Beta
×

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!

Sergey Brin Demos Google Glasses Prototype

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the have-you-ever-seen-it-on-google? dept.

Google 122

MojoKid writes "Folks have been clamoring for more on Google's Project Glass and Sergey Brin — one of the co-founders of Google — is now burying himself in the R&D department associated with its development. Recently Brin appeared on 'The Gavin Newsom Show' with the prototype glasses perched on his face. The visit was actually a bit awkward as you can see in the video, as it's a lot of Brin and Newsom describing what they're seeing via the glasses with no visual for the audience. However, Brin dropped a bomb when he stated that he'd like to have the glasses out as early as next year."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google Glasses? (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161803)

I'll pair these with the hated headphones from the previous story, and occupy my own, private digital HELL!

Re:Google Glasses? (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162077)

More like Google Goggles. Or just Googgles?

Re:Google Glasses? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162241)

Googoggles.

Re:Google Glasses? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162389)

Dr. Seuss, will you please claim prior art?

Re:Google Glasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40163143)

Dr. Seuss, will you please claim prior art?

Prior art?

Re:Google Glasses? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165379)

Google Goggles is already the name of a fairly cool adroid app.

Re:Google Glasses? (2)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40164495)

I'll pair these with the hated headphones from the previous story, and occupy my own, private digital HELL!

It does make me wonder as to the business plan. I can imagine these things being given away free, but with small discrete text ads in your top right peripheral vision.

On the other hand, imagine if Google subsidiary Doubleclick gets to handle the business. They'll be inserting hallucinations of monster movie serial killers into your left side periphery, and then using the right eye to advertise psycho-analysis.

Still, could be worse. If it was Microsoft Goggles, they scan for apple logos replace them with the windows symbol. And if they detected a screen from a working replace Linux box, they'd overlay it with a static blue-screen-of-death image.

Oh the possibilities! :)

Re:Google Glasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40164643)

I'll pair these with the hated headphones from the previous story, and occupy my own, private digital HELL!

It does make me wonder as to the business plan. I can imagine these things being given away free, but with small discrete text ads in your top right peripheral vision.

On the other hand, imagine if Google subsidiary Doubleclick gets to handle the business. They'll be inserting hallucinations of monster movie serial killers into your left side periphery, and then using the right eye to advertise psycho-analysis.

Still, could be worse. If it was Microsoft Goggles, they scan for apple logos replace them with the windows symbol. And if they detected a screen from a working replace Linux box, they'd overlay it with a static blue-screen-of-death image.

Oh the possibilities! :)

They could be scriptable? Cool. Ive always wanted a pair of Perl-sensitive glasses.

Want. Now. (3, Funny)

jakimfett (2629943) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161809)

Every geek wants a pair of these yesterday. As soon as Google can get a version of them ready to go, I predict they'll sell like...well...not hotcakes, but probably like Android based phones.

Re:Want. Now. (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161861)

Couple these with the Google butt-plug, and Sergey will have covered all the exits!

Re:Want. Now. (1)

jakimfett (2629943) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161947)

Eh, you're forgetting the mouth and the fingers.

Re:Want. Now. (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162061)

I believe they've already canceled Google Wave.

Re:Want. Now. (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163731)

I thought Larry Page was the Chief Orifice Officer of Google! I mean, with the whole shouting-down-Brin-over-how-much-to-track thing and all, I think he'd fuck us over first.

Re:Want. Now. (1)

rebot777 (765163) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161967)

These would be cool. I'm still not sure about the interface though. I don't really want to dictate my interactions and I doubt head nods would be less annoying.

Re:Want. Now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40162081)

I guess you could pair it with your phone and control it wirelessly too?

Re:Want. Now. (2)

jakimfett (2629943) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163747)

I kinda like this idea. Just use the glasses as a HUD, where you can set a threshold for events to be displayed. Then, if I want, I can pull out my phone, hit the home key or power button, and the display comes fully alive, controlled by me and my input to my phone. Or better yet, gesture control using the camera....but that's probably just me dreaming again.

