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!

More Details On Google Glass

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the for-all-your-skydiving-conversation-needs dept.

Google 93

Earlier today we discussed Google's I/O conference keynote presentation, which gave updates on Android 4.1, Google+, the Nexus 7 tablet, and the Nexus Q streaming device. We also got a rather dramatic demonstration of Google Glass, complete with skydiving, bike flips, and rappelling. They followed up with a press conference solely dedicated to Glass, and Timothy was there to cover it. Read on for details about Glass.As we mentioned earlier, the developers at I/O have the option to buy the 'Explorer Edition' of Google Glass for $1,500. In addition to the (functional, but unfinished) device itself, they also get access to Google's engineers and to keep up with the devices development. Worry not: when the consumer version of the device is finalized, it will be cheaper, but of course they aren't ready to talk about actual prices yet. As for availability: "Less than a year after we get these Explorer Editions out."

Google wants to encourage creative hacking, even if they don't want the developers to immediately put the results in front of users. Sergey said, "Having used a lot of GoPros, what I really want to do is have 5 GoPros along with me — but also Glass, so you can easily capture the data hands-free, that you can see what you're capturing as you do it."

How do you click a web page? Sergey stumbles a bit -- "maybe you should switch to phone or try another device."

For tying into other Google services, and storing all that data, there is instant upload for pictures. Videos are larger, and they haven't finished how that interaction is going to work. The Google Map improvements with 3D views are perfect for viewing with the glasses.

Sergey also talked briefly about safety. Google has a lot of experience with this, particularly from the self-driving car. Speaking to actual experience: compared to driving, where you have distant view, plus dashboard instruments, etc., "This feels much safer." To objections that (say) even heads-up displays on cars are very limited, Sergey counters by pointing out that they only want to present a limited amount of data.

He went on to speak about the design of the glasses. There were two paths they had to choose from. Their initial instinct was to make these as much like glasses as possible; essentially a device disguised as glasses. Sergey said, "When we went through design options, decided, lets be bold .. a lot of people go through a fair amount of effort not to wear glasses; they wear contacts and things like that." So, they discarded glasses and made it an asymmetrical thing, very non-glasses like. He basically sidestepped a question about whether they've worked or are working with makers like Bausch & Lomb on products.

After fielding a few annoying questions about Larry's health, he went on to say Google Glass fits well with the charter of Google Apps, "to take bold risks and push the edges of technology. ... I think we're definitely pushing the limits." It's not all perfect, though. "There've definitely been situations where I felt that we got the software wrong. When you have something buggy and crashing there," he said, gesturing to the camera above his eye, "that's a real problem."

They're currently demonstrating the glasses. We'll have some video of that for you later.

cancel ×

93 comments

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

models (-1, Offtopic)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472413)

Why didn't anyone ask where they got the amazing models for the promotional pics?

That seems to be the primary interest in the product so far.

Those women don't work at GOOG, do they?

I mean even beer ads and domain registrars don't have women that amazing.

Re:models (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40472555)

I am curious, are there any more images or models than shown in this results link?
http://www.google.com/search?q=google+glass&tbm=isch

Re:models (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472781)

I just wasted 10 minutes trying to find the link. Where are these supposedly hotter-than-hot models?

Re:models (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473305)

you have the internet. do you really need links to find hot women?

Re:models (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40475957)

No. But we need links to figure out which hot women he's talking about.

The morbid and odd aspect... (1)

WorkEmail (707052) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472509)

Just think, future generations will have a nice high-res recording of your dying moments! Ever wondered exactly what your great great grandparent saw and heard as they died? These glasses, should they catch on, will also produce a whole new wave of sex and practical joke creepiness...

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (4, Interesting)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472605)

Better yet, "Hey son, check this out, it's the exact moment you came into existence!"

Seriously, though, this does look cool. There have been a lot of times when I wish I had a video camera handy but just didn't want to fool with one, even built into a cell phone. Also, if it keeps basically a circular realtime recording of everything going on, it would be really handy to re-watch things that you normally wouldn't be recording at all.

One thing that I suspect will have to be addressed at some point is exactly how much control you have over the data. For example, if you're involved in a wreck, it would be really nice to have the video showing exactly what happened since eyewitness testimony is so unreliable and people tend to lie. But would you be arrested for obstruction of justice if you deleted the video off of your Google Glass because you knew you were speeding?

