×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Visual Search Coming Soon to Android

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the my-donut-shop-returned-goatse dept.

111

Several sources have shared the news that "Google Goggles," publicly known as Google Visual Search, will be "coming soon" to an Android phone near you. Rather than typing in the search term, you will be able to just take a picture with your phone and search results will be returned. The new search was recently featured on CNBC's "Inside the Mind of Google." Unfortunately Goggles didn't pass muster with a recent focus group, so it could be a while before Google decides this is ready to hit the streets.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

111 comments

Just one word for you, son--"porn" (4, Funny)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355412)

The possibilities here are so boundless that it simply boggles the mind.

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (4, Funny)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355456)

..and the chance of them getting working A.I. to handle the suggested visual recognition task reasonably well is so small that it also boggles the mind.

AI needed? (1, Insightful)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355672)

What are the odds that the service doesn't use the image at all, but just uses the phone's GPS sensor, compass, and orientation sensor to work out what object you're looking at?

Re:AI needed? (2, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355914)

Do you suppose that there is a database containing the physical locations of all objects? How exactly would you use a GPS and orientation information to figure out which object a person is taking a picture of, a car for example?

Re:AI needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30357460)

You guess. Sure, maybe 1/1000 times you'd be lucky and guess right, but that 1/1000th user would be freaking amazed at the functionality.

Re:AI needed? (1)

Tsar (536185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355982)

Linked videos show testers taking photos of consumer products such as books and food items (a Tabasco label, for example). If Google Goggles can identify any small item I'm looking at using only my GPS coordinates and orientation, we should just surrender now and pray that Richard Brautigan wasn't being too optimistic [redhousebooks.com] .

Re:AI needed? (1)

Asclepius99 (1527727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356236)

That seems like it would only work for stores/buildings/houses that were already registered in some sort of Google database. And besides, why would you need to Google something that you're standing five feet from?

Re:AI needed? (1)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 4 years ago | (#30360308)

"coming soon," eh? I guess that's a little pornographic. Anyhow, judging by how long it took for Google Voice to show up after it was "coming soon," I wouldn't hold my breath for anything.

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355806)

Probably getting an 'A.I.' to handle the recognition task is not the main problem, rather developing a sufficiently semantically rich picture based language to meet the needs of the reading comprehension impaired (to convey results) is.

CC.

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355876)

Why is this a hard idea to you? Japan has had similar ideas for years. [i4u.com] The idea even floated around the US a bit previously [gizmodo.com] .

Add google's location tagging, even if they just use the wifi one that is probably about a 1/2 mile radius of the picture location, and they still could be quite reasonably accurate (and quite easily at that).

So actually, the chance for you understanding the article seems to be smaller than the supposed chance of them doing an easy task which you deem insurmountable.

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (2, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356696)

..and the chance of them getting working A.I. to handle the suggested visual recognition task reasonably well is so small that it also boggles the mind.

Since when do you need AI?

There's already plenty of machine vision software out there... Hell, my crappy digital camera is able to recognize a face well enough to tell if somebody blinked. All it has to do is match the image you just took to another image in its database with some degree of accuracy.

Then it can use the tags on the similar image to look things up... Or the words surrounding that similar image on the web...

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30357134)

IF they did get the AI working, they'd have the "Eden" search engine from Eden of the East [wikipedia.org] .

Although admittedly, Eden just let you tag people and objects, not search for them.

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (4, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355460)

Is that why I took a picture of the Washington Monument and got a wide range of results on specific "medications"?

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (5, Funny)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355522)

"Consult your doctor if you have an erection lasting more than 125 years..."

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30356232)

If I have an erection lasting more than 125 years, I'm not just telling my doctor; I'm telling everyone!

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30357950)

"Consult your doctor if you have an erection lasting more than 125 years..."

And let's not forget, we're also talking about a 170 meter erection!

Well, OK, that may be a slight exaggeration... And let's be clear, here - even Lady Liberty wouldn't know what to do with it...

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30355530)

Google thought you wanted a penis the size of the washington monument and directed you to appropriate results.

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30355478)

The trouble is, you'd need a source image to start with!

