar with Meta’s super-sensing technology, there are plans to never store the raw footage and audio — meaning Meta nor the user could access it.

Instead, the system would extract the metadata from the capture, and only that would be uploaded — metadata is data about data, so imagine if instead of showing someone a photo you just described what’s in it and where it is.

There’s still some room for personal data to leak through this system, but with the correct safeguards it would have far fewer privacy implications. The big obvious gap would be the privacy of those around you — people who, unlike you the glasses wearer, might not have consented for Meta to store any kind of data about them.

The FT report adds there are also debates over whether Meta’s AI should be allowed to use this metadata for training purposes, in order for it to keep up with the capabilities of OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic’s models.

While leaks should be taken with a pinch of salt, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear that he wants to offer these kinds of features on his company’s glasses. Most recently he said in an investor call that he wants smart glasses “to be a personal agent that’s with you all day long, helping you remember things and achieve your goals.”

So the advent of technology like super-sense is most likely a matter of when not if, though with battery hardware constraints persisting (especially if you want slim and light glasses), and with privacy being such a hot-button issue, I expect it might be a while before we see super sense in action.

Whenever it arrives, we'll just have to hope that it’s implemented in the right way, and with appropriate safeguards. Such a tool could potentially offers some incredible accessibility benefits, but if the privacy cost is too great the I don’t see it taking off in the way I’m sure Meta would want it to.

Do you remember the metaverse? If you don’t, don’t worry. In 2026, four years into the AI revolution that’s changing the world forever, you could easily be forgiven for thinking it was a strange fever dream you had back in 2021. You might even have odd memories of seeing a blocky version of Mark Zuckerberg floating about in a Minecraft-inspired hellscape, conducting meetings with people who could walk with no legs, while the real Mark Zuckerberg was looking at the whole thing through VR goggles. At least, that’s my memory of it.

I could be suffering from the Mandela effect, but I distinctly remember something off about the legs. They fixed that in a later version, but that’s my overriding memory — no legs. Oh, and Mark Zuckerberg assuring us that this was the future. He’d spent tens of billions of dollars on it, even changing the company name from Facebook to Meta, just to let us know he was really serious about the metaverse. Even if the legs didn’t work.

The problem was, it looked laughable. While everything in the technology world to do with games and special effects was moving in the direction of hyper-realism, the metaverse was moving in the opposite direction, towards the sort of blocky graphics that small children enjoy. But even that didn’t really answer the most basic question about the metaverse. Why? What possible advantage was there for us all to meet in a VR space where clunky avatars of ourselves could interact… badly?

Then AI happened and Meta abruptly forgot about the metaverse and pivoted towards the mission of putting personal superintelligence in all our hands instead, which sounds as terrifying and dangerous as it actually is, but we are where we are. At least when Zuckerberg was obsessed with the metaverse, we could ignore him. It existed somewhere “over there”, in Meta-land, where we could let him get on with it. Now he’s right up in our business again.

The rise of a bad idea

I’ve always been fascinated by how Zuckerberg got into the metaverse and why he became so obsessed with it. The origins of the metaverse go way back. In March 2014, Facebook bought Oculus, the VR company, for about $2 billion. This was where his passion for VR started. Think of it as the seed, not the full obsession.

By July 2021, Zuckerberg gave a long interview to Casey Newton at The Verge about Facebook becoming a “metaverse company” and described it as an “embodied internet”. Then, on October 28, 2021, his obsession became the company identity. Zuckerberg announced that Facebook the company was becoming Meta at Connect 2021, saying the new company brand would focus on bringing the metaverse to life.

I can see the logic. As a business strategy, that made sense. As a product ordinary people were expected to use, it was much harder to understand. Zuckerberg did not want Meta/Facebook to be trapped inside someone else’s platform again. Facebook had won on social, but on mobile it remained dependent on Apple and Google for distribution, privacy rules, app-store policies and hardware. The metaverse looked like a chance to own the next operating system of social life: hardware, avatars, identity, payments, meetings, gaming, work, commerce — the whole stack. In his 2021 founder’s letter, he framed the metaverse as the “next chapter of the internet” and said Meta would become “metaverse-first, not Facebook-first.”