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (4, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472667)

But would you be arrested for obstruction of justice if you deleted the video off of your Google Glass because you knew you were speeding?

Probably more of a "destruction of evidence" charge, but yes that would be possible. There would be a burden of proof to show that (1) recognized the video was evidence of a criminal act, and (2) you destroyed or altered it for the purpose of interfering with justice.

(2) can be difficult to prove. "I always clear it every morning and did it out of habit without thinking that accident yesterday might go to court" alone could cast reasonable doubt against (2). Usually requires some other supporting evidence like testimony that you told someone that you deliberately wiped it, or asked someone if it was admissible as evidence before you wiped it etc. The rules of proof for destruction of evidence are a little more lenient however due to the nature of the crime.

yo dawg (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40476763)

If ever you destroy evidence, be sure to destroy the evidence that you destroyed the evidence. Then destroy the evidence that you destroyed the evidence that you destroyed the evidence.

You could also destroy the evidence that you destroyed the evidence that you destroyed the evidence that you destroyed the evidence, but some say that's a little paranoid.

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (-1, Offtopic)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472721)

Before you decide this is a "great" idea you should probably watch the Black Mirror episode where people record everything they see around them. Without spoiling the ending, a husband suspects his wife of cheating, and his eyecam provides the evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz5pfjG_Pu8 [youtube.com]

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (1)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473003)

Did you bother to click that link?

For the rest of the community, don't. It is just a 2 minute ad for some pirate TV site.

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474409)

This isn't the cheating bit, but it covers the same ground of "crap, I can put my life up on a screen whenever"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWN9WEU2NP8 [youtube.com]

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (1)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 2 years ago | (#40478703)

Hey son, check this out, it's the exact moment you came into existence!

But that moment is AO-rated!

Inverse Hoffman effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40479769)

Here's one that may bake your noodle. What might you be arrested for if you deleted the video that proved you smashed into the back of that cop car because you were distracted by the hot thong chick riding by on a bike, you perv, you? Careful, it could be a trick question:-)

They live;-) Have fun.

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40479955)

Before you decide this is a "great" idea you should probably watch the Black Mirror episode where people record everything they see around them. Without spoiling the ending, a husband suspects his wife of cheating, and his eyecam provides the evidence. (Search youtube; I watched it there.)

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480913)

(Search youtube; I watched it there.)

Protip, by ignoring the fact that you grabbed the wrong youtube link the first time [slashdot.org] , you come across as a bit of a child.

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481035)

One can only imagine Mom and daughter's discussion. Hopefully equally as touching, though. :-)

Seriously, one wonders what the reaction to the following headline will be. "Supreme Court rules Google Glass cannot be mandated, but non-wearers may be taxed unmercifully."

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472621)

Strange Days bro

Strange Days are here at last!

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40476545)

As someone who works in the educational sector, I assure you they are not. We're still heavily focused on cramming their heads with already-obsolete technologies and rote learning to maximise exam scores.

Re:The morbid and odd aspect... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40472675)

Somewhat more morbid, the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case would have been settled already. How will Google Glasses affect crime and punishment?

Fears of this (5, Interesting)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472651)

I have two major concerns about this, neither of which are safety-related.

First, as I mentioned above, it would have to be absolutely clear that I alone control the data on it. If I'm involved in an automobile accident, for example, I don't want to be arrested for obstruction of justice if I decide to delete the video. However, if I need to use it in court, I would get to choose to keep it as evidence.

Second, what about privacy concerns? I mean, right now, if I see a hot girl, I have my memories. Not any more, now I have video of her that I can upload to Facebook! Will people take these things off in restrooms out of respect? I doubt it. Will I never be able to tell off-color jokes to my friends who have these again because it might come up at an inconvenient time when I'm interviewing for a job at some point?

As a lesser but still valid concern, what about copyright? I'm sure that movie theaters would have a cow if you wore them in. What if I'm just lounging around the house and happen to have the television on or a song playing on the Nexus Q, am I going to be sued by Sony or making illegal copies of copyrighted material? Are they going to build in a kill switch for Google Glass controlled by your content-protected television? Etc.

This is a fascinating technology, but not without some challenges. I can't wait to see what happens as these things are worked out.

