Inside the coming war over face cameras | Mike Elgan, Computerworld The tech industry is about to flood the market with AI glasses with cameras for multimodal AI. But the public is already turning against the idea. Who will win? Several trends are now converging that threaten to pit tech companies against the general public. Miniaturization has finally enabled companies to build AI glasses that look and function like normal glasses, but with microphones and cameras. People are increasingly talking to AI, rather than typing. And multimodal input, especially video, is on the rise. Put all of these trends together and you get a nascent industry pushing toward all-day, everyday AI glasses with cameras — and a worried public already pushing back at the idea. Let’s look at how we got here. Meta started it with a surprise hit: its second-generation Ray-Ban Meta glasses, which later gained multimodal AI capability. Its Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses add one in-lens screen — but both versions of the glasses have cameras. (The company is working on a third generation that will probably ship next year.) Google provides the AI and software platform through Android XR and Gemini, partnering with hardware makers to put its AI on other companies’ glasses. At Google I/O last month, Google unveiled frames from Gentle Monster and Warby Parker running Android XR with Gemini AI; they’re scheduled to launch this fall. Google is working on two types of AI glasses, one with screens and one that is audio-focused. Both types have cameras, though. Samsung is working to launch AI-powered smart glasses, too, code-named “Jinju.” The company offered up details at Google I/O alongside Google. The glasses feature a 12-megapixel camera with autofocus; run on Android XR with Gemini AI; are co-designed with Gentle Monster and Warby Parker; and are slated to launch in July at the Samsung Unpacked event. (As with Meta and Google, Samsung is working on AI glasses with and without screens, but both of its models have cameras.) Tech giant Apple is also on the glasses train, based on reporting from anonymous insiders. Codenamed N50, the Apple glasses could have two cameras, one for pictures and videos, the other for multimodal AI input and hand-gesture control. (Apple is also working on a pendant and next-gen AirPods, both of which have cameras.) There’s Amazon, which is reportedly developing a new line of consumer AI glasses with a camera after its earlier, camera-less Echo Frames and Carrera Smart Glasses lines failed. (My guess is the problem was Alexa, not the lack of cameras.) Although its Echo Frames have been effectively discontinued — displayed as sold out online — the company is already testing AI glasses with cameras for enterprise use on hundreds of US-based Amazon drivers. Huawei in April launched its AI Glasses for the Chinese market — the lightweight glasses sport a dual-engine AI architecture and integration with its HarmonyOS ecosystem. It’s joined there by Xiaomi’s AI Smart Glasses, which are powered by the company’s HyperOS ecosystem and have cameras for photos and videos and for for reading QR codes. Beyond those well-known firms, other companies are making daily-wear AI glasses with cameras in them, including XREAL, Rokid, TCL, Solos, and Brilliant Labs. A minority of other companies is focused on glasses without cameras, including Even Realities (G1 and G2); MIRA (MIRA glasses); Dymesty (Dymesty AI glasses); Lucyd (Lucyd Lyte); and Huawei (Eyewear 2). Get the picture? Clearly, by the end of the year, the market will be flooded with all manner of AI glasses designed for everywhere, everyday wear. They can use prescription lenses or serve as sunglasses — and most of them will have cameras built in for photos, videos and multimodal AI. There’s just one problem: The public hates AI glasses with cameras. Return of the ‘Glassholes’? As we learned from Google Glass, a lot of people feel uncomfortable with a camera pointed at them while they’re talking to someone. And that backlash is back with the current generation of AI glasses. Because Meta is the market leader in the US, its Ray-Ban Meta glasses have borne the brunt of early disaffection. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recently launched a formal investigation into Meta’s AI glasses, calling them “a privacy nightmare for Texans,” claiming the devices “can easily invade personal privacy by collecting biometric data and recording Texans without their knowledge or consent.” Paxton also claimed the LED light on the glasses, which is designed to alert others that the camera is taking pictures or videos, can be easily defeated. In fact, some modders-for-hire charge up to $100 to physically destroy the LED and TikTok videos describe how to disable or cover the light. The pushback is happening elsewhere. Philadelphia courts banned smart Meta AI glasses with recording features from city courthouses and a petition is circulating to ban them from New York City bars and restaurants. MSC Cruise Line banned smart glasses in all public areas. And restaurants, gyms, and workplaces have begun banning smart glasses because of the camera. Uncertainty drives some of the concern. People don’t know whether they’re being recorded, and if they are, they don’t know who will see the video. It turns out, those suspicions might be warranted. In February, Swedish publications Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten published an investigation that found Meta contractors in Kenya were reviewing footage from Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses — including “bank details, sex and naked people who seem unaware they are being recorded.” The New York Times published an internal Meta memo in February describing plans to add facial recognition (“Name Tag”) to Ray-Ban Meta glasses. The memo said the “political tumult in the United States would distract critics from the feature’s release.” Then earlier this month, WIRED discovered dormant facial-recognition code called “NameTag” hidden inside Meta’s AI companion app. The code would let Ray-Ban Meta glasses identify strangers by face, a feature Meta publicly claimed “does not exist.” Meta quietly erased the code with an update one day after the exposé was published. A coalition of civil society organizations wrote Congress to demand that Meta abandon its Name Tag facial recognition plans, calling it a “creepy and unacceptable escalation of surveillance.” The letter warned the technology could be adopted by law enforcement to surveil immigrants, people of color, and nonviolent protesters. Finally, a range of reports involving AI glasses with cameras in them has emerged in recent months involving secret recording, harassment and extortion. The coming conflict over face cams On one hand, all the biggest consumer electronics companies are either shipping AI glasses with cameras in them or planning to do so — and many smaller companies are looking to do the same. The industry expects AI glasses with cameras to go totally mainstream. On the other hand, a growing public, legal and legislative backlash has erupted in opposition to AI glasses with cameras in them. One possible outcome is that the public disdain for the cameras will fade, overwhelmed by widespread enthusiasm for the benefits they offer. A new social norm might emerge that mirrors the broad acceptance of everybody having cameras in their phones and pointing them in random directions. Another possibility is that companies will be forced by consumer disdain and legal action to abandon cameras in glasses and focus instead on AI glasses that can’t take pictures or use video for multimodal AI input. Either way, the war is surely coming. computerworld.com/article/41…

