141–150 of 179 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully this is just the MVP.
No, replacing what you see instead of adding to it is a much more difficult and tricky problem. I wouldn't expect it in the near future in a consumer application.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Torrez/Gruber seem to be arguing smartphones are superior cause you aren't always focusing on them, but what is stopping you from not always using the glasses?
I've searched a little but can't find a picture of someone wearing them pushed up onto their head like people often do with sunglasses. But I too don't understand why people seem to be ignore that option in their objections. Or put a lanyard on them and wear them around your neck when you want to show everyone around that you are not splitting your attention.
To my mind, the Google Glass is far more like the Microsoft Tablet, the Tesla Roadster and the Palm Treo: the initial realization of a concept that, before now, didn't exist in the world at all. It seems incorrect to compare it to the iPhone and the iPad because both of those were taking technology that had existed in the tech community for years and reimagining them in a way that appealed to the general public. As a…
I would like my next car Google Glass enabled. It could display turn by turn directions, warn of upcoming traffic, and let me know what services are available at the next exit. I can also foresee Google Glass being very useful for complex, domain specific tasks that require your hands: surgery, automobile repair, home construction, cooking, learning to play an instrument, dealing cards, sowing, tying flies etc.
Your car doesn't need anything to do this. This functionality is all already party of android.
For example, I would love a virtual pace car that I could just follow. I would slow down when its virtual brake lights went on, I would switch lanes when it did, and I would prepare to turn when it put in it blinkers.
This would require Google Glass to be completely integrated with the car's radar-based collision avoidance system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, it doesn't require any permission whatsoever so long as you are in a public area. If the owner of private property says you can't film there, then you can't, but simply being the subject of public filming doesn't give you the right to object. Like it or not, those are the rules.
He's not saying he's going to take them to court; he is saying that he will refuse to interact with them. He is perfectly within his rights to do that. Comments about legality or western perspectives on privacy are off base.
If you want to participate in Western society, you need to be able to interact with people who will observe you in public. My parent poster does not accept the basic implications of being observed in public. It's not at all off base to point out that his fundamental understanding of privacy is in conflict with the world around him.
A walking still camera and video camera will immediately put people into a defensive frame, knowing that anything they say or do can end up on twitter/facebook etc within moments. Especially when google enable retroactive videoing, by keeping the camera looping until told to record, then it keeps the last X seconds of the video loop. The obvious use case for google is to collect more data about you to sell more ads, and guess where those ads will end up.
Of course this is ignoring the legal issues of recording in courtrooms, corporations, photography on private property, what happens when someone's reading their email while driving and crashes into the self-driving car in front of them.
I applaud google for trying to invent the future, and maybe in 100 years society will be a different place with new zero-privacy expectations and laws have caught up with the world, but until then, my prediction is this is the new segway.
The modern tablet is a true breakthrough. Wearables are potential new market, and there is some excitement around the fact that both Google and Apple will enter that market soon. But wearables are far from a sure thing.
For one thing, Google Glass has a voice user interface. Google's speech recognition is the best there is, but on alternate days it still veers from astounding to laughable.
The most compelling application, face recognition, has a high creepiness factor, and Google probably won't touch it even though I would be first in line to buy if I could pick everyone in my contact list out of a crowd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.reconinstruments.com/ http://www.oakley.com/airwave
This is very much specialised stuff however - would you ever see your average consumer walk around in public with it? No - because these are ski goggles not normal glasses.
The closest analogy I see is with the segway. Something that could be useful and even world-changing but overhyped and dumped on a market without justifying it's existence. Apple could have released the iPad first but they waited to teach the market what it was with the iPhone first. Thus each step (iPhone, tablet) was a new form of a familiar thing rather than a new thing altogether. If I were in Google's shoes, I w…
> Apple could have released the iPad first but they waited to teach the market what it was with the iPhone first. Amazing. They had both products in mind, considered them both, and thought that it would be best to lead with the iPhone, aye? And Steve told you this, did he?
“My recollection of first seeing it is very hazy, but it was, I’m guessing, some time between 2002 and 2004,” Ive testified. “I remember seeing this and perhaps models similar to this when we were first exploring tablet designs that ultimately became the iPad.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inevitability of miniaturization notwithstanding, it's slightly challenging to imagine a less obtrusive version of something whose defining property is that it sits on your face. Maybe in five years we'll all be wearing smart-monocles. Who knows?
I (and a great many other humans) already wear an accessory which sits on the face. :) When spectacles were first invented, they may well have been obtrusive and required some social adjustment. Now they're thoroughly assimulated. They are unobtrusive, and one's choice of frames/style often serves as a fashion statement.
Maybe it's Google's habit of showing off Glass without lenses that makes me think of it as 'as screen on your face' rather than 'fancy glasses'. It reads as 'Bluetooth earpiece' more than 'hearing aid'.
Also, I kind of just want a monocle.