Re:Fears of this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40472779)

>If I'm involved in an automobile accident, for example, I don't want to be arrested for obstruction of justice if I decide to delete the video.

This is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with Glass. You're ALREADY guilty of destruction of evidence if you did something like this with a conventional "dash-mounted" camera or something. Why should there be special laws for Google Glass?

Re:Fears of this (2)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474249)

...Thus proving my point. I'd rather simply not have this, than have it knowing that it can be used against me.

Re:Fears of this (3, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474325)

...Thus proving my point. I'd rather simply not have this, than have it knowing that it can be used against me.

So don't record video while you're driving. Honestly, I expect that people won't be using this to stream their life anyway, for a simple, pragmatic reason: battery life.

Re:Fears of this (5, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40475025)

...Thus proving my point. I'd rather simply not have this, than have it knowing that it can be used against me.

So don't record video while you're driving.

Even better: don't drive. If your driving is so bad that you think a recording is more likely to convict you than exonerate you, then you probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

Re:Fears of this (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40479163)

Where did I say that it would be "more likely to convict [me] than exonerate [me]?" I'm a safe driver, thank you very much. If such a thing were ever used for evidence, the odds are overwhelmingly good that it would be in my favor. However, I also admit that sometimes I do make mistakes, and I don't want my own video used to incriminate myself if I do screw something up. Let them invest their own damn money into buying things to provide evidence for them.

Re:Fears of this (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 2 years ago | (#40506075)

ah, people like you are why the world isn't in a better place. Not only rejecting responsibility for their actions but believing it's their right to do so. Thanks douche.

Re:Fears of this (3, Insightful)

Zerth (26112) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474435)

Guess what, you don't get a choice. The other driver and many of the drivers around you will be using it, get subpoenaed and you'll still be pwned.

Lots of people now have dashcams because they believe that they are more likely to be hit than to cause an accident.

Re:Fears of this (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40475207)

If you will be cheating with info about you poitentially covering a crime or faking one for someone else it's better that you dont have one of those, you're still a danger to society, but that was happwning before these glasses existed

Re:Fears of this (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473023)

First, as I mentioned above, it would have to be absolutely clear that I alone control the data on it. If I'm involved in an automobile accident, for example, I don't want to be arrested for obstruction of justice if I decide to delete the video. However, if I need to use it in court, I would get to choose to keep it as evidence.

If you alone control the data on the device, you probably can't demonstrate it hasn't been tampered with. So, it's not going to be allowable evidence.

Re:Fears of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40473367)

How about an external signing source. Generate a hash of each data block and submit that in real time to an external service that returns a digital signature for it based on the time the signature was requested. Now you can prove that data block X (video frame, photo, gps trackpoint, whatever) has been unaltered since that time.
 
To prevent pre-recording of information, the same service could generate a random number and broadcast it to your device, you then include that random number in the data block before hashing. You can use the delay between when the random number was generated (the signing service is keeping an historical log of it) and when you asked the data block to be signed to demonstrate the maximum time window for manipulation. This now limits possible manipulation to near real-time.

Re:Fears of this (1)

oever (233119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40476089)

You can use identica or tweeter for seeding and logging. Get the most recent message of a public source and use that to prove that there was no prerecording. While recording, push a hash to a public server regularly. To the readers, these hashes will be unintelligible and when you publish them at regular intervals regardless of what you are doing, you are not even letting know that you are currently actively awake.

Re:Fears of this (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473365)

1) You don't get that now. If you intentionally wipe data from your car after an accident, you can ge into trouble. some with any device.

2) No different then anyone having a camera now. Maybe you should either stop telling off color jokes, or own up to it. Stop being a coward.

3) They don't need to be recording all the time.

Re:Fears of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40473453)

2) No different then anyone having a camera now. Maybe you should either stop telling off color jokes, or own up to it. Stop being a coward.

Of course it's different. While most people have cameras on them now, they're not pointing them at you all the time, and when they are, you can generally tell.

The rest of your comment is rather...shall we say, Zuckerbergian?

Re:Fears of this (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473525)

For all practical purposes, you would never stream a video feed live to a social website. With gigs of flash memory being stuffed into the device, it would be far easier to record the device for 24 hours non-stop. Then, you can mark your daily events as the occur meaningful. Download, cut what you want to share, and publish online. Pretty easy concept.

