Why Apple’s camera-equipped AirPods may not be the ‘pervert pods’ consumers fear
Apple appears to be preparing camera-equipped AirPods, according to footage and code discovered in a macOS 26.7 release candidate, but the feature may be less intrusive than similar camera-wearables from rivals like Meta. The leaked video shows a man holding up a book while conversing with Siri, suggesting the cameras are intended to power an upgraded "Visual Intelligence" assistant rather than to record photos or video, which could ease privacy concerns about people being filmed without consent.
According to earlier reporting from Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, the cameras in both earbuds would only capture low-resolution visual information to help Siri understand a user's surroundings, such as identifying a book or cooking ingredients, or assisting with walking directions, rather than functioning as recording devices. The leaked code also references a "Hair Detected" error to warn users when their hair blocks the camera. The feature is expected to accompany Apple's revamped Siri, launching alongside iOS 27 in September, as part of a broader push to reduce reliance on the iPhone screen for everyday AI interactions.
- Leaked code shows Apple AirPods may gain cameras for Siri
- Cameras reportedly can't record photos or video, easing privacy fears
- Feature tied to upgraded Siri launching with iOS 27 in September
New here? Start with this
AirPods are Apple’s wireless earphones, which connect to devices such as the iPhone. Apple has been adding artificial intelligence features to its products, including tools that can use a camera to interpret what is around the user.
Camera-equipped wearables raise questions about whether people nearby could be filmed without knowing. Meta’s smart glasses, for example, include cameras that can take photos and record video, while earlier reports say Apple’s proposed earbud cameras would instead help Siri recognise objects and surroundings.
The distinction matters because people may feel differently about a device that senses its surroundings than one that records them. Any new assistant feature would also fit Apple’s wider effort to make its services useful without users needing to look at a phone screen.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Proponents argue that low-resolution visual processing for contextual AI assistance represents a legitimate usability improvement, akin to natural human conversation, and that Apple's established track record of privacy protections suggests responsible implementation. They note users retain meaningful control through activation, and that declining to innovate in AI assistance puts Apple at a disadvantage whilst sacrificing genuine accessibility benefits.
The case against
Critics contend that embedding cameras in wearables establishes an inherent surveillance capability that persists regardless of stated current purpose, since hardware functions can expand through software updates, security breaches, or corporate policy changes. They argue that normalising ubiquitous cameras in everyday devices represents a threshold shift in surveillance infrastructure where incremental convenience gains do not justify the systemic risks to privacy and autonomy.