Facebook had obviously had its problems — it was scandal-ridden. It had let advertisers target vulnerable teenagers, helped fake news spread, and enabled the spread of hate speech linked to atrocities in Myanmar. Perhaps Zuckerberg was looking for a way out of Facebook, and the metaverse offered that.

What I still didn’t understand was why he didn’t see what the rest of us saw — that it looked terrible and offered no real benefit to users. Then I read Sarah Wynn-Williams’ tell-all book about Facebook, Careless People, and it all started to make sense.

To say the book made my jaw hit the floor on several occasions would be an understatement. It’s an absolute page-turner, and your reactions grow from mild amusement to shock, then disbelief, then absolute outrage the further through the book you get. I’m aware of the criticisms of Wynn-Williams: that it is a book written by a disgruntled employee, and that she dodges a lot of personal responsibility for her part in the various misdeeds of the company. However, in another perfect example of the Streisand effect, the fact that Meta obtained a legal order in the United States to prevent her from saying anything negative about the company — at all — made me want to pick it up, and I’m glad I did.

Because now I get it — Zuckerberg seems to have spent years in an environment where too few people were willing to tell him when his ideas weren’t good. According to Wynn-Williams, he was surrounded by sycophants. When he had bad ideas, like the ill-fated Internet.org, he wouldn’t let them go and persisted with them, even when they were obviously going to fail. The people around him enabled him because he was simply too powerful. They even let him win at the board games he liked to play with them at his house or on his jet, and — crucially — he didn’t notice that they were letting him win. I can imagine that in that environment, nobody inside Meta would want to tell Zuckerberg that his metaverse was the equivalent of the emperor’s new clothes, especially if they wouldn’t even risk beating him at Settlers of Catan.

Wynn-Williams only mentions the metaverse in her epilogue. It happened after she was brutally fired from Facebook. Perhaps selfishly, I wish she’d been there for the metaverse period, because I would love to read firsthand accounts of how and why Zuckerberg persisted with such an obviously bad idea.

The fall of the metaverse

Maybe I’m being too harsh on Zuckerberg. The metaverse graphics did get better over time and Apple ventured slightly into the same territory with its Apple Vision Pro, even after the metaverse had turned into a smoldering wasteland. The fact is, people don’t enjoy wearing VR goggles for extended periods of time, and for normal people, VR lacks that one killer app. There doesn’t seem to be anything you can do in a VR space that you can’t do elsewhere much more easily.

The metaverse didn’t really die with a bang, but with a whimper. It faded through layoffs, spending cuts and the AI pivot. If I had to put a date on it, I’d say early 2023 was when Meta’s narrative moved on. In February and March 2023, Zuckerberg started talking about Meta’s “year of efficiency” and announced huge layoffs and cost-cutting. OpenAI had launched ChatGPT in November 2022, and by early 2023, generative AI had swallowed the oxygen that ideas like the metaverse need to survive. Every tech company was talking about AI now, not virtual offices and avatar legs.

The metaverse was over. We all forgot about it and moved on.

I’m glad I read Wynn-Williams’ book, because now I can understand how Facebook let the metaverse happen. And if there’s one thing I learned from reading it, it’s that money and power can bring you a lot of things, but common sense requires neither.

• A new update is coming to Meta's smart glasses
• It should stop modders from disabling the light that lets people know you're using the camera
• Meta is also targeting modders on and off its platform

Last month we shared details of reports that Meta glasses were being modded to bypass privacy protections and turn them into secret spy glasses. Now Meta has revealed it will update the glasses’ software to detect whether its light has been tampered with (or destroyed) to prevent recording.

Whenever you take a photo or video with Meta glasses, a white light appears on the front of the glasses to signal to people around you that you’re filming.

For creeps looking to be more secretive with their recordings, this light is a hindrance, but Meta has imposed more basic tamper-proof features since launch. That is, any attempt to use the camera while the light is blocked — such as by a piece of tape — wouldn’t be allowed. The trouble is, modders have found ways to open up the glasses and disable or damage the light and its mechanisms that prevent it from showing, without getting flagged by the system — meaning you can use the camera as you normally would, but without anyone else knowing.

