×

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 Glass: Future of Movies Or Monkey Cam 2.0?

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the had-no-idea-monkeys-could-rollerskate dept.

Input Devices 77

theodp writes "When it comes to Google's futuristic Glass goggles, people seem to fall into two camps. On the one hand, you have people like NY Times Arts critic Mike Hale, who goes gaga over how fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg put Google glasses on models who walked in her recent Fashion Week show, enabling them to capture video from their point of view as they walked the runway. 'For a preview of how we all may be making movies in a few years,' Hale breathlessly writes, 'take a look at DVF Through Glass .' On the other hand, you have folks like NY Times commenter JokerDanny, who says he's seen this Google Glass movie before. 'David Letterman used to call this Monkey-Cam,' quips JD, referring to the mid-1980's Late Night bits in which Letterman mounted a camera on Zippy the Chimp, enabling the monkey to capture video from his point of view as he roamed the studio. Thanks to the magic of YouTube Doubler, here's a head-to-head comparison of POV video shot by Zippy in 1986 — the year Larry Page and Sergey Brin celebrated their 13th birthdays — to that taken by a DVF model in 2012."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

77 comments

Neither (5, Interesting)

Andrio (2580551) | about a year and a half ago | (#41342961)

It's not either, but it is going to be one of those things from sci-fi that'll end up everywhere in our lives (like cellphones).

In a decade or two, they'll cell them in drugstores like prepaid phones.

Re:Neither (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343015)

In a decade or two you'll have to go through an antiterror-screening, take a brainscan, leave fingerprints, give a pint of blood and hit into a bucket to get a prepaid phone...

Re:Neither (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344193)

A decade or two? I bet it's more closer to 5 years. This tech will be cheaper to manufacture than smartphones, expect sub $500 prices in 2-3 years, most of the processing will be from the linked smartphone and in about 5 more years or less, the vast majority of 1st world people will have these without a smart phone.

The article is missing the entire point of this new tech, it's like showing home videos shot from a smart phone and saying how smart phones suck.

Re:Neither (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345181)

Does anyone remember vrml? There are technologies that appear that seem like there going be ubiquitous only to simply vanish. Now if only cosmoworld didn't die.

Re:Neither (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346555)

Loved VRML. I used to like designing environments in it using Calagari Truesapce (iirc). In context, I was sure that it was going to go the Snow Crash direction one day. Oh silly youth.

It will be used for a particular type of movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345493)

The POV genre of adult entertainment is pretty much made for it. Beyond that, though, it's a novelty.

Jackass cam 1.0 (4, Interesting)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#41342975)

It's like cheap video cams brought filmmaking to the masses Google Glasses will mean anyone can act like an idiot and provide a first person view of the disaster. There's already been some intensely cool helmet cam videos but that's because it's mostly pros or semi pros using them. Like with cheap video cameras we didn't see a rash of Citizen Kanes we saw mostly films that shouldn't have been made. We're likely to see something closer to Strange Days. It'll be guys getting laid and failed attempts to jump between buildings where you'll watch the POV all the way to the ground. I'd like to think people would sick of it after the first hundred bicycle riders face planting into walls but morbid curiosity never seems to die.

Re:Jackass cam 1.0 (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343065)

Still, it makes it easier to keep an eye on the cops.

Re:Jackass cam 1.0 (2)

dumcob (2595259) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343785)

Well...Eric Schmidt has already said if a cop is interested in you, must be doing something you shouldn't be doing. So I can't see why that would be required.

Re:Jackass cam 1.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345115)

Yeah I'm pretty sure Schmidt never actually said those words. Enjoy telling lies on the man though.

Re:Jackass cam 1.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345549)

During an interview which aired on December 3, 2009, on the CNBC documentary "Inside the Mind of Google", Schmidt was asked, "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" His reply was: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that, that information could be made available to the authorities." [41][42] At the Techonomy conference on August 4, 2010, Schmidt expressed that technology is good, but he said that the only way to manage the challenges is "much greater transparency and no anonymity." Schmidt also stated that in an era of asymmetric threats, "true anonymity is too dangerous." [43]

The man is a fucktard.

Re:Jackass cam 1.0 (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345325)

Okay, but for how long?

Apple is already working on technology that would turn off [zdnet.com] all civilian cameras in an area. Governments everywhere are going to implement this as soon as they see a chance to do it without pissing off the majority of the population. It looks like a relatively trivial change if you legislate that manufacturers have to ship the feature inside everything they make that has a camera. Of course you and I may be able to disable it by googling how to, but what are the odds that you or I or another geek is there to film the next police meltdown?

