Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

How Google Glass Is Evolving As It Heads For Release To Developers

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the answer-the-question-you-wish-you'd-heard dept.

Google 140

hypnosec writes "Babak Parviz, the founder and head of Project Glass at Google, has revealed that the feature set of Google Glass and state of apps is still in flux and that there is a lot of testing going on at the moment. In an interview with IEEE Spectrum, Parviz provided insights into Project Glass, the reasons behind having such a gadget and what's there for the project in near future. Parviz said that they are trying out new ideas and ways in which the platform can be used while also trying to make the platform more robust. There is no specific feature set that Google has been talking about and 'It is still in flux.'" My favorite question / answer pair: "IEEE Spectrum: What kind of business model is associated with Google Glass? Babak Parviz: This is still being worked on, but we are quite interested in providing the hardware."

cancel ×

140 comments

Borg Glass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42441667)

You will be assimilated.

If you hated the idea of cameras everywhere, you won't be able to hide at all in a few years except if you are lost in the woods far away from civilization.

Re:Borg Glass (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441699)

I hate to break this to you but everyone's phone these days... IS A CAMERA!

Re:Borg Glass (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443565)

I hate to break this to you but everyone's phone these days... IS A CAMERA!

Which can be easily covered over with a strip of tape, it also keeps the lens from being scratched up. Taping over the microphone hole may cause difficulty in other's hearing you during calls. This LG OptimusV of mine contains a second, internal microphone. Now I wonder why it 'needs' that...

Re:Borg Glass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42443717)

Ambient noise cancellation? You think a for-profit corporation is going to waste money putting an unnecessary component in to a phone for the sake of service to their Illuminati masters?

Re:Borg Glass (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42444017)

Ambient noise cancellation? You think a for-profit corporation is going to waste money putting an unnecessary component in to a phone for the sake of service to their Illuminati masters?

It's like you read my mind, man!

Thanks, always wondered why an extra mike was there. Makes sense, unless... Are you one of "them"??? :-)

There was a sci fi book ... (3, Interesting)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441921)

I read it as a teenager and can not remember the title or author's name, but there was a book where everyone wore glasses with a camera built in. The result was a society heavy on surveillance. There was no need for the government to setup a lot of cameras. Ordinary citizens were constantly submitting their videos to the police or relevant authorities.

Re:There was a sci fi book ... (5, Insightful)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442001)

The really surreal part is that under the current legal system, transmitting./supplying child porn across the internet is a more serious crime than actually having sex with a child. The point is that seeing something, wearing these, can be more of a crime than doing it and you are going to provide the evidence against yourself...

Re:There was a sci fi book ... (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442215)

I think the (broken) logic is one "causes" many others to commit crime x, while the other is one instance of committing crime x. Like the difference with inciting a riot and being a single rioter.

Re:There was a sci fi book ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442319)

Maybe if you include the post-pubescent sexual acts, where it might be a few years difference in age.

But actual children being sexually abused by adults? Very severe penalties. The only reason transmission/supplying looks worse is because of prosecutors making volumes out of it, not because the law is harsher.

Besides, the law has a concept called mens rea, there is a reason why people don't get arrested for transmitting child porn to authorities.

Re:There was a sci fi book ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442803)

there is a reason why people don't get arrested for transmitting child porn to authorities.

Complete bullshit. People go to jail all the time for exactly this.

Re:There was a sci fi book ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42443867)

Indeed. Possession of child porn is considered a crime of strict liability. No matter you end up with it, you've broken the law. Even if somebody launched it at you with a catapult. Child porn is effectively a weapon that can ruin somebody's life by attacking them with a placement of it.

Re:There was a sci fi book ... (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443061)

Probably not what you meant - but David Brin's "Earth" is describing something like it. Not a completely bad book, but overall a bit whackadoodle, to be honest.

Re:There was a sci fi book ... (1)

gnomff (2740801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443067)

You might be thinking of Earth [wikipedia.org]

Re:There was a sci fi book ... (1)

earls (1367951) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443355)

1984 touched on it as well. Granted, the screen/camera setup was in the wall.