Now, the police getting their hands on one of these unedited. Lets see...sexual harassment, unsafe driving, jay walking, breaking additional laws 1233125, 55232342, and 4322342. Oh look, you also did something really bad. So bad will create another law named after you.

On second though, I don't want one.

Re:Fears of this (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474431)

There not designed for that. From what I read they are designed to offload the data. They have some memory but not enough that it wouldn't fill up after a day.

Re:Fears of this (1)

dell623 (2021586) | more than 2 years ago | (#40475953)

That makes no sense. We turn off mobile cameras in restrooms, we can take off these things.

It is trivially easy to hide a tiny camera in a shirt button or something these days if you want to record stuff in secret. That technology is already here, the privacy concerns already exist.

Obviously, with these glasses, you can control what you record, and when video/still recording is on or off. And frankly google has a much better record of giving you control of your own content than Facebook. Besides, we record all this stuff in cellphones from many companies and carriers, how does this create new privacy issues?

Ditto for the copyright concerns. You can lounge around the house and record stuff with your celpphone camera, hell, any camera. How is this different???

The automobile accident? Well these days I am sure if your passenger happens to be recording video while you drive, that can be used as legal evidence. The same goes here.

It's not recording your life 24/7. You record when you want to, you don't when you don't.

Re:Fears of this (3, Interesting)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40475955)

I have two major concerns about this, neither of which are safety-related.

First, as I mentioned above, it would have to be absolutely clear that I alone control the data on it. If I'm involved in an automobile accident, for example, I don't want to be arrested for obstruction of justice if I decide to delete the video.

Google cannot go around your local laws. And what you're talking about is all about the law: if it is illegal to delete the evidence then it is, there's nothing Google can do about it.

As a lesser but still valid concern, what about copyright? I'm sure that movie theaters would have a cow if you wore them in.

Most movie-theaters these days seem to employ Cinavia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia [wikipedia.org] ) or similar, meaning that Google Glass - built-in software will just be able to disable recording when it detects a Cinavia-protected content.

What if I'm just lounging around the house and happen to have the television on or a song playing on the Nexus Q, am I going to be sued by Sony or making illegal copies of copyrighted material?

Probably yes. Blame the silly copyright laws.

Are they going to build in a kill switch for Google Glass controlled by your content-protected television? Etc.

That will be tough to do. Cinavia works in a cinema just fine, but at home you may be trying to record something completely different while you have your TV turned-on, and POOF, you won't be able to record anything until you turn it off. There would have to be a way of identifying the source of the Cinavia - signal and then the object in question would have to be blurred out -- something the glasses most likely won't have the processing grunt to do -- as even if the TV was in your view it could very well not be the object you're trying to record; there could e.g. be your child playing on the floor near the TV, doing something hilarious, and you want to record that but you can't just somehow disable the TV in the background at that moment.

Re:Fears of this (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40479115)

Just to be clear, I'm not blaming Google or expecting them to do something about it. You're right--they have to abide by what law enforcement dictates. That was really what I was getting at--I'm blaming law enforcement (and content companies and the RIAA/MPAA, etc.) for likely ruining this really cool product before it even launches.

Re:Fears of this (1)

spikesahead (111032) | more than 2 years ago | (#40479951)

They will only have ruined the hardware if they make it impossible for us to flash new ROM into it that allow us to entirely take control of the device.

Re:Fears of this (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40476419)

... What if I'm just lounging around the house and happen to have the television on or a song playing on the Nexus Q, am I going to be sued by Sony or making illegal copies of copyrighted material? Are they going to build in a kill switch for Google Glass controlled by your content-protected television? ...

The big media companies already tried to pass a law requiring this. It was called the CBDTPA [wikipedia.org] . It failed just as hard as SOPA, though some aspects of it have appeared in a certain company's OS in the form of "secure boot" and "trusted computing" and such.

Re:Fears of this (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40478783)

To sort of answer your concerns with a question, how is the current configuration of Glass any different than walking around with a camera taking video and snapshots constantly?

Re:Fears of this (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40479309)

Bingo. This is bringing Facebook to meatspace. Like Facebook, I won't be using it myself (I like the hardware but I agree on the control issues), however even us innocent bystanders will still suffer thanks to other people sharing information on us.

Re:Fears of this (1)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483803)

I have two major concerns about this, neither of which are safety-related.