Re:Want. Now. (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#40164067)

where you can set a threshold for events to be displayed

Great idea, in the future when I ask "where are my glasses" out loud they could SMS "on top of your head you silly old fart" to my phone.

Re:Want. Now. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40162039)

Meh. I don't really see the first couple of generations of this making a difference on how I compute today. I'd much rather have a functional piece of equipment than a "geeky" piece of equipment.

Re:Want. Now. (1)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163145)

I'd much rather have a functional piece of equipment than a "geeky" piece of equipment.

Has 'functional' and 'geeky' suddenly become mutually exclusive now?

Citation needed.

Re:Want. Now. (2)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163239)

It's a start. I hope they get on with it, I've been waiting since the 1990s where we had all the basics (but even the iphone would not have been viable back then - no suitable ecosystem to thrive in).

First generation: virtual telepathy kinda there, but needs brain computer interface for to be more seamless.

Missing: control via thought macros (need brain computer interface for that). Also missing: ability to recall and store stuff by linking them with arbitrary thought patterns/sequences.

Missing: virtual telekinesis- need "building/area/room" servers and similar.

Missing: mindï augmentation stuff like face/object recognition to help you find/track people/objects in a crowd/area. Or count them quickly - the computer can highlight the stuff for the human to confirm/verify (humans can be quite fast at noticing if the computer has highlighted the wrong object, and may notice if the computer has missed stuff). If the Gov is going to track number plates, maybe the citizens should too - all these big shots visiting their mistresses better beware.

The virtual eidetic memory should always record at low res+fps, but keep the past X minutes at high res+fps in a circular buffer, so you can start recording at high res without missing stuff (this applies to both video and sound). It should also try to do a voice recognition transcript (processing realtime or while you are sleeping look up HARK for sound source separation) so you can more easily search for stuff later.

Problems: copyright law might cripple us to be less than what is possible technically.

See also: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2848877&cid=39996993 [slashdot.org]

Re:Want. Now. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#40164091)

"Virtual telepathy" is my explaination as to why we can't find any advanced aliens, as soon as it's invented they start punching each other, glasses or no glasses.

Re:Want. Now. (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165759)

i dont understand. what is this thing useful for? except looking stupid in public. why can't i just whip out my for for much better quality info?

Rare footage of them out and about (4, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161819)

Here was see an early version of Google Glasses [youtube.com] out and about! I can't wait!

Re:Rare footage of them out and about (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40161901)

I thought youd be busy doing ass to mouth with your iPhone and not here trolling Google. But since you're here, hate on, hater. BTW, I noticed from the latest IDC that Android shipped on 1 million handsets per day last quarter. Now, go hate on that, jackass.

Re:Rare footage of them out and about (-1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161971)

Why would I hate on anything? I own an Android handset myself (that I bought this year, although it's not my primary device). Why would you not want to try using every handset if you could?

How sad that Apple Haters appear to have lost all sense of humor, slavishly devoted to only one platform as they are...

Re:Rare footage of them out and about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40163733)

Calm down Sergey.

Re:Rare footage of them out and about (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40161945)

Me, I can't wait for you to get cancer.

I am sick of your idiotic posts, you are a real prick and you are also stupid.

Re:Rare footage of them out and about (2, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162029)

Here's another great video [youtube.com] I'm sure you will also despise and others enjoy!

There are others, but oddly even though those two videos came out very shortly after the first Google Glasses video, they are still the best.

Have a great life! I mean that non-sarcastically, I hope things look up for you.

bonch/Overly Critical Guy/SuperKendall (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40163483)

Poor little bitter Apple bitch. Still crying over Google destroying his piece of shit iPhone in the cellphone market...

Re:bonch/Overly Critical Guy/SuperKendall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40163667)

Are you working on getting laid ? You seem frustrated with life.

Re:bonch/Overly Critical Guy/SuperKendall (1)

Maritz (1829006) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165791)

It's not healthy to care that much.