🚀 The world of consulting and professional services at large is changing like never before. For those with deep expertise and the humanity to make it stick, there has never been a better, more exciting time to be in these converging professions! I shared my thoughts on the role of Forward Deployed Engineers, Consultants, contractors, and professional services - in the age of AI - in Evan Schuman's latest @Computerworld article.

The endpoint as execution layer, not access layer - that shift quietly reprices everything above it. The question is whether IT procurement catches up before the buying committee redraws the category without them.

RTX Spark Redraws The Premium AI Endpoint A compelling story by Prasanth Aby Thomas (@aby_journalist) in @Computerworld on how @NVIDIA’s RTX Spark could split the AI PC market between mainstream productivity laptops and premium workstation-class endpoints. The link to the story is attached, but for deeper analysis on this topic, head over to greyhoundresearch.com. Below is a snapshot of what we at Greyhound Research had to say on the topic. At @Greyhound_R, we believe RTX Spark is a category pressure event, not yet a category. It will not become the next mainstream enterprise PC overnight. Its early volumes will be modest, but its influence on what premium endpoints are expected to do will be significant. For years, the enterprise PC was largely an access device. It reached applications, cloud services, data and collaboration tools. RTX Spark changes the proposition by treating the endpoint as a place where AI actually runs, not merely a place from which AI is summoned. That matters because the premium endpoint is being redesigned around two linked ideas: serious local AI execution and governed on-device agency. Developers, AI teams, security analysts, engineers, regulated users and creative professionals can justify Spark-class systems where locality improves control over data, latency, inference cost and policy. The industry should not misread this as the end of mainstream AI PCs. @Intel, @AMD, @Qualcomm and OEM partners will continue to serve the majority of enterprise users with efficient, NPU-led devices for collaboration, summarisation, transcription, search and ordinary assistance. Spark lifts the ceiling of the AI PC market; it does not raise the floor for every employee. The real test is execution. Enterprises should judge Spark systems on task success, workflow latency, battery, model fit, software maturity, Windows-on-Arm compatibility, security, manageability and lock-in risk, not keynote arithmetic or TOPS theatre. At this scale, advantage comes from mapping workloads to the right execution surface, not attaching an AI label to every device. Governance, locality and measurable business value will matter far more than petaflop claims or premium positioning. computerworld.com/article/41… #GreyhoundStandpoint #RTXSpark #AIPC #EnterpriseAI #EndpointAI #Workstations #CIO