How about crowd-sourced lawsuits. Law firms pay people to review questionable footage and file lawsuits against those that are deemed money-makers. Same could be said for tabloid writers: crowd-source your celebrity footage and pick the juiciest clips.

Seems like a waste of time. (-1, Troll)

toddmbloom (1625689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472669)

To go over the world's stupidest idea.

Seriously, only the most rabid Google zealots will actually own these stupid things.

Re:Seems like a waste of time. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473439)

And the ipod had less space than a nomad and was lame too. The future isnt made for most practical innovations, but the ones that capture global culture attention. This tried to make the same impact that did the iphone and ipad presentation (don't remember a lot about the ipod one now), and it did. But time is a bitch. Something that could have a developer version by next year almost fit in the vaporware definition, and so much time could give others the opportunity of steal the show with cheaper, dumber and less useful alternatives.

Seriously dumb (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472767)

Honestly what sort of person wants to push their whole life into google's data centres in such detail? Given all the tourists in this area I'm used being filmed and being in pictures more than I care to but I don't mind it at all. However if I were sitting somewhere and trying to relax with some idiot filming every little thing on his ugly glasses then yes I think I would have an issue with that.

Between this and the sort of tracking that appears to be happening on their new tablet, for your "convenience" leaves me wondering how much further Google wants to pry into our lives and perhaps something should be done about it. At least give people 100% ownership and control over their own data.

I think I'd also be more concerned it's a US company and therefore the US government has access to all this too which is actually more scary than Google having it.

Re:Seriously dumb (4, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40472885)

So basically...you can't see any value in this kind of product at all? Let's get the technology going first. We're geeks after all. I'll bother about the other considerations after I finish being excited over the technological aspect.

Re:Seriously dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40473537)

I'm not the GP, but I agree with them. I think this seems like a cool idea and I would be interested in buying it... if I could use my own server instead of Google's.

Re:Seriously dumb (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473567)

Actually no, not really. It's a nice idea but I'm not going to pay a lot to look stupid and allow Google to record my life. The technology behind it is interesting just not the product.

Re:Seriously dumb (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#40476591)

Let's get the technology going first.

Famous last words.

Of humanity.

Re:Seriously dumb (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40478541)

I can think of better ways of exiting :D. Sure beats nuclear annihilation, or starvation, or asteroid impact or gradual dying off. Go out with a bang representing everything we stood for eh?

Re:Seriously dumb (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40478451)

It's like the Kinect. Once geeks got their hands on it, it became much more than a gimmick games controller.

Re:Seriously dumb (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473051)

Honestly what sort of person wants to push their whole life into google's data centres in such detail?

I'm of the same mind as you - but I guarantee some people will revel in posting all their intimate details online. And, if the last decade is any indicator, an absurd number of people will waste countless hours vicariously watching them.

Really, is it any different than those webcam girls that lived their lives online, 5-10 years ago? Funny thing is, I remember that they existed - but I can't remember any one of their names now.

Re:Seriously dumb (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473457)

I'd agree and have to say I've completely forgot about that but I can vaguely remember some web cam "celebrities" being on TechTV ages but I'm sure they're mopping floors now in a McDonalds. I feel bad for kids though that could have it come back and bite them in the backside when they realise everyone can see how much of a retard they were when they were younger. Everyone's done something stupid when they're young. Luckily though for most people they don't have to relive it for the rest of their lives.

Tracking (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473101)

Honestly what sort of person wants to push their whole life into google's data centres in such detail?

Most don't, just like most people don't want to give their money or personal information to the companies selling other products or providing other services that rely on access to personal information. Most people would prefer to keep their money and information.

What people do want is the the benefits they get from using the devices and services. The cost -- in money or information that has to be handed over to get those benefits -- is something that people may be willing to accept as a cost, not something that they "want".

Between this and the sort of tracking that appears to be happening on their new tablet, for your "convenience" leaves me wondering how much further Google wants to pry into our lives and perhaps something should be done about it.

Assuming you are referring to the "Google now" feature, that doesn't seem to do any more tracking than Google already has been for a long time, it just leverages the ability to data mine the data Google has stored for the user's direct benefit more.

Which may make more obvious how much tracking was already going on, and what people can learn by data mining, but it doesn't actually seem to be more tracking.