This is (to put it bluntly) not good, and when the reports came out, a Meta spokesperson told me that the company was looking into ways to disable this workaround.

They also explained that Meta is working hard to stamp out advertisements for these kinds of services — some of which appeared on its own Facebook Marketplace platform — with its latest announcement explaining this means banning accounts, taking down listings, and taking legal action against people or businesses that tamper with its tech.

Beyond the detail of updating software to prevent tampering, the whole article from Meta is focused on privacy, and crucially how Meta keeps you and others safe.

Thanks to people misusing its tech, the wider notoriety these gadgets are getting again, and reports of contractors seeing recorded images and videos that Meta glasses users might not have fully realized they could see, Meta and smart glasses makers have been facing major privacy questions.

With this article, Meta seems to answer many of them, though we’ll have to wait and see if it can convince users — or if they might be tempted by the rise of cameraless smart glasses.

The only way is cameraless?

Even Realities, another smart glasses firm, recently announced it has raised $150 million in investment at a $1 billion valuation — not too shabby for a company that only launched its first XR gadget in 2024.

Instead of Meta’s camera-first approach, Even Realities went for a display-first approach. Information is shown visually as green text and basic diagrams to provide features such as AI advice, navigational directions, or a speech appearing on a virtual prompter. Its specs also lack speakers, though that’s not true for all glasses of their kind.

Losing out on the camera is, of course, a major privacy win for some, as there’s no possible way for the glasses to see something they shouldn’t or be used to spy.

The thing is, I think these kinds of glasses are pretty terrible. Having tested a few at home, the ones without a camera just aren’t worth wearing.

Smart glasses, despite being increasingly popular, are in their infancy, which in the tech world means you can expect to pay a fair sum for relatively limited features — that’s the price of being an early adopter. That’s especially true, I’ve found, for these XR glasses specifically, because while they can offer several tools like navigation, on-screen translations, a prompter, and notification pop-ups, their usefulness is pretty limited.

How often do you need a prompter? Or one-way translation tools? In the case of the latter, because these kinds of glasses often have you rely on your phone to set up the translation feature or access other features, you might as well just turn to something like Google Translate — which has conversation modes so that two people can talk and see translations through a single device.

The software I’ve found for these types of specs can also be pretty terrible with sluggishness, inaccuracies, and crashes — and if I, as someone who tests smart glasses professionally, have trouble, I can’t imagine what less techy people must think.

Additionally, the green text can be hard to make out on a bright day if you’re outside, making on-screen directions difficult to see.

While admittedly more limited feature-wise, the Meta glasses and smart specs like them feel like way better value for money. From Meta specifically, the software is generally very reliable, and more broadly, the ability to snap a photo whenever — either to capture a moment or to provide context for an AI’s response — comes in handy so often.

Even if it isn’t as good as my phone camera, the ability to record a memory, hands-free and without being taken out of the moment, is so utterly delightful.

Yes, there are privacy challenges which need to be hashed out more formally, as even without the ability to record privately there is still plenty of room for creeps to harass people with this kind of gadget, but if you want a pair of smart glasses right now there simply isn’t a better option.

Walk deep into Walt Disney Imagineering’s sprawling, surprisingly unassuming Glendale campus, and you’ll eventually find Studio C.

It’s where Imagineering mixes the audio for its attractions, but when I recently stepped inside, I quickly realized it was much more than a recording studio. The room is lined with dozens upon dozens of speakers designed to recreate the sound field of Disney attractions, letting Imagineers hear a ride long before guests ever do.

During my visit, I watched a live mix session for Zootopia: Hot Pursuit, Shanghai Disneyland’s trackless dark ride, and the experience was almost uncanny. Sound moved seamlessly around the room, tracking the ride vehicle as though I were actually inside the attraction.

That same room became the proving ground for one of Imagineering’s most unusual engineering challenges yet: figuring out how to mix the audio for Soarin’ Across America.

