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.

Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.