Re:Just one word for you, son--"porn" (4, Funny)

vodevil (856500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356060)

The possibilities here are so boundless that it simply boggles the mind.

I fear for some people's self esteem...they're going to take a picture of their own dick, and google will return the results... "Did you mean to search for penis?"

Now they'll know what you've seen. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30355424)

Now Google will not only know all of your searches and all of the emails you've sent out, but in addition to the GPS tracking of most modern mobile phones they'll even know what you've seen.

Just wait until you take a picture of your girlfriend's asshole with your mobile, and soon you'll be finding out all of the filthy porn she did several years back in college. You'll be seeing her arse penetrated by all sorts of objects and random foreign men.

Re:Now they'll know what you've seen. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30355612)

One man's -1 Troll is another's +5 funny/insightful.

Re:Now they'll know what you've seen. (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30357966)

One man's -1 Troll is another's +5 funny/insightful.

Funny divided by insightful equals negative troll. :)

Re:Now they'll know what you've seen. (1)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30358576)

Well, funny/insightful doesn't really mean anything itself, but the limit of moderation as rating approaches funny/insightful = Troll.

Re:Now they'll know what you've seen. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355744)

A lot of people are being pretty pessimistic regarding how accurate the results will be.

You are being incredibly optimistic.

Re:Now they'll know what you've seen. (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356112)

from the my-donut-shop-returned-goatse dept.

If they are watching you I would purposefully look at things like this.

Video too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30356374)

Might as well add a video search feature as well! The only thing I would be worried about is the privacy part of things. So would these pictures I take a snapshot of be stored in a server cache computer?

Great Idea, but... (3, Insightful)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355452)

Image searching combined with the fantastically bad cameras on all smart phones. Sounds like a good idea in theory, but not so great in practice. For now.

Re:Great Idea, but... (5, Insightful)

SparkEE (954461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355666)

In the video, a user takes a picture of the sign at Santa Monica Pier and gets a search result. Seems like it would be practical and quicker to have location based information available. Right now I can open up Google maps, hit "My Location", Tap on the building for Santa Monica Pier, and I get it's address. They should just add an option there to do a search. No camera needed, which also means it will work at night.

Re:Great Idea, but... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355710)

That's a fairly daunting interface for the inexperienced phone user, though. Pointing and taking a pic, not so much, even if it's doing the same thing (looking up your location and the direction you're facing) in the back end.

Re:Great Idea, but... (3, Interesting)

edumacator (910819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355866)

That's just eye candy. The real benefit of this is if you a barcode, or a bottle of laundry detergent or a distant landmark, like Stone Mountain in Georgia, and then get relevant information. I know what Stone Mountain is, but someone from out of town wouldn't, so they wouldn't have the name to search...and location based option, while useful, would give you WAY too many results.

That said, it'll be nice on a few rare occasions, but generally it will be used just for fun. As long as it is free, that's fine with me.

Re:Great Idea, but... (2, Informative)

FallinWithStyle (1474217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356166)

There are already several barcode scanners on the Android marketplace. There are also apps [snaptell.com] that let you scan the cover of DVD's or other small items to retrieve pricing and other information in a hurry -- these work pretty well. At the very least, it would be cool to have the ability to take a picture of some blob of text and receive an OCR conversion on the phone. Though the 3.2MP camera on my G1 may struggle a bit with shooting some text clearly, I would think more powerful cameras (like the 5MP one equipped with the Motorola Droid) wouldn't have much of a problem.

Re:Great Idea, but... (3, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355684)

Google Similar Images is offered, and works quite well, for images of a poorer resolution than even the crappiest phone cams on sale today. Besides, Android handsets have your location and view direction already, which cuts the problem down enormously. I suspect they could do it without any image recognition at all and get remarkably good results.

Re:Great Idea, but... (2, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356132)

Interesting. Similar Images doesn’t let you upload any old image, which is unfortunate, but it is a worthwhile tool to add to my online toolbelt.

Tineye [tineye.com] , on the other hand, lets you upload any picture (or give it a URL) and it attempts to find similar images using actual image recognition. It is supposed to work for cropped, rotated, composite, or re-coloured images. I find its results to be pretty impressive, sometimes. They do need to expand their image database, though.