Re:There was a sci fi book ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42444597)

Perhaps something by Robert J. Sawyer. Part of the Neanderthal Parallax. Maybe Hominids (2002)?

"In Hominids, Robert J. Sawyer imagines the citizen of the future sporting a body-implanted "companion" computer that transmits information about his or her location, as well as three-dimensional images of exactly what he or she is doing, to an "alibi archive." The archive protects against false accusations." -- http://sfwriter.com/labels/Hominids.html

" ... The situation is exacerbated by the surveillance functions of the Neanderthal Companion: the Companion creates a video record of everyone’s life, all the time, which is sent to a secure facility and can only be opened by the person in question." -- http://www.challengingdestiny.com/reviews/hominids.htm

what's Project Glass? (5, Informative)

corbettw (214229) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441679)

In case, like me, you had never heard of this project:

Project Glass is a research and development program by Google to develop an augmented reality head-mounted display (HMD).[2] Project Glass products would display information in smartphone-like format[3] hands-free and could interact with the Internet via natural language voice commands.[4] The prototype's functionality and minimalist appearance (aluminium strip with 2 nose pads) has been compared to Steve Mann's EyeTap.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Glass [wikipedia.org]

Re:what's Project Glass? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42441739)

And you've heard of Wikipedia?

Re:what's Project Glass? (1, Troll)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441927)

You're on slashdot on the 1st of January but you don't know what Project Glass is?
Have you been living in a cave?

Re:what's Project Glass? (3, Insightful)

stokessd (89903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442337)

Go easy on the guy. I'm no stranger to slashdot, but I had to run to google to verify that project glass was the VR glasses and not some other google project brewing in the labs. I had read about it at least twice, but find it so unappealing to me that I don't keep it in my mind for long.

This strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.

Re:what's Project Glass? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442875)

Go easy on the guy. I'm no stranger to slashdot, but I had to run to google to verify that project glass was the VR glasses and not some other google project brewing in the labs.

What's google?

Re:what's Project Glass? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42445917)

please mod -1 ass hat

Re:what's Project Glass? (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442439)

I call it, "you think people running into things while paying attention to their phones is bad, wait until they are checking their twitter feeds in the left eye and facebook in the right...."

Go ahead (-1, Troll)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441681)

Help governments everywhere spy on their citizens.

Idiots.

Re:Go ahead (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441789)

say wha?

Where does government spying even come into play at the moment? I'm genuinely confused. Regardless, enabling easier spying goes both ways - it becomes easier to spy on the government too.

Re:Go ahead (1)

darkHanzz (2579493) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441847)

Not really, since the government can (and does) order wiretaps, the google glass now allows the wiretapper to see what the target sees. Wiretapping is strictly for governments (well, and criminals).

Re:Go ahead (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442043)

Not really, since the government can (and does) order wiretaps, the google glass now allows the wiretapper
to see what the target sees.

Wiretapping is strictly for governments (well, and criminals).

I think I'd notice the sudden appearance of a pair of glasses on my face, seeing as how I don't wear them.

More informant reports than gov't spying? (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442015)

say wha?

Where does government spying even come into play at the moment? I'm genuinely confused. Regardless, enabling easier spying goes both ways - it becomes easier to spy on the government too.

Where does government spying even come into play at the moment? I'm genuinely confused.

It may not be gov't spying as much as you are constantly surrounded by "informants". In the sci fi book I mentioned in a different post I recall adults, the older the more likely, constantly recording young people to deter vandalism, robberies, muggings, etc. Things devolved to the point where the smallest infraction of a rule led to a video being submitted to the police.

No more yelling "get off my lawn". Instead a video titled "Johnny trespassing on my property" gets emailed to the police.

Re:More informant reports than gov't spying? (4, Funny)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442103)

In the sci fi book I mentioned in a different post I recall adults, the older the more likely, constantly recording young people to deter vandalism, robberies, muggings, etc. Things devolved to the point where the smallest infraction of a rule led to a video being submitted to the police.