The reimagined version of Disney’s iconic flight simulator debuted this summer at both EPCOT at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida, and Disney California Adventure in Anaheim, California, timed for America’s Semiquincentennial celebration. Disney’s Unscripted behind-the-scenes video confirmed that Imagineers used the Apple Vision Pro during production of Soarin’ Across America, but it left one obvious question unanswered: why? That’s what I wanted to find out.

So I spoke with Greg Lhotka, Sr. Manager, Audio Media Design at Walt Disney Imagineering, who walked me through the surprisingly complicated process behind mixing one of Disney’s most technically demanding attractions.

“For Soarin’ Across America, we utilized Studio C not only as a production facility, but as a proving ground for an entirely new field-mixing approach developed specifically for this film. On the sound design side, we partnered with Skywalker Sound, and together we used Studio C to prototype and validate a custom speaker configuration that closely mirrors the unique audio architecture of the Soarin’ theaters.”

If you’ve ridden Soarin’, you already know why that matters. Riders are lifted into the air in three stacked rows facing a massive curved projection screen, while sound moves not only around the theater but above and below you as well. As Lhotka explained, the attraction uses a four-tiered speaker system — upper, mid-level, lower, and a dedicated floor array — creating an audio environment that’s far more complex than a traditional movie theater.

Having now ridden Soarin’ Across America several times, it’s easy to appreciate the result. The updated film sweeps from New York Harbor and the Grand Canyon to California’s rolling hills and countless landscapes in between through soaring aerial cinematography, practical effects, and a soundtrack that glides almost effortlessly alongside you. The audio shifts just as fluidly as the visuals, making each transition feel natural as the ride carries you across some of America’s most recognizable landmarks and scenic vistas.

Studio C could simulate much of that during production, but not all of it.

“For Soarin’ films, mixing historically required the construction of scaffolding inside the theater to reach the appropriate listening height for final mix decisions,” Lhotka explained. “Even then, the process was far from ideal, as the ride canopy significantly influences the acoustics. For this project, one of the key requirements was that the theater remain fully operational and open to guests throughout production — eliminating the possibility of scaffolding altogether.”

That constraint forced Imagineering to rethink its entire workflow.

“The challenge was clear: how do you mix a show with over 1,000 audio tracks and an extremely complex panning matrix while seated in a ride vehicle? The solution came through an innovative use of new AR technologies. By leveraging advanced screen-sharing capabilities, we were able to remotely control our production system — directly connected to the theater — while seated in the ride vehicle itself. This allowed us to place virtual screens in our field of view, effectively bringing the mixing console into the theater environment.”

Before anyone tested it inside the attraction, Studio C became the test lab.

“Studio C once again played a critical role as our testbed. Over the course of a week, we evaluated multiple configurations to confirm that things could be controlled precisely in this way, and that the AR headset’s external cameras would allow us to view the film clearly in the theater’s low-light conditions while simultaneously monitoring the virtual screens. The final configuration exceeded expectations.”

Once validated, the workflow moved from experiment to production.

“This workflow was ultimately used as the solution — and it became the method by which Soarin’ Across America was mixed. The result is a soundtrack that was shaped directly from the guest’s perspective, using tools and techniques that reflect our continued commitment to innovation, immersion, and storytelling.”

Having experienced Studio C for myself, that revelation immediately clicked. The room is already designed to recreate the feeling of sitting inside a Disney attraction with remarkable accuracy. But even a purpose-built facility couldn’t perfectly replicate Soarin’s unique acoustics. The only place left to finish the mix was inside the attraction itself.

It’s an elegant solution that solved two problems at once. Guests never lost access to Soarin’ during production, and Imagineering’s audio team was able to shape the soundtrack from the exact seat every future rider would occupy. Rather than approximating the experience from scaffolding or even Studio C, the final mix was crafted where it mattered most: inside the attraction itself.

• Conversation focus is being limited to three hours a month for some Meta glasses users
• For a longer 15 hours a month limit you'll need to pay for Meta One Premium
• The feature is handled on device, so it's unclear why it has been paywalled

The Meta Ray-Bans and other AI glasses can perform a slew of useful tasks thanks to their wearable hardware and digital assistant — but Meta has just announced that one of those features will be getting serious limitations as it introduces a paid subscription plan that will unlock more usage time.