For instance. [tineye.com]

Re:Great Idea, but... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356284)

Tineye should be working hard to have Google buy it. (Mostly because when Google has what they have they'll fade quickly into oblivion) Been watching them for a while now.

Alternatively they could sell a batch search program/sell batch searches. Rights holders or people like the mpaa would give them big bags of money to be able to search for anyone who has 'infringing' images up.

Also, hilarious image match :D

Re:Great Idea, but... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356848)

Also, hilarious image match :D

I assume you mean that last result? Yeah, and it also illustrates how well Tineye does at finding similar-but-slightly-different images.

I’ve also had luck using it to find originals from images that had text added.

Re:Great Idea, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30357734)

Come to think of it - what the fuck is this for? Don't we have GPS in phones nowadays? Why do I have to take pictures of the Washington Memorial when the phone knows that's the thing I'm standing next to?

Re:Great Idea, but... (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355788)

Image searching combined with the fantastically bad cameras on all smart phones.

The camera on my phone (a Nokia 6600 slide) takes quite good pictures. I don't know how you define "bad", but the camera is perfectly able to take pictures in which the grass is green and the sky blue, and where you recognise the faces of who you took the picture from.
Here [diffuse.it] are [diffuse.it] some [diffuse.it] pictures [diffuse.it] , just [diffuse.it] so that you get the idea (and those are resized).

The goggles (5, Funny)

Frohboy (78614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355570)

Unfortunately Goggles didn't pass muster with a recent focus group, so it could be a while before Google decides this is ready to hit the streets.

So, the Goggles... they do nothing?

Re:The goggles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30356328)

Completely off topic but I don't care. :-) This one definitely made me LOL at the office. Thank you for the awesome quote.

Sixth sense here we come (1, Offtopic)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355636)

My first thought was this TED video: http://blog.ted.com/2009/03/sixth_sense_demo.php [ted.com] . It would be interesting to have a heavyweight like Google developing tools to bring such a product to consumers.

Re:Sixth sense here we come (1)

queenb**ch (446380) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355664)

And Google gets yet another stream of data on you. What products you're looking at... Comparison shopping by UPC... People are flat out willing ot sell their soul for a "free" service

Re:Sixth sense here we come (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30360948)

I was going to reply to your previous rant about how GOGLE ARE TEH EVAL, but instead I'll reply here.

99(.9999)% of people don't care about their data enough to sacrifice Google's useful services, nor should they. The proof of the pudding is in the eating - most people are well aware of Google's [Service Data -> Advertisment] business model, but they still use Google services (and those that aren't clearly don't care about their data).

  • Most people have enough sense and humility to know they're not the centre of a paranoid conspiracy.
  • Targeted advertising is vastly preferable to spamvertisments, and it suits both me and the retailer to offer these. Given that this is the primary reason they collect data (paranoid delusions aside), then I don't see a problem here.
  • Data is a much better currency than money - for most people, it's getting rid of something you don't care about in exchange for something you want - it's a good deal.
  • Google haven't done anything that would disadvantage Joe Q Public (NB: corner cases Joe Q). What you're saying is like turning down a free lunch because "it might be poisoned", something only a paranoid head-case would consider.
  • My data is not my soul. Do you work for a news(paper/network/desk)/blog, or do you just use hyperbole as a matter of course?
  • If you don't like it, don't use it. The rest of us don't care, and it's our problem if it backfires. Stop proselytising.

I would love to hear your fantasy of what's going to happen when Google rise up and destroy us all with precious data, I really would. I can always use a good chuckle.

Yes, I can already hear the cry of "U DNT CARE ABOUT DATA? THEN WHATS UR SSN/PIN/CCN+N, LOL???!". Well, I don't putting my SSN/PIN/CCN+N into Google (nor into anything but an encrypted session), and they offer me services, so why would I give it to you when you offer me nothing?

Re:Sixth sense here we come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30359016)

My first thought was Photo2Search announced back in 2006 by Microsoft.

Why don't they focus on things that matter? (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355686)

I wonder why folks at Android (read Google) do not focus on web functionalities that matter in today's age.

Heck, we need Flash and PDF capabilities by default. Yes...by default. I know there are apps for these but "default" is the key word here. Now what's wrong with that?