Re:Rare footage of them out and about (1)

microTodd (240390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165069)

Thanks for the link!

You know what's funny? I watched this parody video and was just mildly amused. But then I went to watch the "official" real video on YouTube, and youtube gives me ad popups over the top of the video. So essentially, the official video now looks almost identical to the parody!

Suddenly the parody isn't as funny anymore.

Re:Rare footage of them out and about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40162815)

minus 1? that was clever: AC flamiing AC for being a troll

Re:Rare footage of them out and about (1)

Daley_G (1592515) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161969)

Just an FYI, with well over 2 million views, it's hardly rare. That being said, I'd not seen that vid yet - thanks for the link!

Re:Rare footage of them out and about (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162643)

If it were that intrusive, I am pretty sure people would opt for an adblock.

Re:Rare footage of them out and about (1)

htnmmo (1454573) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162655)

All those people that got lasik eye surgery will now be kicking themselves.

Price? (3, Interesting)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161933)

VR glasses are nothing new, the big question is whether this one will be actually affordable by the general public.

Re:Price? (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163059)

These are not VR glasses. They aren't even augmented reality glasses. They are essentially your smart phone on your eyeball as opposed to a small video screen.

Re:Price? (1)

takeda64 (776723) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163685)

Did anyone wonder where the cpu will be contained? I mean, even the bluetooth headphones are relatively big because of the battery and radio needed. The teaser video implies that it would have GPU, Internet access, storage etc. I'm starting to think, that the only reasonable way this could be feasible to do today would be if it would be simply an accessory to the Android phone (perhaps using bluetooth or the WiFi direct?) What do you guys think?

Re:Price? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163783)

Yes it's probably going to be two parts an eye piece and something in your pocket.

Just wait for the apps! (4, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161941)

I'm wondering how these will fare compared to some of their sci-fi counterparts did, actually. So far the most interesting take on augmented reality I've read/watched has been from the series Denno Coil [wikipedia.org] , but this sort of technology has featured in a few other dystopias, too.

Re:Just wait for the apps! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40163213)

"I'm wondering how these will fare compared to some of their sci-fi counterparts did, actually."

They can display "Fuck you, asshole" like Arnold got it in his internal ones.

Re:Just wait for the apps! (1)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165081)

Augmented reality has figured prominently inJapanese cartoons. Ghost in the Shell is a more famous example of wearable augmented reality. However, augmented reality can take more conventional forms, such as a cellphone camera that can automatically place tags (identifieers) on the landmarks you point it to. Such already exists in low-tech form in some app(s) I'm too lazy to Google for right now.

No usb interface? (1)

phrackwulf (589741) | more than 2 years ago | (#40161993)

Or other way to demo what the user is seeing and send the signal to a nice big projector screen for Steve Balmer to scream about? I realize it is super small but this just seems like a pretty basic aspect. How do I debug the thing?

Re:No usb interface? (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162719)

Or other way to demo what the user is seeing and send the signal to a nice big projector screen for Steve Balmer to scream about? I realize it is super small but this just seems like a pretty basic aspect. How do I debug the thing?

you cant show picture using wooden mockup.

headache inducing? (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162031)

If so, count me out.

Google Rx glasses? (2)

MsWhich (2640815) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162053)

I'm tentatively excited about Google Glasses, but if they don't come up with some way to make it work for people with prescription lenses, I'm going to have to let the ship sail without me, I think. Never going back to contacts again, not even for groovy sci-fi VR glasses.

Re:Google Rx glasses? (1)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162195)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK [wikipedia.org]
I have prescription glasses too. Might consider getting lasik if a) the glasses live up to their hype and b) my poor vision impedes my usage of them

Re:Google Rx glasses? (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163037)

Worked wonders for me. Before I couldn't see a clock radio the far side of the bed. Haven't needed glasses the last 14 years, but old age is kicking in now.

Two downsides. Firstly you do lose a bit of clarity in low light situations due to the scarring scattering light. Secondly, the aftermath of the procedure is pretty unpleasant (eyes get watery and itchy for a couple of days), although the compensation of immediately being able to see much more clearly is amazing.