That's not sci fi, that's Japan.

Re:More informant reports than gov't spying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42443105)

It sounds lovely.

Instead of dealing with my asshole neighbors I can just submit videos? That'd be brilliant.

Accountability. (1)

earls (1367951) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443395)

Sucks.

Re:Go ahead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42441791)

Help governments everywhere spy on their citizens.

Idiots.

Yes. Screw progress. Let's get rid of all technology while we're at it -- governments will never be able to get us then.

Re:Go ahead (1)

Meyaht (2729603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442067)

Works for the Amish I suppose.

Re:Go ahead (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442867)

Works for the Amish I suppose.

No it doesn't. The Amish have their own government, The Church. And believe, the same shit goes on in the Amish communities, neighbors running to the church to tell on their neighbors all the time. "I saw old man Joseph playing with his tally-whacker!! Sinner!", and then the church comes and whips his mule or something for punishment.

No technology, but still a "Government" watching you. People are big time afraid of the church officials in the Amish communities.

Re:Go ahead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42444417)

Hey! What'd his mule do?!

Re:Go ahead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42441985)

Go ahead.

Post irrational Google hate and get paid by Microsoft.

Dumbass.

Re:Go ahead (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442305)

Anti-Google comments automatically need to be pro-Microsoft. Only on Slashdot.

one business model: military (3, Insightful)

ofcourseyouare (965770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441697)

About business models: the only set of people I can think of who use something like Google Glass at the moment are military pilots, who have had head-up displays for decades and are getting helmet-mounted displays at the moment. Why do they find it useful? Because they need information instantly, don't have their hands free, have huge budgets available and don't care if they look like a cyborg. So there's a clue for a target market: the military. I imagine a squad on patrol would find it useful to have information on the area they're walking through sent to them in real time without having to take their hands off their weapons or look down; and their commanders would find it useful to be able to see what the troops are seeing in real time. They could afford a far higher budget than most civilians, and looking like a freakish cyborg from Hell could potentially be a bonus. Only issue: surely DARPA's on this already? But maybe Google could do it better...

Re:one business model: military (4, Insightful)

Dr. Zim (21278) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441825)

I'm sure law enforcement would be happy to have the same tech.

Re:one business model: military (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442037)

I am sure advertisers want you to have it as well.

Re:one business model: military (3, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441837)

Landwarrior

The army has been developing it since the mid 1990's

Re:one business model: military (3, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442427)

Until the Army realized that putting a computer on every soldiers back only paints a target on them for any opposing force with even minimal ELINT capabilities with off the shelf gear these days.

Re:one business model: military (1, Offtopic)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445801)

People are still putting soldiers on the ground? That's UAV work right there!

Front lines are so 20th century. The only warriors are going to be those on the airstrip fueling and refurbing UAVs and the pilots controlling them from the airbase near Vegas.

Re:one business model: military (1)

lineman60 (806614) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441875)

Military does have a use for it but so do doctors, Let me look up the patient info/x-ray/CAT Scan info with out moving my hands. Low key what about Drivers. I would love to see a HUD with all the cops/DWI checkpoints pinpointed. Wouldn't you?

Re:one business model: military (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442039)

Please repost this in two parts, so I can mod the first sentence "insightful" (if ungrammatical) and the third "troll".

This will certainly be good news/bad news tech -- good news: it'll let the doctors do a better job trying to patch up the victims of the assholes who think getting shitfaced and going out for a joyride is some kind of fucking video game. Bad news: the doctors will probably try to patch up the assholes, too.

Re:one business model: military (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442147)

Throw in Google driverless vehicles (won't stop all joyrides though).

Re:one business model: military (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42441941)

You forgot Gamers.

And ordinary driver would find it useful ... (4, Interesting)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442049)

A person driving a car would find it useful for the same reason that military pilots find it useful. A heads up display would keep the drivers eyes on the road. No more looking down at instruments, the screen with maps or rear view camera image; or looking at road signs for hazard warnings and other alerts.