Re:Tracking (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473489)

I mean more in tracking habits though it does specify location history so, depending on how much they gather now through Android, they are potentially tracking your location along with your habits more. There is sometimes a benefit to giving up privacy for something else but I don't think we should give any company the idea that they can increase that to whatever they feel is appropriate for their profits.

Re:Seriously dumb (2)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474737)

"some idiot filming every little thing on his ugly glasses then yes I think I would have an issue with that. "

So you wouldnt have an issue if he recorded you with beautiful glasses?

Re:Seriously dumb (1)

uglyMood (322284) | more than 2 years ago | (#40475313)

Yeah, I've noticed this ridiculously shallow anti-glasses bias regarding 3D: "I don't want to wear stupid glasses to watch a movie," or "the glasses look dorky." Having worn glasses all my life, I strongly suspect that these are the same sort of troglodytes that used to call people like me "four-eyes" and "Mr. Peabody." What is wrong with glasses other than they apparently offend the delicate sensibilities of closeted bullies?

Re:Seriously dumb (1)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 2 years ago | (#40477601)

Agreed--it's the whole anti-intellectual streak that's run through western culture the last 50 years rearing its head. Disappointed that Sergy went down that route, even if he's just acknowledging reality.

But have these anti-glasses people *seen* some of the glasses women wear now? Some of them are damn sexy and highlight their eyes far better than any shadowing or mascara can. And I'm talking fairly simple styles, not elaborate super-expensive designer pairs. Call it geek chic, sexy librarian fetish or whatever, but glasses are definitely making a comeback where I am.

Re:Seriously dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40475219)

Honestly what sort of person wants to push their whole life into google's data centres in such detail?

The kind of people who read Slashdot mostly.

Tablet still too costly (0)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473005)

Reading this link: http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/googles-nexus-7-aims-to-take-android-edge-from-amazon-kindle-fire/ [slashdot.org]

The Kindle is a nice gadget but I never bought one, because the content is too expensive. I feel no motivation to pay for content that I'm already getting for free (via antennaTV, hulu, utorrent). Same applies for Google's new Edge tablet. "Google has also expanded its Google Play content hub to include magazines, television shows and movie purchases." The purchase part is what I am Not interested in.

Re:Tablet still too costly (0)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473159)

if you get content from your antenna, it's not free ... you are paying through advertising (you'd rather be subjected to 10 mins advertising / 30 min of content? okay then ...). hulu isn't free. you either watch ads or you pay monthly. if you are getting content from torrents that otherwise costs money from other sources, that's called stealing (as far as the law is concerned ... and okay, you'd rather steal things than pay for them).

if you aren't interested in paying for content (in one way or another), then no company gives a $?@! about you anyway. the upsell to itunes content, the upsell to google play content, and the upsell to amazon.com products is what makes a $200 android tablet possible. that's why companies without these upsells (samsung, acer, asus, motorola) are creating tablets that cost $500-$600 that nobody wants.

Re:Tablet still too costly (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473411)

ou're argumen kind of falls apart when applied to Apple.

For the record, I can't wait to buy the Asus Infinity TF700.

Re:Tablet still too costly (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474393)

um, no. apple has content upsell also in the form of the entire itunes / appstore ecosystem. and at every turn you hear people talking that iOS users spend more on content than android. apple get a cut of all that.

it's well known that the kindle fire is the only tablet that's made any sort of dent in the ipad's dominance (it's a pretty small dent). then you have all the other vendors fighting over the remaning few precent of the market that isn't consumed by the ipad and the fire. when you split 5% across five vendors, you don't end up profitable.

considering the kindle's crippled android and lackluster hardware, you'd have to say the reason it's had some success is the price ... as it came in hundreds of dollars less than other android tablets (discounting the chinese knockoffs). it was reported that the kindle actually cost over $200 to build, so amazon's angle on this deal is obvious.

Re:Tablet still too costly (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474425)

oh, and for the record, i own (or i should say, my work owns) an asus TF-201 transformer. it performs pretty poorly overall, and if anything, it's slower than my galaxy tab 10.1 from last year. there's also a lot of animosity right now because asus released a shoddy product in the TF-201 then very shortly abandoned it and announced the TF-700. the TF-201 owners feel cheated.

but better luck to you gambling your $600 on the infinity.

