Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jacquard by Google transforms clothing

atap.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 168 posts

Re: Jacquard by Google transforms clothing

#141

Post by shimon »

Mz wrote: post #104
shimon wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many poor people have smartphones. They're a big force in getting more people access to the internet and other technology, which is probably overall positive even though it has some significant negative repercussions. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/01/for-more-poor-americans-smar... http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/

From what I have read, cell phones are really common in Africa. I recently read that in Malawi, one of the poorest countries on the planet, a village may only have one cell phone, but everyone has their own sim card. But, they don't appear to have smart phones. Poor Americans are not the poorest people on the planet. And talking like they are casually dismisses the existence of billions of people. I am pretty darn po…

I agree with most of this, but I'm confused about something. Are you saying that it's not OK to prioritize the needs/realities of certain groups of people?

I think there are situations where it's clearly not OK - for example, it's wrong for a government to limit access to voting based on race. But if you're, say, developing a new technology, then almost always it will be initially expensive and limited to wealthy users. Still, if we hadn't had an iPhone for rich folks in 2007, it's hard to imagine we'd be living in a world with decent $40 android smartphones in 2017.

Would you agree with that logic?

Re: Jacquard by Google transforms clothing

#143

Post by js2 »

StefanKarpinski wrote: post #73

This may be the worst, least informative technology website I've ever seen – and that is a high (low?) bar. It fails the "what is it?" test with spectacular aplomb. And never have I learned less from a "learn more" page. “Music should keep you moving, not make you look at your phone.” Um, yeah, ok, thanks for that helpful information.

The Google Support site has this description:

In collaboration with Google Inc., Levi's® has reimagined their iconic Trucker Jacket to create an interactive, connected garment that allows wearers to access a variety of mobile services tailored to the needs of an urban commuter. Control music, get your next direction, and screen your calls & texts by swiping or tapping the jacket sleeve. Touch and gesture data is wirelessly transmitted to mobile phones or other devices through the Jacquard snap tag.

https://support.google.com/jacquard/?hl=en

It’s a jean jacket with a touch sensitive left sleeve cuff that talks to your phone via a tiny BTLE dongle that snaps onto the jacket. Requires Android 6.0.1 and a supported phone.

Re: Jacquard by Google transforms clothing

#144

Post by tossaway1 »

misterbowfinger wrote: post #83
ballenf wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extension of the touch sensing aspect of the phone screen, not the display aspect. Extending one without the other leads to over-engineered pause buttons, is what the parent comment was saying I think. When the number of unlabeled buttons get much higher than 1, people start to get confused. I agree in part, just think that the jacket needs to be paired with a HUD or maybe have control/button labels that can shine th…

I'm not sure we need screens on our jackets, we just need two-way communication. Right now, Jacquard only allows one-way communication (human -> device), but perhaps there could be a touch-sensitive way for the device to communicate as well. This would be huge for things like heart monitors and emergency phone calls. A lot of room for "cool social apps for teens", and almost definitely for gaming/VR.

> Right now, Jacquard only allows one-way communication (human -> device)

Wasn't there mention of light and haptic feedback?

Re: Jacquard by Google transforms clothing

#147

Post by fixermark »

StefanKarpinski wrote: post #73

This may be the worst, least informative technology website I've ever seen – and that is a high (low?) bar. It fails the "what is it?" test with spectacular aplomb. And never have I learned less from a "learn more" page. “Music should keep you moving, not make you look at your phone.” Um, yeah, ok, thanks for that helpful information.

The video linked off of "Learn more" makes it pretty clear.

Re: Jacquard by Google transforms clothing

#149

Post by fixermark »

shimon wrote: post #138
alexasmyths wrote: post #135

C: That'll be $9.99 A: Sorry, I forgot my jacket C: Oh, we have some convenience nike bio-gloves if you want ... A: Not biosynced to me. C: Oh. Uhmm ... face scan? A: I'm not American, I'm not in your DB. C: Bitcoin? D: No jacket. C: What do we do then? D: Do you take cash young robot? C: You mean like paper? No, it's 2040. Paper cash is unhygienic. D: So no coffee? C: I guess not. Sorry. Next.

2040 startup idea: body-identity-based micro-credit. "You forgot your wallet, but you look fairly legit. For a 5% surcharge, we'll give you that coffee now. Pay this IOU online later. In case of nonpayment, you consent to nationwide tracking by our network of facial recognition drones."

... which sounds pretty close to Amazon's idea. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amazon-go-grocery-store_...

Re: Jacquard by Google transforms clothing

#150

Post by Mz »

shimon wrote: post #141
Mz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I have read, cell phones are really common in Africa. I recently read that in Malawi, one of the poorest countries on the planet, a village may only have one cell phone, but everyone has their own sim card. But, they don't appear to have smart phones. Poor Americans are not the poorest people on the planet. And talking like they are casually dismisses the existence of billions of people. I am pretty darn po…

I agree with most of this, but I'm confused about something. Are you saying that it's not OK to prioritize the needs/realities of certain groups of people? I think there are situations where it's clearly not OK - for example, it's wrong for a government to limit access to voting based on race. But if you're, say, developing a new technology, then almost always it will be initially expensive and limited to wealthy use…

I said nothing about the tech. I only suggested that a specific comment on this forum was a classist framing due to its sweeping claim that this would be for "all" clothing. That's it, and my comment that it was classist got several replies. I have done my best to engage those replies in good faith. That's it.

You seem to be reading in intent which is not there.

Post reply on HN