Re:Google Rx glasses? (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 2 years ago | (#40164453)

although the compensation of immediately being able to see much more clearly is amazing.

Is it as amazing as putting on prescription glasses and avoiding the unpleasantness, cost, and the low-light clarity side-effects?

                -dZ.

Re:Google Rx glasses? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 2 years ago | (#40164813)

For one, technology is now a lot better than when the OP had it done. With advanced wavefront LASIK, you have basically zero night vision problems.

For two, LASIK will actually SAVE you money over the long term, because the whole procedure is tax deductible and you will never again have to purchases glasses or contacts - which adds up... do the math for 20 years of optometrist visits and glasses / contacts. When you get LASIK, your optometrist visits are now covered for life through the company.

I got my LASIK done back in March and I now have no night vision problems whatsoever - best investment I ever made.

Re:Google Rx glasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40166201)

do the math for 20 years of optometrist visits and glasses / contacts

The contacts I understand, but how often do you go back for glasses?

Re:Google Rx glasses? (1)

Jaffa (7714) | more than 2 years ago | (#40164843)

I've got prescription glasses (and have had for many years) but find it's not the happy utopia you depict, so it's interesting to hear about the downsides to LASIK.

For example, scratched lenses => headache inducing; with high-powered lenses, not getting exactly sitting right all the time => headache inducing; dirty lenses => headache inducing; frames => far more limited field of view.

Re:Google Rx glasses? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162263)

There have been a lot of advances in contact lenses over the past decade. These days, I wear a pair for a few weeks nonstop, and when they start to get itchy, peel em off and toss em and start with a fresh pair. About the only time I notice them is when I first wake up, and a few drops of solution solves that problem.

That said, when the Goggles were introduced, Google said they'd have a pair that were designed to clip onto regular glasses instead of be stand alone glasses unto themselves.

Re:Google Rx glasses? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163065)

And for those of us who wear bifocals?

Yeah, gettin old sucks. I've had to wear bifocals for about 15 years now. Lasik scares the hell outta me. Lasers are cool and all that, but I get the willies thinking of anything coming at my eyes.

Re:Google Rx glasses? (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165645)

Seeing the surgery(?) demonstrated, requiring the patient being awake while they peel away the outer layer of skin on your iris, scares the shit out of me.
I know the eye is numbed, I know they are really good at this, that there are computers ensuring precision etc .... but no way I can go through that while being awake!

Re:Google Rx glasses? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162803)

I recall reading somewhere that they specifically said that there will be a model to use with regular prescription eyeglasses.

Re:Google Rx glasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165285)

They are not glasses, just a frame with a small screen on one side and they have been designed so people with prescription glasses can use them.
--
Sundar Pichai is the utter asshole whose incompetence has resulted in the shutdown of Google's Atlanta office.

Borg (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40162097)

He's the freaking Borg. Please retire the Microsoft icon and apply it to Google. kthxbai.

OMFG (2)

satanclause (2626589) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162311)

Some states are trying (ineffectually) to ban texting while driving... any bets on how long it will be before the first muppet causes an accident/kills someone due to having his/her vision impaired by Google Glasses!

Re:OMFG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40163039)

But that's why they've also got the self driving car project.

Re:OMFG (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163449)

I'm not sure there was ever an epidemic of people dying while texting. It was more politicians who want to look like they are doing something proactive. In California they refused to ban cell phone driving until all the legislators got bluetooth headsets

Dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40162407)

Bluetooth earpieces have been our for years and still look ridiculous. These are no different.

Re:Dumb (1)

matty619 (630957) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162559)

Ya, they do. But so what. I very much enjoy using my bluetoof headset while driving, or whilst typing with both hands, or while working on a cabling job, or any other sort of thing where I need to be on the phone and require both hands. I imagine there would be very many applications where the google glasses could come in handy as well. That being said if you're wearing either a bluetoof or google glasses to make a pretentious fashion statement alone, you should be slapped.

