Apple is expected to reveal its smart glasses, codename N50, at WWDC 17 in June 2027, which gives the company nearly a year to wrestle with the thorniest problem facing smart glasses: how do you uphold a commitment to privacy while selling a product that contains a hidden camera?

Like industry leader Meta's line of Ray-Ban and Oakley glasses, Apple's first smart glasses are expected to focus on AI, audio, and onboard cameras (display models are expected at a later date.) But Meta's glasses are at the center of a growing cultural firestorm for the camera feature, with people calling Metas "pervert glasses," creating guerrilla marketing campaigns against them, and banning them from a growing number of locations.

According to a Bloomberg report from Mark Gurman, Apple is considering releasing smart glasses with a full camera system that can't be used to take pictures or record video. The camera system would be used only for feeding visual information to Apple's AI tools, with no way for users to share that information.

Apple's commitment to privacy

Privacy (either respecting or exploiting) is no doubt at the forefront of every smart glass manufacturer's design decisions, but it's a particularly thorny issue for Apple, given its carefully cultivated image as "privacy first" company. Apple has spent years making data security a pillar of its identity, whether by repeatedly publicly proclaiming it as a "fundamental human right" or stressing on-device processing. Releasing a pair of glasses many would regard as spy glasses could effectively undermine Apple's reputation, even if every other privacy option (no sharing content with third parties, as much on-device processing as possible, etc.) is as robust as possible.

This isn't the first time Apple has been here. When it launched AirTags in 2021, the company built in anti-stalking features like unwanted-tracker alerts, audible chirps, and tools to locate a hidden tag, all to prevent the device from being used to secretly monitor people. But within months, the devices were reported in stalking and domestic abuse cases, prompting lawsuits, news investigations, and the general view of AirTags as tools for creeps. The lesson: good intentions and good engineering are no match for people's worst instincts.

According to consumer research, taking quick videos and pictures is one of the primary reasons people are buying smart glasses in the first place: a February 2026 Counterpoint Research report highlights that enhanced video performance and photography are the most frequently praised features of the Gen 2 Meta glasses. If consumers are facing a decision between Meta glasses, soon-to-be-released Samsung/Google smart glasses, and Apple glasses, how many would choose the one that doesn't have a camera?

Other possible privacy solutions for smart glasses

While I have no idea what other possible solutions to the privacy problem Apple is considering, if I had to guess, I'd say they've discussed these ideas:

• Geofencing: Apple could proactively build geofencing or detection agreements with categories of space like courts, gyms, and schools, or provide some kind of opt-in "fence" for users, like an iPhone setting for "no hidden cameras within my home/business." Given the ban of camera glasses in specific places like New York courts and sections of cruise ships, this seems like a strong contender for where things are headed.
• Highly visible status light:Some of the backlash Meta has faced for its camera glasses is over the size of its tiny "I'm taping" warning light. What if it was bigger, brighter, and more visible? I could see that satisfying some people that don't wear and don't like smart glasses with cameras, but how many- userswant to advertise that they're wearing smart glasses?
• A warning system for non-glasses users: There is already an app that tries to warn users if a pair of Meta glasses is in the vicinity; Apple could take the same idea and make it easy for anyone who cares to see who is wearing a pair of Apple glasses around them. Maybe this would even work as advertising, although again, I doubt glasses wearers would like to be singled out like this.
• Count on this to blow over: Apple may decide it doesn't care about privacy that much after all; it wouldn't be the first time a company ditched a core value in favor of making a lot of money. Since there's more than a year until Apple glasses are expected to hit shelves, the company might just hope for the best. Public attitudes tend to get less alarmist over time as more people get used to new technology; when camera-equipped cell phones hit the market in the early 2000s, there was widespread panic over photography in gym locker rooms and schools, but that's not something anyone worries as much about these days.