And of course since it is google there will probably be ads from the businesses that you are driving past. :-)

Re:And ordinary driver would find it useful ... (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445821)

Self-driving cars don't need drivers.

Re:one business model: military (3, Interesting)

rocket rancher (447670) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442327)

The military aren't the only ones that could really benefit from this technology. I ride motorcycles for fun and profit, and I can assure you having gear, engine, and lap data displayed in my visor is pretty awesome. Adding location/terrain data in real time would be nirvana. If google can do it as well as or better than the existing offerings, and I'm fairly certain they can, then I can look forward to becoming a faster, safer rider with more (read: economically viable) commercial options for my HUD. I'm working with a friend who is passionate about aerial photography to hack together a way to stream video data from a gopro mounted on a quadcopter right to my visor so I can "see" over hills and around blind turns when I'm taking a ride on my favorite winding mountain road. Streaming it to a Nexus 10 bungeed to my tank works pretty good right now, even with the 2 second video lag that plagues the preview mode on the gopro app, but I'd *love* to be able to see the same data without having to take my eye off the road to glance down. As it is, being able to see that sheriff's deputy lurking in hull-defilade beyond the next rise five seconds before his lidar can see me is *priceless.* If google can help make that happen, more power to them. I think every snowmobiler, skier, kayaker, and off-road enthusiast would be a very likely target for this technology.

Re:one business model: military (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443057)

Motorcyclists, civilian pilots, race car drivers, Police, Firefighters, everyday drivers, mechanics, doctors....
Really the list goes on and on. I know that when riding my motorcycle I would like to see my current speed without taking my eyes off the road. Put a computer controlled zoom macro lens on them for doctors or anyone needing to do close up work. IR imaging for Police and Firefighters,

Re:one business model: military (1)

ark1 (873448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443121)

Add also Casino cheats. Won't be long before someone implements ball tracking which will enable you to beat the odds at Roulette.

The real one business model (1)

skandalfo (623756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443669)

Pr0n! Anywhere! Anytime!

Google decides (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42441713)

How many ads per hour will be displayed. You thought there wouldn't be ads? haha

Re:Google decides (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42441899)

You forget that Google owns a hardware manufacturing company now. They could very easily do this as a pure-hardware play and make lots of money.

Re:Google decides (4, Informative)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442257)

Google owns a hardware manufacturing company now. They could very easily do this as a pure-hardware play and make lots of money.

Google owns a hardware company that makes negative lots of money.

Re:Google decides (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445845)

Just because it doesn't directly profit doesn't mean it doesn't provide a strategic advantage.

Not all business is sell X, make Y from that. Delta airlines bought a refinery, not to make money from selling Jet-A, but to hedge against price increases (i.e insurance).

Re:Google decides (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445963)

So manufacturing a new shiny widget that makes money might be a step in the right direction, no?

Re:Google decides (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442531)

Google owns a "stack" of various software, services and soon various hardware too. This particular product is an information goldmine for both Google (and clients using their data), and consumers. If Google does not integrate this into their stack (locking out others) or use it to break into other stacks (Apple), the shareholders will rush in and defenestrate Google's board.

Google Glass DOA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42441785)

Seriously, what dick is going to wear this? Its almost as bad as those twats with the bluetooth headsets. At least the headsets have a practical role in a car.

security (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42441795)

i wonder , when will the first app will show, for the google glass, when you see another user, it will focuse on there eyes , and try to "shoulder surf" there data out.

that would be interesting.

cloudbased it is doomed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42441831)

As pair of glasses who wil be able to be used as a phone with vdo and pictures I can't wait to buy it. But it is doomed to fail with concerns to the cloud based system. It will be hacked in 24 hours and people will not be able to pay all the rights the media wants us to pay with cloudbased servers.
BTW would your girlfriend strip in front of you when you still have your glasses on with a camera conected to the internet? It is not you she should be afraid of but the people with access to it and who could this be?