Secondly how come Google's own Google Maps works better on the iPhone than Android phones? It should be the other way round...after all it's their product.

Come on Google do something.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355718)

PDF reader comes on default with (an)droid, and it is up to Adobe to come with Flash solution. After all, nobody can develop Flash VM but Adobe.

As for google maps, you really didn't elaborate what is the issue with them on android platform.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355878)

Nobody can develop a Flash VM but Adobe? That is nonsense. What you meant to say was that nobody can use the swf documentation to develop a Flash VM wihtout first getting permission from Adobe.

Also, what pdf reader comes by default on an Android phone? I'm guessing you mean the one developed by HTC and that is only available on non Google-Experience phones (phones that don't have the Google logo on them).

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (2, Informative)

Delwin (599872) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356986)

Quickoffice comes default on the Droid. It has no problem reading PDF's.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356068)

What PDF that comes with Android on the G1? I got Donut, and PDF reading doesn't happen.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#30360840)

As for google maps, you really didn't elaborate what is the issue with them on android platform.

I suspect the OP was being fanboyish. There is no problem with Google Maps on Android, especially with the latest version which links into the Perth traffic and public transport data (Transperth) and add these as layers.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355778)

With HTML 5 (which Google is helping push for) you won't need Flash so much anymore.

I don't need a PDF reader anymore given that Google will take a PDF on the web, and rerender it as HTML for me automatically.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355940)

I don't need a PDF reader anymore given that Google will take a PDF on the web, and rerender it as HTML for me automatically.

So if someone emails a PDF file to you, all you have to do is upload it to a web server and then have Google translate it? Sure beats Foxit reader, right?

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356072)

bogaboga was complaining Google wasn't doing anything about PDF as a web functionality.

My point is that Google already takes care of PDF web functionality.

And actually, if someone mails me a PDF, they're sending it to Gmail, and Gmail will render the PDF as HTML.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356318)

Foxit is terrible. Scratching marks on the ground with a stick beats Foxit.

(It has all the bloat of Adobe without any of the compatibility)

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356686)

I thought you may have had a point until you claimed that Foxit is just as bloated as Acrobat Reader. It's trivially obvious that Foxit is much more responsive and quicker than Acrobat.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30357902)

no, you click on VIEW AS HTML

jesus have you even used gmail?

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356414)

Their PDF->HTML thing could really use some work. Many PDFs look totally different.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

Qu4Z (1402097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30361186)

It works fine for me, but then I'm usually only interested in the text anyway.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355944)

maybe because your comment has nothing to do with visual search (it's offtopic), and you don't want *flash* capability at all? Google is going HTML5, which removes the need for flash in it's entirety. If you want PDF capability just use cyanogenmod [cyanogenmod.com] and quit acting like it's google's fault.

cyanogenmod = significantly faster performance, more applications available with more functionality (1 click gps/wifi/bluetooth/etc), PDF by default, exchange support, and all OS versions including cyanogen = navigation support.

Google's map does not work at all as well on the iphone as on android. ever seen google nav on the iphone?

Your fault is your lack of understanding, none of these issue's are google's fault. I'm not saying google is great, they do a lot of bad shit too, but it helps to go to google.com and look up some of the crap you want to do.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356252)

"Google is going HTML5, which removes the need for flash in it's entirety"

This will not automagically convert every Flash site to HTML5 all by it's goodness.

Until Adobe provides Flash for most Android devices, and of course the iPhone, then these devices are not as useful as they might be.

And HTML5 authoring tools are probably not as good as Flash tools, so there will be new Flash development for white a while.

I don't blame Google for the lack of flash on my G1. I blame Adobe for failing two deadlines, and of course my lack of time to sit down and pound Cyanogen into my phone. Which I'm not really into, but I probably will root it this year... Just to shut up the people who tell me the answer is to root.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356434)

"HTML5, which removes the need for flash in it's entirety."

Errr..... It might remove a lot of flash videos on streaming sites. I don't think it will impact flash games... And people with flash sites are unlikely to do differently.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30357568)

Flash and pdf are client-side issues, and the hardware isn't really up to the task. Image search is a server-side issue, so the two really have nothing to do with each other. Image search, if it works on a phone, would work just as well on the net. The issue is that it won't work.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30357882)

Secondly how come Google's own Google Maps works better on the iPhone than Android phones? It should be the other way round...after all it's their product.

