[Survey] – How do the French view smart glasses?

Download the study(PDF)

Smart glasses: an ambiguous status as a technological innovation

First of all, a differentiated relationship depending on the type of device is noticeable: while French people are very attached to their smartphones (90% say they would struggle to do without them), only 43% own a connected object (such as a ring, bracelet, or smartwatch), and just 25% say they would find it difficult to live without such devices.

Secondly, smart glasses are not a niche topic, as 87% of respondents have heard of them. Some differences between groups do emerge, unsurprisingly: men aged 25–49, higher socio-professional categories, urban residents, and highly connected individuals are the most aware of these new connected devices.

However, the status of smart glasses as an innovation is also reflected in several other indicators from the survey: only 9% of respondents say they have ever had the opportunity to try smart glasses, particularly men aged 18–24 (25%), and more generally people who are highly attached to technology and smart devices (29%). More broadly, the main sources of information about these new devices are the media (33%), social networks (19%), and the internet in general (specialised articles, influencer videos, etc. – 12%). This suggests a device that is still rarely used, but increasingly “promoted” across different channels.

This status as an innovation is nevertheless more ambiguous across the overall responses: while 47% of respondents describe smart glasses as an innovation (in a broad sense), 22% express a rather negative view, 21% focus on their uses, and 20% have positive perceptions. This is further confirmed by other indicators: 36% see them as a gadget or fashion accessory, 31% as a “useful product, but only for specific uses,” while 27% consider them a major innovation.

Among the statements about smart glasses with which respondents agree, several points are noteworthy:

• 78% of respondents see them as a potential aid for people with disabilities (visual or hearing impairments);
• 67% consider them to pose a privacy risk;
• 65% believe they represent a danger for users (distraction, reduced visibility, etc.);
• 59% find them practical insofar as they allow users to perform various tasks hands-free;
• 57% consider them useful for certain specific activities (sports, healthcare, etc.).

A limited outlook: interest confined to certain segments of the population

To the question “Would you like to acquire smart glasses?”, nearly two-thirds of respondents say no (62%), compared with 36% who say yes (and 1% who already own a pair). This therefore represents a relatively significant potential market. It is also worth noting that respondents consider them more useful (50%) than useless (41%).

However, wide variations can be observed within the population: men aged 25–49 are nearly 60% (+24%) to say they would like to acquire them, compared with 38% (only +2%) among women in the same age group. Beyond gender, age differences are also significant, as those over 65 appear largely unconvinced (23% among men, 12% among women). Another notable point is that already wearing glasses (or regularly wearing sunglasses) seems to have only a marginal effect on the desire to acquire smart glasses.

For those who would like to acquire them, the most appealing features are:

• Real-time translation of text or conversations (93% yes);
• GPS navigation (92%);
• Taking photos or videos (91%);
• Asking an AI questions (85%);
• Accessing information on the internet or social networks (84%);
• Only augmented reality gaming generates less enthusiasm, with just 62% saying yes (including 27% saying “yes, definitely”).

For those who do not wish to acquire them:    

• They would be of no use to them (65% of respondents);
• The price is also a deterrent (49%);
• Potential health risks (24%);
• Data security concerns are a more secondary reason (22%). 

The use of these new devices to take photos and videos: a source of concern and distrust

With the exception of curiosity, most reactions are rather negative: mistrust, discomfort, concern, and irritation. Moreover, as previously observed, perceptions vary significantly between men and women, with women more likely to report at least one negative reaction (64%, +6%), while men are more likely to express at least one positive reaction (46%, +8%).

Concerns focus in particular (with respondents allowed to select up to two items):

• image rights and individuals’ consent when photos or videos are taken using these devices (57% selected this item among their two choices);
• the use of AI for misuse, deepfakes, or hyper-realistic manipulations (37%);
• theft or leakage of data collected by the glasses (34%). 

The use of facial recognition systems associated with these glasses, as well as the systematic transmission of data to the manufacturer’s servers, were selected by 26% of respondents. Finally, 12% selected profiling and targeted advertising.

Overall, there appears to be a consensus regarding the more intrusive nature of these devices: 81% of respondents believe that the risk of being photographed or filmed without consent is higher with glasses than with a smartphone. Nearly 9 out of 10 people would find it disturbing to be photographed or filmed with glasses without being informed. A similar proportion therefore wishes to be informed, although no single notification method clearly stands out as preferred:

• 29% favour a light indicator;
• 26% prefer a combination of several signals;
• 23% opt for a smartphone notification;
• 18% for an audible signal.  

Download the study (PDF)

The CNIL has launched several initiatives, including calls for vigilance and a broader action plan on smart glasses, as well as an article by the LINC on the issues and history of smart glasses.