Meta's Elephant

Last week, Meta released its newest AR glasses, which promise to set the bar for the next generation of smart glasses. It’s impressive to witness the development of a device that, until recently, was considered the end goal — the point where VR glasses would eventually shrink down to the size of a normal pair of glasses. Meta’s prototype Orion, demonstrated only a few months ago, was described as merely an end goal, with production still a long way off. Yet, here we are.

It actually seems that Meta has already positioned itself as an industry leader, and given their significant investment in Reality Labs, that makes a ton of sense. Even if you don’t believe the metaverse will replace the internet anytime soon, the progress on the hardware front is undeniable. So, what comes next? Sales figures suggest that Meta’s previous versions of smart glasses have been a modest success. That small victory likely encouraged CEO Mark Zuckerberg to double down on AR development, despite its enormous cost.

Investors, meanwhile, don’t seem as anxious as some might have expected when the metaverse hype failed to materialize — at least for now. Still, I wonder whether those same investors are paying attention to the growing social debate around privacy, security, data ownership, and targeted advertising. Apple’s efforts to block apps from tracking users have made it harder for vendors to collect, retain, and sell data. This makes it particularly attractive for Meta to build its own ecosystem — or walled garden, if you will.

Refreshingly, Zuckerberg has never hidden his disdain for Apple’s policies. While he clearly benefits from not having to pay Apple’s 30% cut (since Meta’s apps on iOS generally don’t process purchases directly), it’s obvious he’d like to own the full revenue stream eventually. Interestingly, this is also the argument Meta uses to justify not charging users: instead, they monetize attention and data. That hasn’t stopped Meta from pushing the limits of privacy laws, for example by offering a dubious “opt-out” for data processing that fuels its AI training. Meanwhile, the EU seems too preoccupied with cookie banners to notice.

Meta is now channeling its resources into more than just glasses — it’s building an entirely new platform. For now, its new pair of glasses support music, navigation, and accessibility features for people with disabilities or visual impairments. But that’s how the iPhone started: essentially a fancy iPod with internet access and multimedia features, no App Store, no taxes, no ecosystem. Within a year, apps turned it into a revolution. Meta appears to be following the same playbook. Zuckerberg has likely mapped out in detail what features will roll out over the coming months and years. If Apple doesn’t quickly counter with hardware of its own, Meta may keep its lead.

Both Apple and Google have advantages: established ecosystems and hardware people already love. But Meta has the freedom to experiment and market differently. They might position the glasses as a lifestyle product, not just another thinner phone. Yet as tempting as it is to crown Meta the winner already, there’s an Achilles’ heel. The elephant in the room is Meta’s insatiable appetite for user data. Ads are their bread and butter, and history suggests they won’t start charging directly for software or services like Apple’s iCloud. Instead, they’ll offer terms of service that allow them to harvest data generated by apps.

A particularly concerning area is the potential of eye-tracking. While Meta may initially frame it as an accessibility feature, it’s also the perfect way to monitor unconscious attention. After all, advertisers don’t just want your attention; they want to know what you’re interested in. Imagine an ad with a bag, a phone case, a dog, and a sports car. Your gaze reveals your preference instantly. That kind of data is a true gold mine. As I wrote in my earlier article on Eye Tracking, this would be a privacy nightmare if Apple ever allowed such data sharing — and it almost certainly won’t, given its reputation. Meta and Google, however, may prioritize differently.

If the pricing drops from $799, to around $499, as I expect, it’s clear the real money will come from advertising and the data collected. That low price point will likely attract cost-sensitive consumers who don’t read long, opaque policies (sorry for the generalization). If adoption takes off, a network effect will follow: more apps, more users, more data. The smartphone’s dominance could finally come to an end. Google at least has its Android XR strategy, but Apple is struggling after the lukewarm reception of its Vision Pro. Even if Apple launches a competitive device, its premium pricing strategy will likely limit adoption.

Meta, by contrast, can lean on its ecosystem of apps: WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Threads, and Messenger. In fact, future glasses may require a Meta account, locking users further into the ecosystem — the same tactic that has kept Apple, Google, and YouTube in business for years. OpenAI employs a similar approach with ChatGPT, where logging out means giving up features like chat history. It’s a tried-and-true strategy: bundle services until leaving feels impossible.

This makes it unrealistic — even naïve — to expect Meta to suddenly pivot to subscription fees instead of ads. The more likely scenario is a hybrid: free core services funded by data, plus premium features locked behind paywalls. Regulators will probably struggle to keep up, just as they did with smartphones. After all, it took nearly two decades for them to even challenge Big Tech’s abuses, and in some cases, courts have let companies like Google walk away almost unscathed.

So the question is: what will society do about the risks of Meta’s strategy? Will we accept Zuckerberg’s new glasses as a genuine leap forward, or see them as wolf’s clothing wrapped in slick design? Apple might still win with its combination of premium hardware and strong privacy protections. But never before has Meta had such a clear opportunity to control the market of consumer tech. The outcome will shape not just the market for fancy AR glasses but the future of user privacy.