Re:Dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40162915)

Dude.

bluetoof

WTF?

Re:Dumb (1)

matty619 (630957) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163461)

Don't take yourself too seriously man. It's just the internet.

Re:Dumb (1)

Guignol (159087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165637)

Well, as a french speaker, this is what that would bring to mind...
Blue touffe [jeremyriad.com] :)

*sigh* and here go my future possible claim as any sort of respectability as a member of this community...

Re:Dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165343)

We are the Borg. Looks are irrelevant.

Brother AirScouter (2)

matty619 (630957) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162479)

When I first heard of the Project Glass, I thought they had found a way of doing what some Japanese companies have been doing for a while...rather than displaying the image in *front* of your eye, they actually draw the image line by line directly *in* your eye on your retina with lasers. I still hold out hope that this is the long term goal of Project Glass, but who knows. A bit of reading Here [slashgear.com]

And Here [engadget.com]

And Here [brother.com]

A Minor Customer Request (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162503)

Aside from looking like a confused refugee from the Borg, could someone work on some kind "styling?" There are several applications that this item, if not intrusive looking, would work nicely. I would think of it as a personal diary application.

This is old technology. (4, Insightful)

GrpA (691294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162541)

Newer technology integrates the image directly into normal sunglass or prescription glasses lenses through optical waveguides to create an image focussed at infinity that is stable even if you're moving around.

Vuzix has already made prototypes and the lenses look normal - though they did have a projector on the side of the lens. It was technology developed by Nokia and to see how impressive it actually is, take a look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atTqT7z00Kc&list=UUXV7-Fjn7hdQcINo7-T3mWQ&index=1&feature=plcp [youtube.com]

That's some video I got *through* the glasses at CES in January - And you'll notice that even though I can't keep the camera still, the image is rock steady within the active area of the glass lens. ( The lens is just a few millimeters thick ).

The newer technology looks almost holographic and can certainly be made to provide a 3D image...

Though if Google's glasses were really cheap, I'd still buy them. There's something to be said for a older but functional technology in a pair of glasses for $100 compared to the latest tech for more than $1000.

GrpA

Re:This is old technology. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40162739)

Did it look better in person than it does in that video? Because that seemed pretty underwhelming to me, I could barely make out what was going on. With the baseball player, I could basically just make out a white silhouette of a person. I imagine there is some lossiness when recording it, but I'm curious how good it looks in person.

Re:This is old technology. (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163061)

I thought it was an exotic dancer of some sort, so concur with the "underwhelming" and "barely make out" comments.

Re:This is old technology. (1)

GrpA (691294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163383)

There was a baseball player and an exotic dancer. The limitation of the system was that they were using a small projector ( 320x200 LCOS I thought, from the look of it ) to inject the image into the glasses. Though the lack of dynamic range in the camera and brightness control on the prototype made it difficult to work out - basically, it's designed to work in full sunlight and was bright enough to do so, but we were inside where I took the video so it just overwhelmed the camera and came out "overexposed" compared to the background image.

They were working on smaller video projectors when I spoke to them, but the techs who developed the technology were not around to speak to.

And yes, the image was still much better to my eye... It was one of the two things I found at CES that made the show worth attending.

GrpA

Re:This is old technology. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165377)

It was one of the two things I found at CES that made the show worth attending.

And what was the other thing?

Old news (1)

karolgajewski (515082) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162547)

This was news almost two months ago when he wore them here [pcmag.com] at an event for The Foundation Fighting Blindness.

Re:Old news (1)

matty619 (630957) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162589)

Except for the new news...that being a bit more concise release date, and the fact that he finally let someone else try it on on camera.

ddos (1)

bmimatt (1021295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162653)

At 4:00PM (local time), we all put the glasses on and look into our old school kaleidoscopes = hourly DDOS?

Inevitable (4, Interesting)

optimism (2183618) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162661)

These glasses are definitely coming.

