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

Android coming to wearables

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 206 posts

Re: Android coming to wearables

#101

Post by bad_user »

IgorPartola wrote: post #36

The thing is, hardware is key here. The OS matters, and I would bet that someone could do way better than running Linux in a watch (something much more low-level on a much weaker processor could extend the battery life significantly). The hardware and sensors is the big problem. Currently, the best smartwatch specs I have seen are the Basis B1. It claims it can monitor your heart rate, track your sleep, etc. But that…

I'm excited about receiving short messages on my watch. My wife for example gets kind of upset when I misplace my phone somewhere on a table or in my backpack on vibrate - having a way for her to contact me in case of emergencies or whatever (since she's the only person I don't mind interrupting me) would be great. A watch would also be practical when walking or bicycling around the city in case you need maps - way more practical than keeping your hand occupied with a big ass phone. Also, I find Google Now alerts on time to work or similar stuff to be useless, as I'm not really keeping an eye on my phone. Being notified that it takes 30 minutes to get somewhere I need to be, suddenly starts seeming useful.

Personally I'm excited about this and I hate being interrupted, but as will all things, with a little care you can filter out things you don't want.

> OS matters, and I would bet that someone could do way better than running Linux in a watch

There's tremendous value inherent in using a mainstream operating system, while the disadvantages are only short-term. Using a half-assed operating system widens the gap between idea to implementation and this friendliness to exploration and being general purpose is what makes smartphones these days great.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#102

Post by AndrewKemendo »

smokinjoe wrote: post #54
kshatrea wrote: post #3

I am in the position of being torn apart by two very strong feelings. One is the world where information flow due to companies like Google does a real service to humanity: for e.g. wearing devices that can keep us reminded of our meds or monitor sugar levels, to talk just about the possibilities in healthcare. Then I think of Edward Snowden and I now know that what Google knows, maybe America/Russia/China/WhatHaveYou…

More and more I'm thinking that some sort of Digital Bill of Rights is necessary to carry on in this technological-based World. At first I always thought of it as a nice thing, but perhaps a little too abstract or extreme to really do what it needs to do. However now we have some very large and real threats to our personal lives via this medium. I just feel like it makes a lot of good sense to produce something of th…

I think a Digital bill of rights is great, but completely unenforceable. Largely because the powers that would be enforcing it wouldn't desire to be signatories.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#103

Post by warfangle »

pilooch wrote: post #94

People wearing this watch do not seem very much interested in news articles ;) More seriously, my fuzzy estimate is that 80% of the time spent on my phone is for reading stuff that is definitely not the departure time of my next flight (that I can memorize five months in advance :) ).

While I don't fly much, Google Now was absolutely fantastic the last time I flew. From notifications about flight delays to checking in. It was one of those things that I didn't think I was ever going to use, but when it came into play it was magical.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#104

Post by angersock »

quest88 wrote: post #84
nfoz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel your pain. Out of curiosity, do you carry a mobile phone?

Or drive a car?

Nope--issue came to a head after my insurance company wanted me to put a GPS tracker in my car to get lower rates.

So, I do without now. If I decide it's unavoidable, I'll buy an ancient clunker (preferably one with as little electronics in it as possible, think classic car).

Re: Android coming to wearables

#105

Post by smokinjoe »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #102
smokinjoe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More and more I'm thinking that some sort of Digital Bill of Rights is necessary to carry on in this technological-based World. At first I always thought of it as a nice thing, but perhaps a little too abstract or extreme to really do what it needs to do. However now we have some very large and real threats to our personal lives via this medium. I just feel like it makes a lot of good sense to produce something of th…

I think a Digital bill of rights is great, but completely unenforceable. Largely because the powers that would be enforcing it wouldn't desire to be signatories.

