What problem does Google Glass solve? Is it the best way to solve that problem?
Would Google have been smarter to not include a camera, at least initially?
Is the tech there to make this a viable product yet?
Glass
171–180 of 180 posts
Re: Glass
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be following Taleb here and would be very skeptic about the positive or negative outcome from the hiring of a Kurzweil at Google. To expand: Big companies may have the need for very talented particulars, like Peter Norvig, who can drive innovation over big teams and have a very precise mind, and all the humility required. But in the case of Kurzweil, it looks more like he is invited to play the clown and amuse th…
It's easy to knock Mr. Kurzweil, given his supranormal convictions about the relatively near-term future of our society. However, check out some of the names on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Murray_Hopper_Award ...it looks more like he is invited to play the clown and amuse the assistance, [rather] than to lead [to] anything concrete. It may be a bit preemptive to discount him so readily.
That looks like a very bad list.
Some great scientists, some ho-hum and some that are there mostly for political or other reasons. I mean Wozniak in 1979? What had he done at that point to be in the same list with Knuth or even Bill Joy?
Since you invoke the list, are we to expect the same great stuff from Kurzweil in Google, as we got from Wozniak post 1979, Richard Stallman past 1990 and Stroustrup past 1993?
Re: Glass
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think ice cream shops might make for a better analogy. Apple is like one that makes the absolute best vanilla and chocolate ice creams you've ever had. And maybe in the back, they're working on an amazing mint-chocolate-chip, but they haven't quite found just the right supplier of peppermint extract, and until then, nobody gets to try it. Google is like that crazy experimental ice cream shop that has all sorts of w…
Also, the Apple ice cream shop is staffed by friendly, well dressed servers who are knowledgeable and passionate about ice cream and all of the relevant subfields. The Google ice cream shop is actually a vending machine.
I don't know about that; both companies actually have really good customer service for paying customers. The difference is that Google also offers free products to the public, which generally don't come with customer service, whereas Apple doesn't really offer free products at all.
Re: Glass
#174There's a problem with glass. As far as I can tell. What Google is hoping for is to tease us into wanting something, that no one has asked for. Google is not alone in this historically. Let's step back a decade, when we were all told that Microsoft (by Microsoft) had the biggest R&D budget in the world. What products came out of that R&D? ZERO. Apple on the other hand spent years developing the iPhone with iPod profi…
What products came out of that R&D? ZERO
The point of research isn't products (and you can ask famous labs like PARC and Bell if you don't believe me) but MSR has done a bunch of stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Research
Re: Glass
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to knock Mr. Kurzweil, given his supranormal convictions about the relatively near-term future of our society. However, check out some of the names on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Murray_Hopper_Award ...it looks more like he is invited to play the clown and amuse the assistance, [rather] than to lead [to] anything concrete. It may be a bit preemptive to discount him so readily.
That looks like a very bad list. Some great scientists, some ho-hum and some that are there mostly for political or other reasons. I mean Wozniak in 1979? What had he done at that point to be in the same list with Knuth or even Bill Joy? Since you invoke the list, are we to expect the same great stuff from Kurzweil in Google, as we got from Wozniak post 1979, Richard Stallman past 1990 and Stroustrup past 1993?
> I mean Wozniak in 1979? What had he done at that point to be in the same list with Knuth or even Bill Joy?
Woz was largely responsible for designing the Apple I & Apple II, both of which played a pretty significant part in starting the entire PC industry. Seems like a pretty spectacular achievement to me.
Re: Glass
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
That looks like a very bad list. Some great scientists, some ho-hum and some that are there mostly for political or other reasons. I mean Wozniak in 1979? What had he done at that point to be in the same list with Knuth or even Bill Joy? Since you invoke the list, are we to expect the same great stuff from Kurzweil in Google, as we got from Wozniak post 1979, Richard Stallman past 1990 and Stroustrup past 1993?
> I mean Wozniak in 1979? What had he done at that point to be in the same list with Knuth or even Bill Joy? Woz was largely responsible for designing the Apple I & Apple II, both of which played a pretty significant part in starting the entire PC industry. Seems like a pretty spectacular achievement to me.
... and those hardware designs are generally very well respected. He didn't just kludge those boards together.
Re: Glass
#177Basic question - is the little screen focused at infinity?
Clearly not, if this article is to be believed. Yes, that's a problem!
Don't believe this article. You do not focus on the glass cuboid and I doubt you even can. Just hold your finger up close and try to focus on it. You probably can't at this distance.
Re: Glass
#178Basic question - is the little screen focused at infinity?
Google describes it as equivalent of a 25" screen at 8 feet distance. I haven't made any exact measurements, but I wouldn't be surprised if the focal plane is in fact 8 feet.
You certainly don't focus at the glass cuboid right in front of your eyes.
Re: Glass
#179> 3. When you look at the screen, your eyes have to focus on something extremely close to your face, which leaves everything else in your field of vision totally blurred.
Not true! Completely wrong! You don't have to focus on the glass device itself. I doubt anyone here even can. It would hurt very soon and you would have an extreme cross-eyed look when trying to see the display.
The display is set-up for a focal plane somewhere in front of your eyes. Google mentioned it is equivalent to a 25" at 8 feet distance.
Re: Glass
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is a sunglasses extension. put that on and the issue he described disappears. you can see the screen in direct sunlight. this is the problem with someone giving such a detailed review when they don't fully understand the product features (the sunglasses extension is a feature).
So there's an additional widget that's required for you to use it in direct sunlight, so you need to have the sunglasses extension for it to work correctly. I understand there's a technical reason for this, but that's not a solution that's going to work for the majority consumer.
most people wear sunglasses in the sun.