From the video, they look small enough to be practical very very soon. Nice work, Sergey. :)

Presumably they will connect via bluetooth to a smartphone or keypad in your pocket for an easy finger-based UI. And of course there will be a voice UI, like we have now with a small & simple BT headset.

The big questions are a) battery life, b) how the various governments will assess this as a potential driving hazard, and c) whether Apple will steal Google's thunder by doing the same thing, only sleeker.

I, for one, will be happy to buy a set of these glasses if the price is right. Hopefully less than US$1000.

Re:Inevitable (2)

Artcfox (557726) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163347)

Watch closely how Sergey operates the glasses. The side of it is actually a trackpad.

Re:Inevitable (2)

optimism (2183618) | more than 2 years ago | (#40164129)

Yeah, I got that impression, though I wasn't sure if he was working a trackpad or jog-wheel or something else.

I'd rather have the trackpad as a separate wireless controller, so I could keep my hand in my pocket, or on the steering wheel, or wherever else, instead of reaching up to my temple every time I need to control the glasses.

Economy of motion will be a critical factor of adoption.

Re:Inevitable (0)

ModernGeek (601932) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163511)

I think that both the idea and implementation of this idea are deplorable at best. The problem with fame is that every stupid idea one has and every move one makes becomes a cornerstone for bland stories to be covered by the mainstream media (this now includes slashdot thanks to GeekNet), and gross over speculation/valuation of said ideas.

Re:Inevitable (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163801)

Even if you find this deplorable, I am not sure why you find media coverage undesirable. If more people find it deplorable (and learn about this through the media), someone could take the best parts of this idea, and remove the bad parts and come up with one you would like. Say someone could completely drop the eye projection, camera, and simply retain the earpiece and still provide excellent voice commands support for Android (I am not sure if you would like this or not, but this is something I would like). More coverage of brand new tech (and what could be a paradigm shift, and even worse, something that could be shoved down our throat in the future) is always good.

Re:Inevitable (1)

closer2it (926190) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165829)

The big questions are a) battery life, b) how the various governments will assess this as a potential driving hazard, and c) whether Apple will steal Google's thunder by doing the same thing, only sleeker.

It seems they solved [slashdot.org] that problem. :)

Correction. (1)

toddmbloom (1625689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40162765)

Shouldn't the title of this post be "Sergey Brin demos the world's stupidest idea ever"?

Re:Correction. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40163477)

What does this post have to do with reality television?

Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40162849)

But can it read power levels?

Marketing ploy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40163181)

Anyone else think this whole thing is nothing but BS and marketing. I'm betting the glasses don't do anything and that's why no one outside of Google has been allowed to touch one. Maybe the glasses these Google employees are wearing are just mockups and have no functionality what so ever.

Re:Marketing ploy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40164451)

Sergey's new clothes?

WTF Google article... (0)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40163941)

Interesting that the multi-billion dollar company that produces YouTube and things of that nature would choose some shitty no-name video player that can't even load properly.

Re:WTF Google article... (1)

aurasdoom (1279164) | more than 2 years ago | (#40164241)

And you're too stupid to figure out that's not a google website.

Is it safe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40164003)

This is the kind of device you DO NOT want plasma-burn-in in.

clowns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40164349)

if this is all Silicon Valley has left these days... I'm heading to China....

I'm sure it will be a technological marvel (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#40164613)

Certain kinds of tech such as bluetooth headsets, Segways look great on paper but make the user look like a complete dork. I think Google's glasses fit into that category too. Perhaps they will find a use in business, e.g. for people driving (as a kind of HUD with directions) especially for couriers, warehouses and so on but I see little utility for them in every day life.

Girls will laugh at you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40164755)

The fundamental flaw with technology like this, built by a bunch of extremely smart geeks, is that it fails the "will girls laugh at me" test. And that is the death knell for all consumer technologies.

Old News (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40165403)

It's already been done [fanboy.com] .

Navin R. Johnson, Jr. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40165587)

Navin R. Johnson, Jr. -- The Jerk goes digital!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?