Re:Police control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41351341)

Yet another rational excuse not to carry a tracking device on my person. I use a camera for photographs- kinda old-fashioned, I prefer simplicity.

Re:Jackass cam 1.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343463)

I like the Strange Days idea and given how much American culture prefers that type of entertainment we might actually see a pay model develop around it. Pay 5.99/min to watch some guy do a car chase through a major city in real time and the riskier the caper the more you'd pay. POV everything basically. It'll certainly be an interesting future.

Re:Jackass cam 1.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343621)

Just the other day I was thinking it would be really ironic if I did a GoPro video of myself doing basic household chores like dusting and washing the dishes. Throw in some "extreme" music, etc.; you get the idea.

That's as far as I'll ever take it. The wonder of the Internet is that if it's such an obvious concept to me, it's probably an obvious concept to somebody with time on their hands and enough of Daddy's cash to buy all the kit to do that. Also, you have to be the type of guy who likes to post videos.

Now we'll have millions of these videos. Sadly, most of the people won't be doing as irony.

Pogue: Potential no other machine has ever had (4, Interesting)

theodp (442580) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343009)

Re:Pogue: Potential no other machine has ever had (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343415)

I agree lots of potential but I worry that it is just too far ahead of it's time right now. Still with luck they can find niche markets and industries to work out the kinks in these glasses with while further pushing the hardware and getting people to see just what they are all about.

WSJ: The glasses were ultimately disappointing (3, Interesting)

theodp (442580) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343021)

Re:WSJ: The glasses were ultimately disappointing (3, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343089)

WSJ and Forbes both seem to have a bit of a hate on for Google these days though, so I'd take their comments with a grain of salt. I think they're right in the 'they need the killer app' comment though ... something to make them something that everyone wants.

Re:WSJ: The glasses were ultimately disappointing (1)

jo42 (227475) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343505)

'they need the killer app' comment though ... something to make them something that everyone wants.

Duh, Porn. Killer app for VHS. Killer app for The Internet. Killer app for The Googles.

Is that creepy Gnerd at the coffee show browsing the Internet or is he watching a porn star get her bunghole stretched out? Or is a virtual porn app stripping the clothes off of the teenage barista he's staring at?

BTW, I've already patented, copyrighted and trademarked all these ideas and their implementations, so bugger off trying to copy my innovations!

Re:WSJ: The glasses were ultimately disappointing (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343485)

They are also really, really, really new technology. I'd be incredibly shocked if they weren't disappointing to someone who isn't looking at them for their potential, but rather for what they can do now. What they can do now is little more than gimmicks. What they could do, and what this kind of technology (not necessarily Google's, but someone's) almost certainly will do in a few years. Hopefully at the very least Google's efforts will help shut down the patents that trolls will inevitably try to use to stifle innovation (assuming Google themselves don't, which I quite hope they don't).

Re:WSJ: The glasses were ultimately disappointing (1)

Haxagon (2454432) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343527)

They're not new tech, no more than Apple's "retina" brand is. It's new that they're becoming mainstream. Mann has had similar (and better) tech for the better part of the last thirty years.

Re:WSJ: The glasses were ultimately disappointing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344239)

Killer feature? The tech is already here to make that happen so I think it'll be the first release that hits it big, especially for business!

Scenario: An old client can walk up and says hello, they have a multi-million dollar deal pending so either make sure your memory is up to scratch or the glasses use facial recognition and bring up their profile.
"Oh hey Dave, you're new kitchen remodelling looks fabulous, how's the wife Jean? Now lets get down to signing that new deal since we're such good friends"

I'm in the happy camp! (4, Interesting)

kiriath (2670145) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343039)

In my opinion, Google Glass is one of the absolute most awesome new pieces of tech to come about in years. I look forward to this technology with great anticipation.

I find myself not getting too excited about tech recently, this is the only thing that has even remotely piqued my curiosity and I'm hooked.

I think it is something to get excited about.

Re:I'm in the happy camp! (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344739)

Slightly confused. Large amounts of optimism on slashdot is suspicious of sarcasm but no snarky comments present. Writer could be serious. Warrants further investigation.

Both were boring (3, Insightful)

honestmonkey (819408) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343081)

I didn't make it through the doubled-up video, but both were kind of boring. I guess I was wondering how they felt, being trained to show off for an audience like that, but then you can't feel too sorry for models. The chimp looked like it was having fun, though.