US AI deregulation turns speed into friction A compelling story by Gyana Swain (@mrgyan) in @Computerworld on President Trump’s executive order directing the Justice Department to challenge state AI laws, and what a single federal AI posture could mean for US innovation, enterprise compliance, and global market access. The link to the story is attached, but for deeper analysis on this topic, head over to greyhoundresearch.com. Below is a snapshot of what we at Greyhound Research had to say on the topic. At @Greyhound_R, we believe a deregulated US posture can make American AI firms faster at home, but not freer abroad. It moves the governance tax from regulation to commerce, where buyers decide what is acceptable. The EU AI Act is the border test. For US vendors, market access will increasingly depend on evidence of risk classification, documentation, traceability, human oversight, incident readiness, and accountability that can survive audit scrutiny. A single US framework has global weight only if it is real, durable law. Preemption without replacement creates coherence without credibility. An executive order can be bold, but global buyers and allied governments need standards that survive litigation, transition, and election cycles. The buyer is now the enforcement layer. Enterprise procurement teams, internal audit, cyber risk functions, and insurers will continue to demand EU-style assurance even when the local regulator is quieter. Multinationals cannot afford one governance model for Europe, another for the US, and a third for everyone else. The market also risks misreading China. China’s AI advantage is not deregulation; it is coordination, central execution, and alignment to state objectives. A US strategy based mainly on removing guardrails is a speed bet, not a governance leadership strategy. For CIOs, preemption without durable federal standards does not reduce risk. It relocates risk into contracts, controls, indemnities, board oversight, and deployment decisions. At this scale, advantage comes from politically resilient governance, not headline deregulation. Evidence, assurance, and auditability will matter far more than declared innovation velocity. computerworld.com/article/41… #GreyhoundStandpoint #AI #AIRegulation #EnterpriseTechnology #RiskManagement #CIO

Europe’s Sovereignty Vote Raises CIO Stakes A compelling story by Gyana Swain (@mrgyan) in @Computerworld on how Europe is moving to reduce deep dependency on non-EU technology providers across cloud, semiconductors, software, and AI. The link to the story is attached, but for deeper analysis on this topic, head over to greyhoundresearch.com. Below is a snapshot of what we at Greyhound Research had to say on the topic. At @Greyhound_R, we believe the European Parliament’s vote is not merely symbolic. It is a strategic escalation that reframes digital infrastructure as sovereignty infrastructure, even though it is not yet legislation, procurement reform, or an enforceable mandate. The important shift is tone and operating intent. For years, digital sovereignty was treated as a philosophical or compliance debate. This vote pulls it into the operational foreground by calling for dependency mapping, EU-wide capability building, and a “Eurostack” across cloud, chips, software, data centres, and AI. For CIOs, sovereignty cannot mean data residency alone. It must mean control over jurisdiction, keys, identity governance, operational command, and reversibility. If data sits in Europe but encryption keys, privileged access, or emergency administration remain exposed to third-country legal regimes, the sovereignty posture is incomplete. Procurement is where the market could begin to move. Preferential scoring will not overturn hyperscaler dominance overnight, especially given the scale, automation, and ecosystem depth of US providers. But it can create sovereign zones in strategic sectors and force every vendor, including hyperscalers, to make control planes, staffing models, and legal structures more jurisdictionally accountable. The execution risk is fragmentation. If Member States define sovereignty differently, Europe may end up with a patchwork of controls rather than a common operating model. The Commission, procurement authorities, and national governments must now convert political momentum into enforceable criteria, funding, and aligned certification. At this scale, advantage comes from tested operational control, not sovereignty rhetoric. Exit readiness, key custody, local escalation paths, and workload portability will matter far more than regional hosting claims or political ambition. computerworld.com/article/41… #GreyhoundStandpoint #DigitalSovereignty #CloudComputing #EuropeanUnion #CIO #AI

Google unveils DiffusionGemma, an AI model that breaks free of left-to-right processing spr.ly/6011B8CyAd

Mit Thomas Hottinger, Managing Director des SAP-Partners Innflow, hatsich Computerworld über die neue Strategie des «Autonomous Enterprise» von SAP unterhalten. computerworld.ch/themen/kuen…

How to opt out of Google's new AI training default - Computerworld computerworld.com/article/41… #GenerativeAI #GenAI #AI

AI hype is still running fast, but global voices are starting to slow the conversation down. At the World Economic Forum, leaders are calling for a course correction in how AI is built, funded, and deployed, pointing to real risks like overinvestment bubbles and weak governance frameworks. The message is shifting from “scale at all costs” to responsible, structured growth. Because innovation without oversight isn’t progress, it’s exposure. 📉 For Famla, the takeaway is simple: ethical AI isn’t a trend, it’s risk management. 🧠 Source: ComputerWorld famla.com . . . #ArtificialIntelligence #ResponsibleAI #TechGovernance #FutureOfAI #Famla

Google is held liable for false information from its AI spr.ly/6013B8AVk3

Hey! Just saw my update to my Smart App Control (SAC) story at ComputerWorld. Good stuff! #WindowsInsiders #MVPbuzz computerworld.com/article/40…

Anthropic suggests slowing AI research until we can align it with human goals – Computerworld computerworld.com/article/41…

How to opt out of Google’s new AI training default spr.ly/6016B84gR0

Computerworld, parle d’un potentiel concurrent de l’iPhone, avec des spéculations sur des SoC Qualcomm/MediaTek et une logique d’agents IA remplaçant les apps. Apple prépare t'elle une contre-offensive ?