Probably the same reason I can click the back button in Gmail and have it work in Firefox but not in Chrome.

Re:Why don't they focus on things that matter? (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30358396)

how come Google's own Google Maps works better on the iPhone than Android phones?

Because Apple developed the iPhone Maps app, not Google. I read somewhere that Google's engineers were pretty impressed when the first saw it, although I can't find the article at the moment.

On my next date... (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355750)

On my next date, she whips out her cell phone camera, snaps a quick shot, shoots it off to Google, and gets results on me.

"Honey, that chicken is a filthy liar! She so wanted it at the time!"

Re:On my next date... (4, Funny)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355840)

If she "whips something out" you'd better check for an Adam's apple.

Re:On my next date... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30360076)

GP mentioned having to defend himself for screwing a chicken, and that's the part of his comment you focused on...?

Searching for porn will be no fun. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30355870)

First you need a naked woman to see more naked woman.

And if you take a picture of your cock, you will get pictures of more cocks.

Re:Searching for porn will be no fun. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30356634)

take a picture of your mom

Re:Searching for porn will be no fun. (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356818)

take a picture of your ass, with nipples drawn on it (yep, south park reference).

or, just search using the famous XP "green buttocks and blue skies" wallpaper.

First step... (1)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 4 years ago | (#30355916)

This is the First step. Next as soon as we see an item, our brain will be bombarded with price list from different web stores and we will know where to buy it cheap. Think of a Java code, it will be in your brain along with some not so disruptive ads.
Thanks it is Google who are working on it. If it were MS, Ballmer would have squirted a lot more than necessary.

Re:First step... (2, Insightful)

inviolet (797804) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356260)

This is the First step. Next as soon as we see an item, our brain will be bombarded with price list from different web stores and we will know where to buy it cheap. Think of a Java code, it will be in your brain along with some not so disruptive ads. Thanks it is Google who are working on it.

Yep yep. There's a dark side, though. This will completely change the game regarding the (currently) presumed anonymity of photographs. Today it is impossible to take somebody's photo and then search for all matching photos on the internet, and so people do not much mind having their photos taken. Photo search will turn that on its head -- and the internet has a lonnnnnnng memory...

(And then we'll have "automatic aging" algorithms that can find photos of them while they were back in college partying.)

Amazon photo search (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356160)

The Amazon app for Android offers the ability to search for an item by either barcode or photo. According to the Amazon blurb, there are real people behind the requests that actually look for the items pictured and send results. I have used it twice and both times they found what I needed, but the results took about 10-15 minutes to get to me. I wonder if Google will just have 10,000 wage slaves working the results queue?

Re:Amazon photo search (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356218)

I believe they are using automated fuzzy image searches.

Re:Amazon photo search (1)

psm321 (450181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30359264)

It's a combination of both. Sometimes you'll get a result immediately (say for a clear shot of the front cover of a book), which is the automatic algorithm. When it takes a few minutes, it's people. (I read this somewhere in the help or description of the app and have had both types of results)

Re:Amazon photo search (1)

eamonman (567383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30358464)

Actually when I bought the Droid I assumed Google had some app that did that, but oh well. The amazon app is more funny than actually useful (last week I took a picture of a random ice cream sign, and it comes back with a weight loss book). In general it works pretty well with common objects from picturesque views.

Time to go download google goggles and test that google real time search thing too...

Its available in the Marketplace right now. (1)

jrwilk01 (88081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30356990)

Google Goggles is available for install from the Android Market place right now.

It works great for logos, and can even OCR business cards. Though, it seems to be a tad crashy on the Droid.

I think I found a problem with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30357000)

Great... now we will have a search function that only works in 24.5 days intervals

Google wants "to know more about you than you do" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30357010)

Google has stated publicly in the past, that their goal is to "know more about you than you do." Cell phone camera search, is one more tool in their toolbox for achieving that end, and it's one more service of theirs I won't be useing.