That's just one of the issues - however like I said, I'm naive enough to believe (and donate/protest/assemble) if there was a strong enough movement for it.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#106

Post by bane »

wutbrodo wrote: post #68
bane wrote: post #55

So it's like an amped up google now on a watch? I'm intrigued, but the price has to be good. Anything over $100 is just going to be a nonstarter in my opinion. Will I have to charge it 3 times a day, not going to work...etc. There's lots of difficulties with packing this in to a usable form factor and selling it. The galaxy gear had a return rate > 30%. But it's also a $300 watch. For $300 it better do more than make…

As far as I'm aware, the Moto X is very much able to avoid triggering by anyone's voice except the one it's keyed to. I was curious about how well it worked, so I tried repeatedly to launch Voice Search on my girlfriend's phone (even trying to imitate her voice); I wasn't able to do it at all. Trying to do so to an arbitrary person's device would be even harder.

That's good to know, but also a bit disconcerting, that Google has a voice print profile for me sitting on their servers somewhere.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#107

Post by lutusp »

happyscrappy wrote: post #80
danford wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the only reason your secrets may not be in jeopardy with Apple is because they don't know as many... If you really want your secrets to be safe you wouldn't use any closed source code at all and would take security precautions to secure the code you do use. Unfortunately we live in a time when closed-source software is the norm and too many people think having a secure, open, communications infrastructure is t…

>but I hope one day we'll look back on this time and wonder what we were thinking by allowing digital goods to be closed source Yes, let's have the government mandate what license your code should have! Facepalm.

> Yes, let's have the government mandate what license your code should have! Facepalm.

Hey -- even when people freely choose which license code should have, there are still better and worse choices. There's no essential role for government, and the OP didn't suggest that.

Also, according to my favorite theory of modern society, governments find out what people are going to do anyway, order them to do it, then try to take credit for the result. So (if this theory has any substance) governmental involvement is more illusory than real.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#108

Post by lutusp »

danford wrote: post #63
lutusp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It leads to me regularly switching between iOS and Android, Google services and Apple services. The difference between Apple and Google has recently occurred to me: with Apple, their secrets are in jeopardy. With Google, yours are.

I feel the only reason your secrets may not be in jeopardy with Apple is because they don't know as many... If you really want your secrets to be safe you wouldn't use any closed source code at all and would take security precautions to secure the code you do use. Unfortunately we live in a time when closed-source software is the norm and too many people think having a secure, open, communications infrastructure is t…

> I feel [...] at that time.

Wow ... 313 words without a single line feed.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#109

Post by happyscrappy »

danford wrote: post #99
happyscrappy wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but I hope one day we'll look back on this time and wonder what we were thinking by allowing digital goods to be closed source Yes, let's have the government mandate what license your code should have! Facepalm.

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > In Comments >Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation. >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Public facing code shouldn't be closed source. Sure, if you want to run something on your own and for your self,…

I am sorry if that offended you but I take issue with the idea that adding more restrictions improves freedom. If you want to download possible malware that is your choice.

Re: Android coming to wearables

#110

Post by lutusp »

happyscrappy wrote: post #109
danford wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > In Comments >Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation. >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Public facing code shouldn't be closed source. Sure, if you want to run something on your own and for your self,…

I am sorry if that offended you but I take issue with the idea that adding more restrictions improves freedom. If you want to download possible malware that is your choice.

> I take issue with the idea that adding more restrictions improves freedom.

Yes, but that isn't an idea the OP posted, it's an idea that you posted. A discussion of software license types doesn't automatically lead to either a preference for one kind of license over another, or the idea of governmental involvement. Those were things you made up on your own.

> If you want to download possible malware that is your choice.

Both closed and open-source code are susceptible to malware. The issues of licensing and malware are orthogonal. Closed-source code should in principle prevent malware, but it's quite obvious that it doesn't. Open-source, by being visible and readable, should reveal any vulnerabilities and prevent malware, but that doesn't work either, primarily because the more interesting vulnerabilities aren't obvious to someone reading the code.

Which means your argument is just an argument.

Post reply on HN