Conversation focus was showcased at Meta Connect last year, and is essentially an audio mixer for your real-life conversations. When you switch the feature on — using the voice command "Hey Meta, start conversation focus" — the specs’ microphones will pick up the voice of the person you’re looking at, the AI will separate their voice from the background noise, and then your glasses’ speakers will play what they’re saying to you to amplify their speech and make it stand out.

It’s an impressive feature, and very useful if you struggle to hear people in crowded spaces — or are starting to become a little hard of hearing and want a voice boost much of the time — but this is the feature Meta is now starting to limit. If you only have the free account that you create when you set up your glasses in the Meta AI app, you’ll just have three hours of conversation focus a month (as spotted by The Verge).

If you want more hours you’ll need to sign up to a paid Meta One Premium subscription, which costs $19.99 per month. Notably this subscription doesn’t unlock unlimited conversation focus access; instead your limit is bumped up to 15 hours a month.

In addition to this, Meta One Premium will also give you access to more advanced Meta AI reasoning models through the app, and expanded access to image and video generation models.

Was this inevitable?

We know that unlimited free AI access isn’t sustainable. Every AI query has a data center and energy cost to AI companies like Meta, and eventually they'll need to recuperate those costs or risk serious financial struggles.

However, no matter how inevitable a Meta AI glasses subscription seemed, this isn’t how I imagined it would roll out — frankly it’s quite a bad look for Meta, and I hope it reverses course.

My frustrations with this change as a Meta AI glasses user are three-fold. First, having something that was previously free taken away is never fun, especially as features like conversation focus felt like they’d already been paid for via the purchase of Meta’s glasses.

If Meta One had instead locked a new more powerful AI model behind a subscription, or some powerful new tool, that would feel very different. Your glasses would still do everything you were told they could do at launch, but to get some serious upgrades you’d need to pay up — sure this wouldn’t feel all that amazing either, but at least Meta wouldn’t be seen to be taking a feature away and holding it hostage.

My next frustration is that it’s conversation focus specifically that is being taken away. As I've mentioned, this is something of an accessibility tool, and while I’m sure most users only activate it periodically if there’re in a very noisy bar or somewhere similarly packed, for some I can see conversation focus being a tool they rely on frequently if they have more general hearing troubles but aren’t quite ready for a more sophisticated aid.

The flip side, unfortunately, is that if conversation focus isn’t a tool everyone uses all the time it’s the one least likely to actually inconvenience most Meta glasses users, allowing the company to experiment with paid access to tools without upsetting a large section of their consumer base.

Finally, according to Meta itself, conversation focus is handled entirely on-device. Your Meta AI glasses can offer the function without an internet connection, meaning it shouldn’t be costing its data centers anything to process.

In a way, taking unlimited conversation focus usage away is like Meta limiting how many photos your glasses can take a month. All the hardware and software tech is on your device; it’s just being locked away in what seems like a classic case of corporate greed.

Now, the silver lining at the moment is that if you haven’t noticed any rate limits yet, or heard about Meta One through your specs, it’s likely that your glasses are still working the same as they always have. As explained in the help article, “Meta One is currently in limited testing and isn't available everywhere yet.”

Additionally, I’m hoping the fact that Meta One is still in testing means Meta won’t be afraid to reverse course, especially as this decision feels so nonsensical for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Or perhaps it’ll be forced to rethink things if its AI glasses rivals (including the incoming Android XR specs) boast similar features at a similar price with no such paywall or usage limit.

Otherwise, this feels like yet another unforced error for Meta in the smart glasses space. How can we now trust tha tMeta won’t paywall any AI glasses feature we’ve previously had access to?

Following the announcement of its more budget-friendly AI glasses — including a pair styled by Kylie Jenner — I hoped it might be getting back on the right track. This latest announcement has knocked my confidence, but the ball is still in Meta’s court — perhaps Meta Connect 2026 will see it properly turn things around.

