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

Glass

dcurt.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 180 posts

Re: Glass

#81

Post by ZirconCode »

zacharycohn wrote: post #49

As someone who just got their Glass last night, I have a FEW conflicting points, although a lot of it is spot on. -I don't think the screen is not bright enough, and I haven't had the issue where you have to look at something dark to see it. -I also disagree about "dangerous while driving." In fact, I would argue quite the opposite. It's SO much safer than looking at your phone for directions. The fact that any infor…

I'm interested in a second opinion on the speaker. I think the bone conduction was more a privacy than a convenience choice. He mentions others can hear garbled sound. What did it seem like to you?

Re: Glass

#82

Post by berkut »

cstejerean wrote: post #36
falcolas wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the potential of starting a flame war, I would categorize the Oculus Rift as the meh, and the glass is the future. I was able to use a head mounted (and tracking) 3d display with a computer back when ROTT was popular (circa 1994). It's a novelty at best, and a headache inducing nightmare at worst. I didn't see the magic then, and I certainly don't see the magic now. A seamless hud, on the other hand, has the poten…

Seems a bit unfair to dismiss the Oculus Rift based on the state of head mounted displays from ~20 years ago. Yes, they used to suck. That's exactly what the Oculus Rift is trying to solve. Have you tried one?

I've tried one (dev one) and the resolution's crap - 1280 × 800 spit across both eyes. It's shocking how bad it was.

The final one will have full HD, but even then I think it needs a quadrupling in res before it's even acceptable.

Re: Glass

#83

Post by coldtea »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #55
rdl wrote: post #12

I'd personally settle for a voice-output-only Glass (maybe with chording for text input to avoid the "talking to yourself crazy person" problem, and with a camera/microphone built in for ambient data gathering). Hardware we could have built for the last 10 years, and really unobtrusive. You'd need better UI and software than with video, since information needs to be more closely tailored for a lower bitrate channel,…

The interesting thing is that Google's recent high profile AI hires like Hinton and Kurzweil have said they'll be working on NLP systems, which leads to some interesting possibilities along the lines of what you're saying.

Yes, with such high profile such as Kurzweil, we might even get the singularity emerge in Google Glass first. /s

Re: Glass

#84

Post by coldtea »

Sorry, but this sounds like a pre-alpha gizmo.

And not of the "beta coming in Fall" kind, the check-back-in-ten-years kind.

If, say, Apple was also presenting such pre-demo quality stuff, they would have flooded the media with BS. E.g they could have shown their iPad prototypes in 2004, in a similar crappy form.

Google only presents this half-baked shit to show us it "innovates". I'd rather know if they can deliver.

Re: Glass

#85

Post by codeulike »

PuercoPop wrote: post #65
enraged_camel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And note that Apple was not the inventor of any of those unintuitive devices. Which makes one wonder who will ultimately make the "iPad of Glass." :)

Yep, the newton is nothing of the sort :-P

FWIW A good quote from Jeff Atwood "Think of Glass as the Apple Newton of wearable tech". In ten years time we'll be chatting to these glasses like its the most natural thing in the world.

Re: Glass

#87

Post by arrrg »

forgottenpaswrd wrote: post #80
pixie_ wrote: post #8

I spent an hour tonight debating someone on how the Oculus Rift is revolutionary while Glass is not. The first hand reviews of the Rift vs Glass are night and day. One is the future the other is meh.

Both are not revolutionary, but evolutionary because both category products existed way long ago. I remember watching members of the sailing world cup wearing glass equivalents like what, 10 years ago? First Rift equivalents are like 30 years old or older. Rift is now riding the wave of affordable and good solid state accelerometers or gyros, created by car and cell phone industries.

Those products were never successful. They didn't ever matter.

Turning a novelty that is unappealing to most people into a mass market product is damn well revolutionary. Not many companies are able to pull that off. (Sometimes that transition is more gradual and evolutionary - I would argue that was the case with digital cameras - but sometimes it's actually a single product that makes this transformation happen. I would say the iPad is the prime example for that. Sometimes it's something between evolution and revolution.)

Yes, inventions do matter - but turning mere technology into products people actually want also matters. Both can be evolutionary, both can be revolutionary. Sometimes (though probably rarely) it's possible to do both in one step, often it's not.

If the Rift catches on with more than a handful gamers and starts a sustained era of affordable, high quality, low latency head tracking 3D HMDs it will be a revolutionary product - and it doesn't matter even a little bit if something a bit like it existed 30 years ago.

Re: Glass

#88

Post by nicholassmith »

If the issues with having to look at dark areas are common and persistent in the consumer release, it'll kill mainstream adoption. A geek might dislike having to do it, but they'll do it, but explaining to most people "oh sure, you just look at a shadow and hey presto" isn't going to convince them.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the product, I just hope that Google can nail these issues before they release it, otherwise wearable tech might get a bit of a bump back in terms of adoption.

Re: Glass

#89

Post by zimpenfish »

Volpe wrote: post #14
tomasien wrote: post #6

Anyone want an unsolicited opinion? waits for everyone to leave I hope Google Glass is an experiment, because voice reco isn't particularly important outside of when you're driving. When I get tired of texting and consider voice reco, 2 things hit me (and others, I've done solid research on this) 1. Voice reco would be slightly better now that I'm tired of texting, but not much. 2. It is nowhere near socially accepta…

sitting at a table messing on a computer in your hand used to be socially unacceptable.

I sincerely hope you missed the word "about" in that sentence otherwise we're going to need a whole box of tissues.

Re: Glass

#90

Post by threeseed »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #52

If you think Glass is the end product that matters, you're not paying any attention. Tim Cook wants to start shit-talking Glass and talking about how they're going to bring out watches? Cool. So are three other Android manufacturers. Who is the only person with the AI and data sets to power things like Google Now and really make form factors like Glass or Watch practical? You don't hear anyone talking about that. The…

   with the AI and data sets to power things like Google Now
Microsoft, Amazon, IBM and Yahoo to name but a few.

And I've used Google Now and I fail to see what makes it so incredibly advanced that no one else could possibly replicate it. Maybe I am missing something but it doesn't seem to hold a candle to say Watson.

Post reply on HN