Re:Both were boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343157)

Watching the fashion cam made me wonder how the hell people walk like that and not get seasick.

Re:Both were boring (4, Funny)

drkim (1559875) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343359)

Watching the fashion cam made me wonder how the hell people walk like that and not get seasick.

Oh, the runway models get seasick.

There's just nothing left to throw up.

Ask yourself (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343855)

If you strap a camera to your head that's what you would see walking as well.

The brain is an amazing thing because it sure does NOT look like that to us as we are walking...

Re:Ask yourself (1)

eharvill (991859) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345283)

If you strap a camera to your head that's what you would see walking as well.

The brain is an amazing thing because it sure does NOT look like that to us as we are walking...

Yup. This is like The Blair Witch Project, but 100x worse. No thanks...

Not just a camera. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343095)

It would be one thing if the Glasses were simply a camera, but it's more than that. It will be the first mass market wearable computer. Overlays will provide notifications in the form of navigation prompts, restuarant reviews, contact information, descriptions of art, and much more.

In other words... (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343407)

Overlays will provide notifications in the form of navigation prompts, restuarant reviews, contact information, descriptions of art, and much more.

In other words, things you could have done with your smartphone instead of wearing annoying glasses all the time.

Re:In other words... (2)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343501)

How many times have you bothered to scan a QR code?

Now imagine it happening with a double blink.

Those cool magazine covers with augmented reality codes... Also double blink.

Want to take a photo. Just look at the scene and blink one eye.

Just a few examples.

Re:In other words... (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343711)

How many times have you bothered to scan a QR code?

Several. When I am interested. I do not need nor want to see the contents of EVERY QR code in my field of view.

Now imagine it happening with a double blink.

Not impressed. In fact rather annoying.

Those cool magazine covers with augmented reality codes... Also double blink.

Again, it doesn't happen enough that I want to double blink to do so and CERTAINLY not worth the bother of wearing any kind of headgear all the time.

Want to take a photo. Just look at the scene and blink one eye.

You understate how difficult that task is. Really. That takes some concentration for me to be able to do. Also cannot do vulcan fingers, perhaps related.

I agree that case seems somewhat more useful, but if your camera is fast enough on launch from a smartphone I don't see there being a vast difference in use - and again the few times per week I really have an image I must capture that nanosecond it's not worth wearing anything 24x7.

Re:In other words... (1)

Kenshin (43036) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345945)

"Want to take a photo. Just look at the scene and blink one eye."

In normal human world that is called "winking". It can be taken several different ways. Use extreme caution around human subjects.

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343653)

And how exactly would your smartphone go about providing similar types of overlays? Would you hold it up in front of your face 24/7?

Do not want overlays 24x7 (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343879)

And how exactly would your smartphone go about providing similar types of overlays?

By holding it up, see any augmented reality app ever.

Would you hold it up in front of your face 24/7?

Hell no, because I do not WANT overlays 24x7. That's the thing; the amount of time I care about seeing data in front of me is significantly lower than 24x7. The benefit then for me to wear even the lightest of glasses is far outweighed by the annoyance of wearing said glasses, when I can easily get all of the same data from something like a smartphone, or looking down at the sleeve of my SmartShirt (tm) for example.

And that's another thing to consider. Why glasses? There are lots of other surfaces on your person 24x7 too, why not them? Why not the evolution of the smartphone into clothes, or into a wrist strap or even wrist implant? Glasses will be an anachronism soon anyway when we can really repair all ocular degeneration; I just do not see them being the true vehicle for data in the future.

Re:Do not want overlays 24x7 (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345147)

Smartphone AR apps are inferior to Google Glass for one simple and glaring reason. With the phone, you have to look at the whole scene through the smartphone camera and screen. Glass on the other hand overlays the 'augmented' part over the real world. The former is annoying and fatigues the eye while the latter is much more natural.

Re:Not just a camera. (2)

citizenr (871508) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343775)

It would be one thing if the Glasses were simply a camera, but it's more than that. It will be the first mass market wearable computer. Overlays will provide notifications in the form of navigation prompts, restuarant reviews, contact information, descriptions of art, and much more.

There is no overlay - there is only small rectangular display inside. No head tracking, no eye tracking, no augmented reality.

Re:Not just a camera. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343807)

Simply not true. Read the NYT write up.

I disagree it is the first (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343893)

It will be the first mass market wearable computer.

Totally disagree. The iPod Touch /iPhone is already that. You can easily have it on you all the time you would glasses, including jogging. I don't see why it doesn't count in the same way or have the same level of importance, just because it's not on your head.