Does not bode well (3, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441877)

This does not bode well. You cannot just have a new computing form factor and throw stuff at it to see what sticks. I figured this far in development google would have a very clear direction for the platform. I hate to constantly make comparisons to apple, but if you look at their successful products, you'll see they had a clear focus and vision for it from the software standpoint. One of the main reasons the iPhone was a success (besides the capacitive touch breakthrough) was the software. That's how apple beat Microsoft's Windows Mobile, which even after a decade, never managed to provide a proper 100% touch only (aka no stylus) experience.

It looks to me like Google is treating google glass like a hardware web browser, for which they will have a bunch of "beta" projects and see what works and what doesn't. They'd better be careful, or software-wise a competitor will come along with a focused, unified, well rounded software experience and blow them out of the water.

Re:Does not bode well (3, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441913)

I'd rather have a pure hardware platform that can do anything, try it at a series of things and see what it's most useful for. That's how actual creativity and innovation happens. A 'targetted' product is a more limited product. I'd like to see things run as open platforms, not appliances.

Re:Does not bode well (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441965)

You cannot just have a new computing form factor and throw stuff at it to see what sticks.

I don't think there is any other way to do it. Hardware and software advance in lockstep (or maybe a 3 legged race?)

I hate to constantly make comparisons to apple, but if you look at their successful products, you'll see they had a clear focus and vision for it from the software standpoint.

Apple's App Store didn't exist for the first year after the iPhone was released. The iTunes store wasn't opened until a year and a half after the iPod launched.

Re:Does not bode well (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443003)

iTunes was selling apps in the days of the hard drive iPod classics. Simple games

iPhone didn't have a sdk for the first year probably because it wasn't ready

From all the stories I've read it took apple a lot of work just to ship the original product on time and barely stable. There is no way they started on the sdk from scratch and had it ready a year later. It was probably in development but couldn't ship on time and Steve jobs just lied like he always does to throw the competition off

Re:Does not bode well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42443955)

So you think the App Store and iTunes weren't under development years before their release? Citations requested please.

Re:Does not bode well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42445217)

There's the internet. Go look it up yourself.

Re:Does not bode well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442205)

Plus the iPhone began an an iPad until they realized the power usage made it impossible for screen sizes and batteries of the time. It was a major design change halfway through the process.

Re:Does not bode well (1)

thenendo (523849) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442567)

They'd better be careful, or software-wise a competitor will come along with a focused, unified, well rounded software experience and blow them out of the water.

But fortunately all the hardware and software patents involved make this impossible!

Re:Does not bode well (0)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442961)

I still can't figure out which problem it solves

Mobile phones give you computing power on the go
You can do the same on a laptop but sometimes you want a computer there with you when you're out of the house and about

What does google glass do other than bombard me with data when I'm outside taking a walk to relax?

Re:Does not bode well (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443139)

" You cannot just have a new computing form factor and throw stuff at it to see what sticks."
No, you're wrong. That is exactly what happened with PC or as we called them back in the day home computers. The same is true with mobile phones and even tablets. The first iPhone didn't even have an app store while Windows Phone, Nokia, and Palm all offered apps of different kinds. Heck even my Samsung a900 had apps like navigation, the Opera browser, and games.
Your remembrance of the iPhone is way off. The original vision was to provide a really good web browser and for people to write web apps.
Google Glass is a new platform and it may or may not work. For the longest time the tablets were flops except for small PDA like tablets. Even when Apple launched the iPad the tech press panned it. "Why would you want a big iPod Touch". Smart phones where something only business people spent money on. People bought the first home computers to put recipes on, make shopping lists, and and balance their checkbook.... Which we now do with our tablets and phones.
Yep throw it out there and see what sticks. It may "fail" in that it does not sell tens of million devices but it will be interesting to see what people do.