This would essentially, turn the entire cell phone camera crazed searching public, into a giant information gathering army, to further googles purposes. No matter how much they say its about you, its not about you, its about them. Thats why its a "free service".

Go ahead, take snapshots of everyone and everything you own. Let google organize it into the worlds largest database of information. Pictures of your kids, your wife, face scanned, body dimension analyzed, cataloged, available upon request ( for a fee ) by law enforcement agencies, corrupt governments, power hungry dictators, and any other 'quasi-legitamite investigative body' worldwide.

Google is big brother.

As for me, i'm using Ecosia. They destroy their records in 48 hours, and are buying up rainforest before googles corporate customers destroy it all.

ps. No, I'm not an anti-technology "omg John Kennedy Jr. orchestrated 9/11 from the dead" conspiracy nut. I am a computer programmer who is aware of multiple algorithms that are probably in use, that google doesnt speak about.

Android enabled "smart" phone ... $200.

Cell phone service ... $50 per month

Giving every minute detail about your entire life, the GPS location of your wife smoking weed at the Christmas party, the co-ordinates of the shiny new car you just waxed, and images of your kids to a "for profit" entity that serves its own purposes ( and any government that exercises any influence over them ) voluntarily .... priceless

Brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30357016)

If I want to search for information about horses, I could walk outside, take a picture of one, upload it to my PC, and hope that Google recognise it as a horse!

Which is much more fun than typing in H-O-R-S-E !

Re:Brilliant (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30357182)

If you don’t know what a horse is, then yeah, it’s easier to take its picture than type it in.

Re:Brilliant (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30358012)

If you don’t know what a horse is, then yeah, it’s easier to take its picture than type it in.

But if you want someone to believe it's a horse, then you need an electric monk...

Integrated with Facebook.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30357278)

Snap a picture of a douchebag that just cut you off in some line and see who he is , where he lives... doesn't sound too far-fetched really.

It's out! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30357548)

Google Goggles is available on Android as of yesterday. See the official Google video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhgfz0zPmH4

just tried it... (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30357556)

It's not coming soon, it's already there. I downloaded and installed the app, it's an OCR that can also read logos and barcodes. If you take a photo of a product with text, logos or barcodes it will know what that product is.

I took a photo of a tape dispenser with nothing but the table in background, it wasn't able to figure out it is a photo of a tape dispenser, it gave me a list of similar photos which had nothing at all to do with tape dispenser, there was even a photo of a swan.

I took a photo of a memory stick, it wasn't able to figure out what this is. Once again I got the "similar pictures" one of them was a photo of bees, nothing even close to memory stick.

I took a photo of the hand sanitizer, it recognized the Purell logo and read the text on the bottle. Taking a photo of the back of the bottle didn't result in any meaningful matches. Taking a photo of the bar code identified the product, but that's something I can already do with the barcode reader application.

It can read QR barcodes too. Nothing special, the barcode reader app already does that.

Re:just tried it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30358030)

but that's something I can already do with the barcode reader application.

That's if you have a barcode scanner. Most people don't have that so in that fashion there is value. And are you to tell me that you carry your bar code scanner with you? Check out the handheld computer market.... Portable barcode scanners are a big deal to a small market.

Whats bugging me is... (1)

dbuttric (9027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30360354)

I have this software running on my phone, and it does work.
What stuns me is that while this thing is in 'beta' and returning poor search results, they have the opportunity to 'train up' the AI, while also keeping hold of a bevy of images that they collect from a few thousand (or hundred thousand) phones that geeks like us were willing to install it on...

I bet that the corpus of images they collect during the next 4 years - the beta period - will be pretty impressive, and kind of scary. I bet that they claim rights on all of them. I guess we need to start watermarking the photos from our phonecams.

Just my thoughts...

I've tried this out a couple of times today... (1)

SyntaxTerror82 (1569825) | more than 4 years ago | (#30361676)

I've installed Google Goggles and gave it a test run. It works brilliantly. I haven't tried any landmarks yet, but I took a picture of a textbook sitting on my desk and it recognised it and took me to book reviews, and I could preview the book on Google Books. The picture had major glare issues and it still worked fine. Thinking it was a fluke, I took a picture of a second textbook and sure enough it worked perfectly again. 2 from 2 aint bad.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...