Re:Tablet still too costly (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40476575)

I've the original Transformer, and I'm very happy with it. Performs decently, good battery life, reliable. My one complaint is that it installed some unwanted bundled crapware with a firmware update, and made it impossible to remove. I had to root the tablet to get rid of it.

Re:Tablet still too costly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40477403)

If I buy a record, lose it, and then download it, is that stealing too? It'd be pretty interesting if someone stole my car and I still had one the next day. I think we need to re-assess some of the vocabulary that's used for this kind of thing. "stealing" is emotionally evocative but inaccurate.

Re:Tablet still too costly (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40479341)

If I buy a record, lose it, and then download it, is that stealing too?

if you buy a shirt, lose it, then take another from the store without paying, is that stealing?

same thing, when you bought the shirt, and when you bought the record, there was no expectation or right granted that allowed you free copies of the product if the original was lost. i'm pretty sure you knew that when you bought the record.

and please, don't push the tired "i'm making a backup copy" argument. no one is going after you legally for making a backup copy of the music you purchased. it doesn't happen.

Re:Tablet still too costly (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473397)

There are other legit source of content for the kindle besides amazon.

I really like my kindle.

Re:Tablet still too costly (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40476567)

Not to mention other sources of less-than-legit content.

Re:Tablet still too costly (2)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474937)

My library lets me digitally check out books to read on my kindle. Yours probably does too. Free books + e-reader = ultimate geek win.

Glasses are hip again! (4, Insightful)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473109)

He went on to speak about the design of the glasses. There were two paths they had to choose from. Their initial instinct was to make these as much like glasses as possible; essentially a device disguised as glasses. Sergey said, "When we went through design options, decided, lets be bold .. a lot of people go through a fair amount of effort not to wear glasses; they wear contacts and things like that." So, they discarded glasses and made it an asymmetrical thing, very non-glasses like.

Yet, many trendy people willing to spend $$$-$$$$ on functionally useless accessories wear frames with non-prescription clear lenses. But I guess such a person is probably not the target market for a pricey, vanity-centric device like Google Glass. . .

Then there is the fact that eyeglasses are the culmination of generations of research on how to mount something over the human eye in a way that is comfortable during everyday activity. But hey, why not reinvent that wheel?

Re:Glasses are hip again! (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473591)

I would imagine it something like a Looxcie with an added boom that extends forward and over an eye. So these devices can be minimalistic and stylish too.

Re:Glasses are hip again! (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 2 years ago | (#40473811)

vanity-centric device like Google Glass

Let me guess, you also think it's lame because there's no wireless and less space than a Nomad.

Re:Glasses are hip again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40473965)

I'm imagining it's going to look like the asymmetric visors in Mass Effect or in Deep Space 9 or in so many other Science Fictions, but more stylish.

Vanity Google Glasslikes (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474445)

Someone will come out non functioning look a like. Cheap hipster will wear them.

Re:Glasses are hip again! (1)

jheath314 (916607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40478747)

The decision to go with the asymmetric design is quite unfortunate... it calls to mind "Locutus of Borg" more than it does "acceptable eye-wear".

My first in-person experience with this kind of technology was about ten years ago. One of the professors at my University was a pioneer in the field of wearable computers (http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/), so out of curiosity I sat in on one of his lectures. He was wearing a set of glasses (one of his earlier prototypes) that had some display mechanisms mounted right over the middle of the lens. It was incredibly distracting... I had a hard time focusing on anything he said. (After the lecture I had a short chat with him... he's a really nice guy.)

Afterwards, I tried to figure out what it was about those glasses that made them so unnerving, and I suspect it has to do with the importance of eye-contact. As humans, we possess an uncanny ability to calculate the position of another person's eyes with incredible position... you can instantly tell if the person you're talking to is paying attention, or if their mind is focused on other things, even if the difference between the two eye positions is less than a millimeter. Putting something right in the path between your eyes and theirs obstructs this ability, and gives the constant impression that the person wearing the obstruction is not really giving you their attention.

Re:Glasses are hip again! (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40479303)

You got that wrong. You should associate Seven of Nine, not Locutus.
This tech is clearly in its infancy. What I want to see is something that looks and works like regular glasses (because I wear them anyway) and projects the image like a HUD. Couple that with an eye tracking camera and you can control a cursor and "click" by winking.