Good one. (2)

AltGrendel (175092) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441975)

My favorite question / answer pair: "IEEE Spectrum: What kind of business model is associated with Google Glass? Babak Parviz: This is still being worked on, but we are quite interested in providing the hardware."

Probably my favorite non-answer answer of 2012.

Re:Good one. (2)

TrekkieGod (627867) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442285)

My favorite question / answer pair: "IEEE Spectrum: What kind of business model is associated with Google Glass? Babak Parviz: This is still being worked on, but we are quite interested in providing the hardware." Probably my favorite non-answer answer of 2012.

I don't get it. It's a perfectly good answer. He's saying they intend to make money on selling the hardware, but that this is also probably not the only way in which they'll monetize glass. Not ambiguous at all, and considering the development stage at the moment, about where I'd expect them to be.

No he is not saying that. (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445357)

He's saying they intend to make money on selling the hardware

He totally did NOT say that. As stated, it was a non-answer. There is no way you can get from "we are quite interested in providing the hardware." to "we intend to make money on the hardware". Totally on the table are still things like advertising, carrier subsidy, branding, etc. Basically anything you could imagine a way to make money on with these glasses is possible with the answer Google gave us, selling the hardware at a profit is only one of them.

Re:Good one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442555)

I have seen that too many time. That's a sign that pet projects get canceled if the guy in charge doesn't like the project personally as on its own it has no profits for the beans counter.

Inputs. (2)

Rational (1990) | about a year and a half ago | (#42441989)

As an output device, a pair of glasses makes a lot of sense â" the problem is inputs. Voice is very suboptimal (if you feel stupid talking to your phone, imagine talking to your glasses). A touch screen on a watch is pretty poor too. The only way I can see this succeeding is as a purely AI-driven, input-less device, which â"based on location and heuristicsâ" would basically know what to do in any given situation. In other wordsâ"this is a much harder problem than simply making a screen wearable enough.

Re:Inputs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442057)

Eye-tracking and blinks, I imagine. There's a lot of work still to be done, but you'd be amazed what the patterns of a person's gaze give away.

This certainly is not lost on an advertising company.

Re:Inputs. (4, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442193)

The Kinect has shown that gestures are a completely useful and acceptable means of input. If they have any technology similar, then we'll be making sign language - esque gestures to interact with the glasses.

Re:Inputs. (1)

Rational (1990) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445047)

Having been involved with some Kinect development, I came to the complete opposite conclusion, but that's neither here nor thereâ"it's possible that more advanced devices like the Leap will show that gesture input doesn't necessarily involve jumping around and windmilling like an imbecile. Still, even if we agreed about Kinect, I think that gesturing in front of your face would make people talking to their glasses seem relatively sane in comparison.

Re:Inputs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42443753)

The only way I can see this succeeding is as a purely AI-driven, input-less device, which based on location and heuristics would basically know what to do in any given situation.

Well that's basically Google Now [google.com] , innit?

You also may or may not find waving your hands around in mid-air [youtube.com] to be less awkward than voice control.

'Last thirty seconds' (4, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442011)

I think for me, the killer application would be having such a device record everything I see into a circular buffer, and then if some cockhead does something obnoxious or criminal in the street, it can be kept to either hand timestamped footage to police, or to shame said people on the Internet.

The doomsayers may call it a totalitarian hell, but I think it could yet be a renaissance for the polite and law-abiding majority.

Re:'Last thirty seconds' (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442111)

I think for me, the killer application would be having such a device record everything I see into a circular buffer, and then if some cockhead does something obnoxious or criminal in the street, it can be kept to either hand timestamped footage to police, or to shame said people on the Internet.

I'm going to go right ahead and call this a totalitarian hell. Millions of Mrs. Grundys with always-on recording. Having to justify after-the-fact every action I took that someone in the area took offense to would be a full time job.

The doomsayers may call it a totalitarian hell, but I think it could yet be a renaissance for the polite and law-abiding majority.

There is no polite and law-abiding majority. There are too many laws and too many rules (many conflicting) associated with "polite".