Re:I disagree it is the first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344361)

So you cant see the difference between data in an overlay and something you have to carry and look at?

No, and you can't either (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346779)

So you cant see the difference between data in an overlay and something you have to carry and look at?

There is very little difference. I can call up my "overlay" any time in an instant, the same as any mounted screen. The headgear simply makes it slightly easier to remain active in front of you.

It's only a difference of convenience, and that is slight. It's not a difference of functionality. There is nothing you can do with the head mounted display I cannot also do with my iPhone (or Android, or WP7) device in nearly the same period of time.

Re:I disagree it is the first (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345157)

Do you 'wear' your car keys too?

Not on me all the time (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346765)

Do you 'wear' your car keys too?

I would say yes, if I had them ALL the time. I hang them up when I get home.

The cell phone I have with me ALL the time. Even at home.

Re:I disagree it is the first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41346073)

If you think the iPod/iPhone count as wearable computer then you are just being a total Apple Zealot as there were plenty of smart phones before that that should "get credit".

Heck, I still have my HTC 8525 (released 2006) that still gets used over Wi-Fi, including streaming live video. One of the greatest smartphones. Oh, and it as a SD card, much more computer like.

Of course not just iOS (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346807)

there were plenty of smart phones before that that should "get credit".

I agree, that's just what I had. Any phone with a continuous data connection and the ability to run arbitrary applications should "get credit" as well, as long as it was something people could and did have with them all the time they way we do modern cell phones.

Re:Not just a camera. (2)

ByteSlicer (735276) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345323)

navigation prompts, restuarant reviews, contact information, descriptions of art, and much more

While it has the potential to do all this, its primary function will be to research what we look at, and serve ads to match.
If you think the billboards and neons are bad already, just wait until you put on one of these...

Chicken cam FTW (1)

BetterSense (1398915) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343171)

Not as interesting as chicken cam. Apes have poor image stabilization properties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UytSNlHw8J8

The future (4, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343489)

I think Google Glasses are more of a short-term gimmick and proof-of-concept than anything else. But one of the guys Google just hired (away from our university, as a matter of fact) is Babak Parviz - who's been working towards what could probably be called "Google Contacts".

The tech's nowhere near ready; but I think the idea of an unobtrusive HUD on a contact lens would be far more likely to garner widespread adoption than Glasses ever will.

On a side note - all this focus on the "camera" functionality is mostly missing the point. What's cool about the concept isn't the ability to take portable movies - we can already do that. It's the information right in front of your eyeballs that's the future.

Re:The future (1)

jo42 (227475) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343545)

It's the information right in front of your eyeballs that's the future.

No, the Real Future (c)(tm) is having the hardware jacked right into your brain. No need for dorky eyewear or sticking things in your eyes. The hardware would see what you see by tapping your optic nerve. Your brain would interface directly with the hardware, augmenting your intelligence. That is the future that I want. Not this horse and carriage, post dark ages, middle of the industrial age, steam powered nonsense you call The Googles.

Re:The future (2, Interesting)

wurp (51446) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343811)

By the time we're doing that, we'll be stimulating memories directly and expanding your imagination with DirectX48 at 120fps, while giving the answer to any question you briefly consider instantly in full multimedia a la Google+Wolfram Alpha+Wikipedia+Mathematica.

And the future *I* want involves my enhanced, uploaded mind occupying a few metric tons of atomically precise computronium distributed across the solar system, with continuous incremental backup a few light years away.

(Of course, from my point of view that computronium is an utterly immersive universe in which I am the dashing hero.)

Re:The future (2)

Daetrin (576516) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343791)

Presumably this is like the contacts in Vernor Vinge's "Rainbows End". My thought on the matter is that i'd much rather have the glasses. Glasses that beam the image into my eye rather than displaying it on something in front of me would be fine, but i don't want contacts.

Because i can just image the first time they get hacked and they load up, say for example, goatsecx, and refuse to turn off. And you probably can't even close your eyes to shut it out because they're under your eyelids. (I presume the contacts will be designed to stop displaying when your eyes are closed, but that of course will be overridden by the hack.) So such technology will inevitable result in people trying to claw their eyes/and or contacts out of their heads.

Re:The future (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346665)

VR headbands have been there for quite a while, the thing that prevented them from taking off was their prohibitive cost, which Google Glass didn't manage to fix.

Should enable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343509)

Some True POV pr0n, instead of the came mounted of foreheads or someone else filming from over/side.