Re:Glasses are hip again! (1)

jheath314 (916607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40484769)

That would be cool, at least until the computer misinterprets a standard blink as a click and I screw the system up in the blink of an eye, as it were.

Or I suppose you could only count single-eye winks, which runs the risk some humorous misunderstandings / beatings, depending on who is in the vicinity.

You could use motion sensitive rings on your fingers to sense input, but then you run the risk of looking like a moron playing with imaginary sock puppets: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-10-12/ [dilbert.com]

Re:Glasses are hip again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40479231)

I can see someone is trying to reinvent how to be a snarky douche!

ST:TNG Episode: 'The Game' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40473345)

n/t

What will these glass disrupt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40473739)

If the tie in to Google Plus is successful, the glases will be a major challenger to photo and video sharing traffic on Facebook.

Google Glass... (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474103)

... Philip Glass' [wikipedia.org] less musically-talented younger brother.

black mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40474503)

Has anyone mentioned Black Mirror episode 3? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_(TV_series)

The future described there is still far from what we are currently getting at with Google Glass or any other wearable gadgets, but it is worth thinking about the implication of having an "external storage" for your mind.

King Timothy (1)

csumpi (2258986) | more than 2 years ago | (#40474965)

"Posted by timothy ..."

"... and Timothy was there to cover it."

Why Glass ? (1)

krouic (460022) | more than 2 years ago | (#40476129)

Shouldn't these be called Google Googles ?

Re:Why Glass ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40478745)

While Microsoft may repurpose product names (ref: Surface), to my knowledge Google does not, and there is already a Google Goggles project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Goggles). I'm sure there will be some crossover in the backing technology though, and Goggles was probably a form of data mining for Glass, akin to how Google's 411 service was used as a testbed for their Android voice search technology.

google paratroopers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40476247)

wow, after seeing the google glass demo, I see that google are so big they've started training their own futuristic paratroopers... they will take over the world eventually!

sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40478753)

just what I needed to finish my iron man suit!

Reality Check? (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#40478771)

Do we really see a future where people are going to walk around with some kind of headset and HUD?

I think this is a cool concept, but with a very limited appeal and market. I think society will quickly lash out against all the techno-yuppies donning their Bluetooth and HUD glasses trying to seem more important then they are and believing they need ubiquitous connectivity.

I just don't see a need for constant visual feedback of the world I am looking at, I think I will continue to use my brain for that reason.

I would imagine that the pending class action lawsuit of people injuring themselves while using these devices will render them as a quick footnote in the history of technology fads. You just know that when someone's visual attention is momentarily distracted by some Google Ad because the device detected you are near a McDonalds will cause people to walk into oncoming traffic or drive off the road (either to escape from or be drawn in to the Big-M).

Google is forgetting the fact that people are fundamentally stupid. Rich hipsters even more so. A device to replace thought and rationality is not a good idea, period.

Neat Device (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40478923)

Google Glass is a nice concept but it will never take off--in its current form. For starters, most don't want to wear glasses unless they are sunglasses, they realize this. Second, at least with a mobile you somewhat know when someone is recording or taking pics. The public pressure will be against these for general use, just as they would be if many started wearing GoPro cams everywhere they went, which is what these currently are since they have not shown any HUD functionality as of yet.

They should have waited till further along in development before showcasing it anyway. Developers wont get one until next year and then it will be much more time before the general public can. Without that functionality and some type of smartphone interface to make it more useful, the (non-geek) public has already passed judgement. Sure they might have a place, but it's likely right alongside BT earpieces.

Cognitive dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40479153)

Something weird going on here. On the one hand Google, Fbook, etc. are busily, blithely creating an movie set for the entire population, for whom and for what nobler purpose than, leaving aside shadowy TLA agendae, lining Wall St pockets, and on the other, while it's not in the DSM, yet, psychiatrists, or worse, populizers who tend to lose sight of reality among the delusions when seeking state mental health contracts, are already talking up "Truman Show" effects as a disorder, when anyone with an IQ above a peanut can see what's happening.

I don't really see a happy outcome here. How is the "Hive Mind" going to deal with this, too? Historically, the result of the kind of denial necessary to reconcile the irreconcilable is cultural psychosis. Think slavery days level. That we're still not completely out of.

Can somebody explain to me exactly what the net positive effect is supposed to be here? Not saying there isn't one; just that I don't see it.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>