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!

ChipSiP Smart Glass Specs Better Than Google Glass?

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the wait-for-a-flood-of-do-alikes dept.

Displays 129

First time accepted submitter SugarManner writes "Google Glass is in for a fight even before they hit the market. The Taiwanese company Chipsip has just released plans for a competing product that beats Google Glass on all specifications. (Seen on the Swedish Elektronik Tidningen — warning: written in Swedish) Nine sensors on the Taiwanese product 'Smart Glass' can detect speed, altitude, temperature, light and position. It has built-in GPS, Bluetooth 4.0 and a microphone. The processor is based on Rock Chips Cortex A9 system RK3168 running at 1.5 GHz. While Google Glass supports 802.11g communication, Chipsip Smart Glass supports 802.11n. The camera and screen resolution also top Google Glass by a notch, and with stereo sound on the Smart Glass compared to Google's mono sound, it seems that the Taiwanese company has hit all the right spots to make Google goggle. Or not. Google Glass is still in Beta, so specs on the final product may change."

cancel ×

129 comments

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

Google Is Trembing (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069285)

Because you know, they haven't been doing anything to prepare the next version of Google Glass. I'm sure they'll get started right away after this.

Re:Google Is Trembing (3, Insightful)

olsmeister (1488789) | about 6 months ago | (#46069457)

or - acquisition in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Google Is Trembing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069811)

Bowel wiggle.
Chunk tickles therapists.
Santa feces.
Ass-seeking herpes.

Let me ask this of you: What do these things mean to you?

Re:Google Is Trembing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46071107)

Go home, AC. You're drunk. That's what they mean to me.

Re:Google Is Trembing (2)

Dr Max (1696200) | about 6 months ago | (#46071879)

Hardly, these people are making all the same mistakes google has (dual, see through, full size glasses lenses please). For an acquisition you need to come up with a product people actually want. Solve all the problems, generally put in all the hard yards, and be able to take the market by storm; then you can get a few billion to shut you up, while google uses it to make the same money every quarter.

Re:Google Is Trembing (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 6 months ago | (#46069595)

Because you know, they haven't been doing anything to prepare the next version of Google Glass.

Beyond that very good point, this company, do they have an actual product? Because, you know, anyone can write "specs". But have they actually built one yet?

Re:Google Is Trembing (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46069609)

TFA has some video of working units.

You could always try reading TFA before asking basic questions.

Re:Google Is Trembing (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069729)

You could always try reading TFA before asking basic questions.

That would go against everything that we stand for here at Slashdot!

Re:Google Is Trembing (3, Informative)

rk (6314) | about 6 months ago | (#46069775)

Demo at CES != "product". There's no link where I can actually buy it or even get a price in either link. this video seems to suggest 2nd half 2014, but I haven't heard an MSRP yet. I would love to investigate HUD computers like this without coming up with $1,500 and a reason sufficiently hip to satisfy some Google engineers.

Re:Google Is Trembing (1)

rk (6314) | about 6 months ago | (#46069785)

Hmm... /. seems to have ate my link: try this one [youtube.com] .

Re:Google Is Trembing (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 6 months ago | (#46070409)

I wouldn't mind the $1500 or reasons so much if the specs on the current model weren't so horrible that you know you'd have to upgrade when an upgrade comes out.

Re:Google Is Trembing (1)

rk (6314) | about 6 months ago | (#46071095)

I have heard that the Glass Explorers will get the final production model when in comes out, if so that certainly makes the $1,500 more palatable.

Re:Google Is Trembing (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46070733)

One of the questions I was answering was "have they built one yet" to which the answer is yes, at least one. Your addition of "probably only one (demo) adds nothing to the point in question.

Re:Google Is Trembing (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 6 months ago | (#46070401)

I did not see in the (/. summary) specs any listing regarding weight, comfort, or style. Not that Google Glass is great in these areas, but they can be quite important too.

Re:Google Is Trembing (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46071423)

Contrary to what slashdot would have you believe, Google Glass is not the only see through HMD and never has been. For example, Epson is now taking pre-orders for their SECOND generation Movario BT-200. It has binocular display, gyro sensors, front facing camera, runs android, has prescription inserts, and is half the price of glass. It even won an award at CES this year - I even tried them on (very cool). Link:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Landing/moverio-bt-200-smart-glasses.do

There's also a small Italian company and a french company that also produce the damn things! And I'm sure I'm forgetting several others. I might be able to dig up the links if I try.

There are several direct competitors - just because /. is in Google's pocket, doesn't mean competitors don't exist!

Re:Google Is Trembing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46071481)

Because you know, they haven't been doing anything to prepare the next version of Google Glass.

Beyond that very good point, this company, do they have an actual product? Because, you know, anyone can write "specs". But have they actually built one yet?

