Hm, might be useful when capturing fishing videos. Instead of strapping a gopro or insta 360 to your body, just wear these and you get the added plus of polarized glasses. The video doesn't seem to have any stabilization yet though, so maybe a few generations later would be better.
Hardware stabilization is superior to pure software stabilization. Software (aside from real fancy neural nets) can't fix pixels which are blurred from the camera rapidly moving while the shutter was open. My Panasonic GH5 has optical stabilization in the lens as well as a five axis linear motor system to move the camera sensor, and these systems work together to keep the image pipeline frozen in space even when the camera is physically moving. Makes a huge difference in image quality and overall camera system capabilities.
I was curious if this is in use in smartphones. This reference [1] suggests that all iPhone 13 models have sensor shift stabilization, and I assume they have continued with this trend on newer releases.
So yeah, proper stabilization is a hardware thing.
Hardware stabilization is better but it takes space. For pure software stabilization, it can be done by PC or powerful smartphone so it's better to not to have on glass frame for saving battery.
Whether or not it is better depends entirely on what the end images look like and how important the pictures are. If it’s meant to act as a camera to snap and share the fun you are having, then it might be a real turn off if it is noticeably worse than your smartphone, which does have hardware stabilization. If customers stop using the camera on the device and reach for their phone to get the best possible picture, then the glasses lose 1/3 of their major features in the eyes of the customers, and it makes it harder to justify the price.
I’m not convinced software correction is enough, but maybe it is fine. It just depends on what is possible, what matters, and how much people are willing to pay for it.
