Meta opens Cambridge lab as part of AI glasses expansion
Bosses at Meta met Chancellor Rachel Reeves on Wednesday morning as they launched the £12 million facility.
It came amid reports the Facebook and Instagram owner has purchased a minority stake in Oakley and Ray-Ban owner EssilorLuxottica SA, the world's largest eyewear business.
It is reported the company's stake will be worth around three billion euros (£2.6 billion) and be worth just under 3% of the Paris-based business.
Meta has outlined plans to rapidly grow its AI glasses business, with Ray-Ban Meta and recently announced Oakley Meta products.
The Silicon Valley business said its expansion plans in this area have seen it invest in the new audio research lab in Cambridge, designed to 'advance spatial audio and machine learning for Meta's future AI glasses'.
The facility includes 'reverb rooms and ultra-quiet acoustic chambers' in order to hone the audio quality of its products under development.
Meta employs more than 5,500 people across its UK operations.
Joel Kaplan, chief global affairs officer for Meta, met Ms Reeves at the site and underlined the group's commitment to investing in the UK.
Mr Kaplan said: 'Creating this world-class audio lab in Cambridge is a sign of our long-term commitment to the UK and our belief in the top engineering talent it produces.
'We want the brightest minds to make sure our smart glasses have the smartest AI-powered audio so you can focus on what you're listening to no matter what's going on around you.
'I can't wait to experience the results of the work the lab produces.'
Ms Reeves said: 'Meta's investment is a huge vote of confidence in the UK as a hub for world-leading research and innovation while helping to supercharge the potential in the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor.
'We want our high-tech industries to continue to lead the world in years to come which is why we're backing our innovators, researchers and entrepreneurs with a record £22 billion in R&D (research and development) funding, creating the opportunity for good jobs and investment in Britain, and delivering on our plan for change.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The UK's bank ringfencing doesn't need large-scale reform
One reason to worry about the chancellor's plan for deregulation in the financial services sector is the dramatic language in which she pitched it. Rachel Reeves's metaphor in her Mansion House speech last month about regulation in too many areas acting as 'a boot on the neck of business' felt wildly over the top when you remember why tougher financial rules were needed in the banking sector in the first place. It was because the light-touch regulatory era caused the whole economy to be clobbered in the collapses of 2008-09. In the event, it took until 2019 to fully implement the centrepiece of the clean-up operation – bank ringfencing, which requires UK banks of a certain size to separate their retail and investment banking activities. Now, six years later – no time at all in the grand scheme – the Treasury, lobbied by most of the big banks, is contemplating 'meaningful' changes to ringfencing in the interests of economic growth. It feels far too soon to try anything radical. The definition of 'meaningful' is vague, it should be said. Outright abolition of ringfencing is off the table, thankfully, and some of the possibilities floated by the Treasury could be viewed as innocuous. Letting banks share back-office resources across the ringfence? Yes, that could be regarded as mere housekeeping. Allowing ringfenced banks to provide more products to UK businesses? Possibly, if we're talking about low-octane services. But the details do matter. The danger is that, if you create too many holes in the fence, you end up defeating the purpose of the construct. There are at least three reasons why Reeves should drop the inflammatory language and err on the side of caution. First, remember the primary goal: to ensure the state never has to bail out banks again – at least not the riskier trading activities. The plea from reformists is that other measures, such as stiffer capital requirements and 'living wills' to organise an orderly wind-down, do the same job. Yet ringfencing is surely genuinely different because it is a structural measure – the core UK deposit-taking operations have to sit inside their own legal entity. Maximum protection for the deposit-taking core still feels a sound principle given what happened in 2008-09, and how the whole of the wretched Royal Bank of Scotland was dragged down. Second, ringfencing may lower funding costs for banks. The perception of greater resilience should, in theory, attract a funding bonus. Put another way, regulators – with their eye on the overall stability of the system – might demand even higher capital buffers if ringfencing were to be meaningfully weakened. Would-be abolitionists grumble about the costs of trapped capital. Fair enough, but they probably wouldn't like bigger capital buffers either. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Third, if the chancellor's aim is more growth, why make it easier for UK banks to chase higher returns outside the UK? She should listen to the commonsense point made by Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England: 'Removing the ringfence would most likely have a negative effect on UK lending, both in terms of cost and quantities.' If ringfencing has meant cheaper mortgages, it would be a political risk for a chancellor to mess with the formula. None of which is to pretend that ringfencing has been a free lunch. Friction and expense clearly exist – the big banks spent a small fortune setting up the structures and have to carry extra overheads. Competition may also have suffered as big ringfenced banks have concentrated on UK mortgage lending and smaller banks have been forced towards riskier lending. Visions of a post-crisis world full of dynamic 'challenger' banks never materialised. But that is just to say that trade-offs exist. For the UK – a country that simply cannot afford another crisis like 2008's – financial stability should still be the priority. A few minor fiddles might be an improvement because no design is perfect. But major reform is not needed.
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Claire's Accessories on brink of collapse putting 2,150 jobs at risk
Claire's Accessories is on the brink of collapse after the fashion retailer said it will appoint administrators in the UK and Ireland, putting 2,150 jobs at risk. The company has 278 stores in the UK and 28 in Ireland but has been struggling with falling sales and fierce the shops will continue trading while administrators at Interpath, once appointed, will "assess options for the company". Interpath chief executive Will Wright, said options include "exploring the possibility of a sale which would secure a future for this well-loved brand". Claire's in the US filed for bankruptcy in the US earlier this firm operates under two brand names, Claire's and Icing, and is owned by a group of firms, including investment giant Elliott Management.
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
PHP defeats KKR in takeover battle for NHS landlord Assura
Primary Health Properties (PHP) has defeated a US private equity giant in the battle for control of a GP surgery owner. Shareholders backed PHP's £1.8billion takeover of Assura, despite KKR's plea last week for the board to reconsider. Investors owning nearly 63 per cent of Assura's shares had voted in favour of the merger by yesterday afternoon, making the offer 'unconditional'. The vote ends a long-running tussle to buy the NHS landlord, which owns surgeries, hospitals and hospices. Assura will delist from the stock market as soon as possible, the companies said yesterday. But the deal still faces hurdles after the competition watchdog last week stepped up its probe into the tie-up.
