AirPods with cameras and smart specs. Big tech is keen, but are we?

For years, the debate over wearable cameras has been dominated by the polarising rise of smart glasses, a category recently bogged down by public unease and controversy over cheap, invasive knock-offs. But a leak buried in Apple’s own software this week – featuring an instructional video for upcoming camera-equipped AirPods – proves this technology is evolving beyond novelty eyewear.

While Apple’s staunch track record on user privacy suggests these earbuds will not be designed for secret recording, their eventual release will thrust the famously cautious tech giant directly into the centre of our growing cultural clash over whether, and to what degree, face-mounted cameras should be tolerated in public.

Like Google, Samsung and others, Apple is tipped to be working towards smart glasses that contain speakers, cameras, microphones and the ability to connect wirelessly to a smartphone. Meta has been first to truly enter this space, with its Ray-Ban models proving very successful since launch in 2023.

The glasses have always come with a degree of distrust and scrutiny, given their ability to take photos and record video. Even though every person carries a smartphone that can record at a moment’s notice, the new and unfamiliar format challenges concepts of public and private places, and emboldens creeps who want to film people surreptitiously.

Still, given their luxury branding and high price, the Meta glasses have avoided full-blown backlash. In Australia, it wasn’t until a cheap pair arrived at Kmart for $89 earlier this month that people really took notice.

Petitions emerged to ban the product category entirely, receiving tens of thousands of signatures. Regulators and government officials expressed concerns about the technology. Researchers and tech commentators reminded us of what they’ve been saying for at least three years: we need to be paying attention to this.

But before we get to privacy concerns and matters of big tech trust, a key question is whether there is any legitimate benefit or value to consumers in these gadgets. Is there utility not related to committing crimes, or hurting others? I think it’s pretty clear there is.

A lot of what we currently use phones for requires us to pop some earbuds into our ears, or hold up our device, so the camera can see something. At their absolute simplest, devices we can keep on our face that have speakers, microphones and cameras remove the need for that step, by communicating wirelessly with a device we can keep in our pocket or bag.

Right now, that means you could translate a foreign sign, identify an insect, send a quick snap to a friend, get an audio museum tour, or have step-by-step help for a project you’re working on, without needing your phone. But in the near future, it could mean never needing to scan a QR code or use an app like Translate or Google Lens again. Your phone would just have access to what you can see and hear, whenever you activate the glasses or say the wake word.

Ultimately, these devices will also have screens that can overlay information onto your view of the world, with some Meta models already featuring an early version of this.