In 2026 it can feel a little like VR’s moment has passed.

Meta’s layoffs to kick off the year felt like a major downer for the industry at large — especially as it has been the champion of this space for years now — and it certainly seems that smart glasses like the Meta Ray-Bans but also Snap Specs, Android XR glasses, and more that have debuted this year are stealing the XR spotlight.

But VR is far from dead. Sure it might not be seeing the growth it once saw but sa a gaming and entertainment machine that tech is only getting better each day.

Plus with some Meta Quest 3S deals at Amazon Prime Day you can save big on the best affordable VR hardware out there.

• Browse the full Amazon Prime Day sale

This headset is technically as capable as a Meta Quest 3, meaning the 3S can handle whatever software the Quest ecosystem might want to throw at it — and that’s a broad list.

There’s plenty of VR games to jump into including Marvel’s Deadpool, Batman:Arkham Shadow, Walkabout Minigolf, and Beat Saber to name just a few. Plus there are fitness apps — which when combined with a silicone facial interface turn your headset into an actually enjoyable home gym — and a growing collection of streaming services which turn your headset into a private home theatre, you can even kick back in bed and enjoy watching the screen as if it were affixed to your ceiling.

With game console price hikes making gaming pricier than ever, it’s worth noting your headset can double as an Xbox too — again complete with a giant display. You’ll just need a Game Pass subscription and Xbox controller.

In the US a bonus Quest deal will get you a free month of Xbox Game Pass, while the UK version nets you 20%-off code for an Xbox controller and one month of Game Pass Ultimate after the purchase of a 3S headset.

Price up, prices down

The slight elephant in the room we should address with these Prime Day ‘deals’ is they unfortunately aren’t really deals in the truest sense.

Thanks to the RAM crisis the Meta Quest 3 series headsets saw a price hike. The 128GB model Meta Quest 3S went up to $349.99 / £319.99 / AU$569, while the price of the 256GB edition rose to $449.99 / £409.99 / AU$729. The 512GB Meta Quest 3now sets you back $599.99 / £549.99 / AU$969.

These Prime Day deals generally just revert the headset to its pre-hike price. You’ll see a roughly $53 saving, but in actuality it’s closer to $3.

That said, as some pointed out even after the hike, the Quest 3S represents incredible value for money. So sure this discount isn’t as great as it was a year ago before the base cost rose, but the Quest 3S at its original asking price is one of the best deals in tech, so definitely consider grabbing one while the discount is around.

With the RAM crisis and shipping troubles looking set to persist I wouldn’t be surprised if prices rise further, and Black Friday deals might struggle to match even those we have today. Not just for the Meta Quest 3S, but any gadget.

More Prime Day deals in the US

• Amazon Devices: Fire Sticks & Echo from $18
• Amazon Haul: viral gadgets, tech & appliances from $1.99
• Apple: MacBooks, AirPods & AirTags from $29
• Beauty: 50% off toothbrushes & hair tools
• Cheap TVs: smart TVs from $69.99
• Garden: tools, mowers, planters from $24.99
• Headphones: 50% off Beats, Bose & Samsung
• Laptops: Apple, HP & Dell from $199
• Mattresses: Sealy, Serta & more from $186
• Patio: outdoor furniture, rugs & decor from $19.99
• Sports: 50% off fitness gear, treadmills & clothing
• Vacuums: Dyson, Shark & Bissell from $34

More Prime Day deals in the UK

• Amazon Prime: get a 30-day free trial
• Amazon Devices: Fire, Ring & Blink from £13.99
• Amazon Haul: up to 30% off
• Apple: up to 33% off AirPods & Apple Watch
• Appliances: up to 45% off Ninja & Tefal
• Beauty: up to 60% off Philips & Oral-B
• Essentials: household goods from £5
• Fans: from £20
• Fashion: up to 50% off
• Gaming: £90 off PlayStation 5
• Headphones: up to 50% off Beats & Sony
• Laptops: from £149
• Tablets: Samsung & Lenovo from £79.99
• Toys: up to 25% off Lego and Tonies
• TVs: from £129.99
• Vacuums: up to 40% off Shark & Roborock
• Wearables: up to 30% off Garmin & Oura

The RayNeo Air 4 Pro smart glasses are easily the best budget smart specs you can buy if you’re after the ultimate portable entertainment gadget.