This Guy is a Fucktard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343559)

They're have been a ton of movies shot in the first person, and they are horrible. You have to be a fucking retard to spout te gibberish coming from this fuck head's mouth. Actually I take that back, retarded people are far more productive in society than this fucktard.

Hey Google, how about a sports demo next? (1)

dumcob (2595259) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343709)

This is going to be amazing in sports. Not just to the viewer at home (which itself will be fascinating), but also all the real time in game possibilities that might open up.

Video??? (1)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344017)

Who cares about video. I mean, yeah fine, it can record video, great, great great.

But if the Project Glass video [youtube.com] is any indication of what we're going to be seeing out of these, video is about on par with the colours it comes in, in terms of importance of features.

my preference (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344089)

I'd rather see a monkey with a VHC cam than anything any of my friends do ever, lol. They're just not as interesting as a roller skating monkey. Not even close actually.

Dorks. Unless you're a hottie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344515)

How will most of the world see you when you wear a visible, wearable computer? Like wearing an over-size watch or a gender-bending shirt. If you're a hottie it'll look quirky. If you're not, you'll just look like a dork.

Even when the question in the topic offers choices (1)

Grismar (840501) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344693)

.. the answer is still "No", apparently.

No, Google Glass is neither the Future of Movies nor Monkey Cam 2.0? This is just an example of uncreative minds failing to see the potential that's apparent to engineers and other creative minds at Google. Of course, that's no guarantee they will succeed with this product, but I think we'll see a couple of big things within the next couple of years where people will say that "it started with Google Glass".

And addressing the specific question: the camera mounted on Zippy was not bad technology; the problem was that it was mounted on a chimp. If you give Google Glass to an able cinematographer, I'm sure you'll be able to get something worthwhile. Runway models and fashion designers don't count as able cinematographers, just like the pictures you shoot with that SLR don't even get close to a Capra.

POV is very interesting, still a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41345113)

While the videos were intersting (POV of other people helps being empathetic) I suddenly realized what an utter waste of time that so-called "fashion week" is. Als what gets pushed as fashion is just so utterly ugly.

I wonder when this kind of stuff gets forbidden due to global warming and energy saving (seriously!).

or the future of asymmetric social conflict? (1)

m0llusk (789903) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345759)

With ubiquitous cameras it may be possible for victims of group stalking or webcam spying to capture their tormentors behaving badly. This is a bigger problem than currently acknowledged. It is easy to spy on people nowadays, but much harder to capture the experience of being laughed at by strangers after having private moments published on the net.

Americas Funniest Home Videos (1)

grumbel (592662) | about a year and a half ago | (#41345833)

This won't be the future of movies (unless you count movies about this tech like Strange Days), but the future of Americas Funniest Home Videos. We are already see this trend with cars, some countries require dash cams for insurance purpose and thus we have a rise of all kinds of car videos on the net. Head mountable cameras like the GoPro also already do the same thing for sports and recreational activities.

But anyway, I consider all those to be side effects, that will not be why people are wearing those cameras, it's just stuff that will happen when people wear those cameras. Real reason to wear those will probably be as memory enhancers and just like for cars as insurance, a theft might have a much harder time getting away when he is filmed by dozens of glasses on the street and the eye whiteness of the future might also be one with glasses on his head. With glasses you can start recording your life 24/7 non-stop, it will no longer be about making a picture, but simply about tagging a moment in the recording of your life. 99.99% of that footage will of course always useless and never be watched again (who has the time to rewatch their life after all?), but the remaining 0.01% could turn out quite useful if the right software to search it is provided.

Another interesting application for those glasses could be Telepresence, if you have multiple people wearing those glasses, it could be possible to link them up and then you see a life video feed of what is happening somewhere else. Could be quite useful in some situations to jump into somebodies head that way and guide them through some problem.

ADT Security Glasses [TM] (1)

theodp (442580) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346423)

Yep, the product managers at ADT Security are probably brainstorming on ways to squeeze $30 a month out of people wearing ADT Security Glasses [TM]. Can't wait for the commercials [youtube.com] !

*shakes head* (1)

clevershark (130296) | about a year and a half ago | (#41346685)

I don't think any Glass demo could have been more utterly pointless than this.

Literally if you gave a hobo on the street a pair of those glasses it would be more compelling than this demo. Yay, congrats, you know how to walk up and down on a piece of level floor while wearing something unwearable. I can't help but think that this is the point where Google gets *completely* lost in their own hype.

Check for New 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...