"There is no polite and law-abiding majority." (2)

earls (1367951) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443575)

There quickly will be. Laws and rules and all the other hypocritical bullshit that plagues our society today will be erased. Justice, finally. Until they make you take the device off to enter a Government building.

Re:"There is no polite and law-abiding majority." (1)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445231)

Hah hah, yes, right, a surveillance society really erases law and rules and hypocritical bullshit. Tell me again how East Germany disposed of all its laws and rules.

The reality is opposite (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445319)

Having to justify after-the-fact every action I took that someone in the area took offense to would be a full time job.

If there's video then you shouldn't have to justify anything, right? Because it records the whole interaction.

The whole people who sweat bullets about recordings everywhere are people who cannot control being an asshole in public.

Re:The reality is opposite (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445493)

Having to justify after-the-fact every action I took that someone in the area took offense to would be a full time job.

If there's video then you shouldn't have to justify anything, right? Because it records the whole interaction.

The whole people who sweat bullets about recordings everywhere are people who cannot control being an asshole in public.

Raeally? You , sir, have clearly never heard of "video editing". (nor have you ever watched the movie "Sneakers").

Security! Come here and immediately revoke (with extreme prejudice) his Slashdot login.

Re:The reality is opposite (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445865)

Raeally? You , sir, have clearly never heard of "video editing".

And you would edit your OWN video to make yourself look bad? Because obviously in such a world we are ALL recording video.

Read EARTH and do not return until having done so.

Amen. (1)

earls (1367951) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443613)

If Google doesn't deliver it, someone will. Maybe it's better that Google doesn't - you know they'll be targeted directly for "invading privacy!"

Re:'Last thirty seconds' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42445999)

Did you ever watch Charlie Brooker's 'Dark Mirror' series? The third episode is exactly what you're talking about and its great TV, has a guy go to a job interview and end up playing it back to himself repeatedly to see if he said something wrong. And they hint at a black market in rich Japanese guys buying stolen recordings of young women's lives.

One-Eyed folks? (1)

ricosalomar (630386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442181)

I've never tried Google Glass, but I peeked through a few early AR headsets at the VR lab in school. I wonder if anyone's working on a solution for those of us with monocular vision? It would suck to be cheated out of 3d movies AND "The Next Big Thing"

Re:One-Eyed folks? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442227)

Today officially marks the future! Grab your robot eyes today!

Re:One-Eyed folks? (1)

stokessd (89903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42442387)

It would suck to be cheated out of 3d movies...

As someone with binocular vision, I would also like to be cheated out of 3D movies. Please please never let me see that gimmicky crap ever again.

And the glasses can go suck it too...

Sheldon

7ep!. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42442377)

Satan's Dick And you all is To let

Still Waiting For Some Skydiving Goggles (4, Interesting)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42443361)

I'm still waiting for some skydiving goggles with a heads up display. Looking at my altimeter fucks up my airflow while I'm tracking. It'd also be really helpful to know my fall speed as I'm falling, so I can work on falling more slowly. I fall like a bat out of hell -- normal human terminal velocity is around 120 mph, but this is largely weight dependent. I know Galileo fans just had an aneurysm but you know what, fuck that guy! If you want to fall faster in skydiving, you add weight! Look it up! Anyway, I fall around 140 mph. Body position can also affect this, and I can fall much more slowly, but not consistently. Having some way to practice this other than exiting linked with someone and trying to maintain my speed relative to them would be really nice.

Recon instruments has some heads up display ski googles and are releasing a modified set for skydiving, I'll give these a try, but it'd be neat if there were more options.

Still stupid (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42444393)

I'm not sure why someone would want to buy a product that will allow google to track your every move (and therefore the government) and you look like a complete penis.

It is called Android OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42444493)

No need to wait. Android already has the all the spyware built in.

You mean like a phone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42446373)

Did you take the battery out?

The million dollar question (1)

Insipid Trunculance (526362) | about a year and a half ago | (#42445405)

When will it come to the market ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...