High-tech specs are all the rage, but there are different types in this broad category. You have the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, which offer audio-only AI assistance, the Snap Specs, which deliver AI and full-on AR, and then something like the RayNeo glasses, which act like your own private movie theatre.

• Browse the full Amazon Prime Day sale

You connect them to a compatible USB-C device, and your screen will be projected in front of you on a virtual 200-inch screen that only you can see.

This setup is perfect in so many scenarios. When I’m taking a flight I can watch Netflix on a giant display that’s better than any in-flight entertainment screen, I can lay back in bed with my Asus Rog Xbox Ally X display virtually projected onto my ceiling, and when I’m working on a story about an unannounced gadget I can rely on the specs to keep that info private with a display no one else can read.

If you don’t yet own a pair of smart glasses like this, you absolutely should. They’re a must-buy ahead of this year’s Summer travel season, and thanks to Amazon Prime Day there’s never been a better time to grab a pair.

Today's best RayNeo Air 4 Pro deals

Did I mention that the specs are only $295? For Prime Day, the standard edition specs are $239.20, saving you 20% at Amazon. That’s the best price these smart glasses have ever been, and the best bang for your buck a pair of smart specs has ever been. Meanwhile, in the UK, the RayNeo Air 4 Pro glasses will set you back just £248.99 at Amazon, a 34% drop from their usual £379 — again thanks to some Prime Day magic.

When tech prices have been on a sharp increase, it’s a breath of fresh air to see something as genuinely excellent as the RayNeo Air 4 Pros not only launch at a budget-friendly price, but then fall during Prime Day sales.

While the RayNeo Air 4 Pro glasses aren’t as unique as this category once was — I mean, we’re four generations in on just this product alone, plus all of its rivals from other brands — the tech stands alone because it’s so budget-friendly and yet incredibly capable.

The micro-OLED displays boast HDR10 support — and they were the first smart glasses of this type to do so. This means they boast an incredible range of color hues, with professional accuracy that will make your HDR10-supported content pop. Plus, as you expect from OLED screens, the contrast is solid, especially if you use a lens cover to block out external light.

As for audio, while headphones are a solid option if you want to keep what you’re listening to more private, RayNeo’s specs boast spatial audio tuned by experts Bang & Olufsen. They sound great, and a major step up from the earliest generations of smart specs, which were effectively unusable sonically unless you had a pair of Bluetooth cans.

More Prime Day deals in the US

• Amazon Devices: Fire Sticks & Echo from $18
• Amazon Haul: viral gadgets, tech & appliances from $1.99
• Apple: MacBooks, AirPods & AirTags from $29
• Beauty: 50% off toothbrushes & hair tools
• Cheap TVs: smart TVs from $69.99
• Garden: tools, mowers, planters from $24.99
• Headphones: 50% off Beats, Bose & Samsung
• Laptops: Apple, HP & Dell from $199
• Mattresses: Sealy, Serta & more from $186
• Patio: outdoor furniture, rugs & decor from $19.99
• Sports: 50% off fitness gear, treadmills & clothing
• Vacuums: Dyson, Shark & Bissell from $34

More Prime Day deals in the UK

• Amazon Prime: sign up for a 30-day free trial
• Amazon Devices: Fire TV, Ring & Blink from £24.99
• Amazon Haul: up to 30% off
• Apple: AirPods Pro 3 for a record-low price
• Appliances: up to 45% off Ninja, Tefal & Sage
• Beauty: up to 60% off Philips & Oral-B
• Essentials: household goods from under £10
• Fashion: up to 50% off
• Headphones: up to 50% off
• Laptops: from £149.99
• Tablets: Samsung & Lenovo from £125
• Toys: up to 25% off Lego and Tonies
• TVs: from £129.99
• Vacuums: up to 40% off Eufy & Roborock
• Wearables: Garmin & Huawei from £36.99