Or ChipSiP could patent the specs then sue Google.... All's fair in the Patent game of war, Google and the rest can patent the dumbest of shit and then sue why not let everyone else?

Re:Google Is Trembing (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069717)

Google isn't trembling but Glass should be. They kill off far more successful projects on a weekly basis.

Captcha: infanticide.

Re:Google Is Trembing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46070095)

Who cares. It's just a bunch of galsshole blah blah blah.

Re:Google Is Trembing (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 6 months ago | (#46070883)

Google isn't trembling but Glass should be. They kill off far more successful projects on a weekly basis.

Captcha: infanticide.

You show a pretty big misunderstanding of the culture within Google.

Google kills off things like Reader, which would have quit working on it's own after the antique back end infrastructure that supported it was phased out, since the people who wrote it had moved onto other, more interesting projects, and weren't all that stoked about leaving their new projects to go back and maintain it so that it would work with the new back end infrastructure. With the front end apps third parties wrote to strip the ads out, it was nothing but a money sink anyway. Has some new Noogler found it very interesting for their first project, it probably would have been maintained, but frankly, it wasn't as sexy as the other projects they could work on.

I don't know of one Google X project that has been similarly killed off; to be a Google X project, Sergey has to be personally interested in supporting the project. He's not as flighty as people who worked on a 3 month project to get integrated into the Google culture after first starting at Google, and aren't interested in revisiting their Noogler project as a long term albatross they will have to carry around their necks forever after.

Re:Google Is Trembing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46071113)

lol..your explanation makes it worse.

Translation : " We will kill of any product that our employees get too bored to maintain"

I'm sure all businesses who rely on google (shudder) are really happy reading this.

Re:Google Is Trembing (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#46071195)

Translation : " We will kill off any money-losing product that our employees get too bored to maintain"

FTFY

Re:Google Is Trembing (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 6 months ago | (#46071213)

Translation : " We will kill off any money-losing product that our employees get too bored to maintain"

FTFY

This is a more correct translation.

I believe Google at one point offered the source code to Reader to anyone who wanted to update it for the current third party hosting infrastructure, with the proviso that they contract for some number of months of hosting. There were no takers, presumably because no one else could figure out how to make money from it, either, if Ads were not a possible revenue stream due to the front end apps on phones stripping the ads out.

Cool. Here's hopeing Google doesn't... (1, Insightful)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 6 months ago | (#46069297)

... send in an entire armada of lawyers to try and stamp this out before it can even happen.

I'm far more interested in what other companies will do with the idea than what Google will do with it. Especially if these 'knock offs' don't come with Google+ mandatory installed.

Hard to defend the patent. (1)

mmell (832646) | about 6 months ago | (#46069377)

After all, Google Glass (T) used to be a staple of all the spy shows back in the (nineteen) sixties. Some of the sci-fi of the day as well. Regardless, an eyeglasses mounted interface with HUD seems pretty obvious to me. They might get away with patenting the particulars, but from what I can tell the folks at ChipSip are doing something different at the implementation level.

And - yeah - I'm pretty sure Google is already well down the path to the next version of Glass, which may be a match for ChipSip's product. I'm a lot less sure that Google would want the negative publicity a high-profile lawsuit might bring were they to sue. After all, their name alone guarantees them both incredibly broad exposure and buzz on the street when they market their product; they may well consider it to be to their advantage to permit or even encourage competition in this arena. Let us remember that (so far) this is happening within the Android ecosystem, not MicroSoft or Apple Computers. Google has a vested stake there, and so may be fairly selective about using the patent weapon in court.

Re:Cool. Here's hopeing Google doesn't... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069425)

Fuck Google and fuck all the cock-suckers who can never design something on their own. "We no how to do anything constructive. We just simple minded slant-eyed faggots. We see dick in ass. We copy dick in ass." In as sense they are right. They can't even feed their own population. They impose population control on the people. Even the people sent to universities are dimwitted fucks who can't even read the textbooks they illegally printed on university printers. Did they even pick the shit up that they printed? No, why would they? They can't read, grades are given based on money contributed to the school. What's left? Dick on dick and dick in ass.

Re:Cool. Here's hopeing Google doesn't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069521)

This is Google. Not Apple.

Re:Cool. Here's hopeing Google doesn't... (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 6 months ago | (#46070189)

This is Google. Not Apple.

So you're saying they'll sue through their wholly-owned Motorola subsidiary rather than using their own name?

Re:Cool. Here's hopeing Google doesn't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46071473)

I was going to say "Rockstar Consortium", but yeah, Apple only partially owns that one. You got me there.

Specsmanship (4, Funny)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about 6 months ago | (#46069335)

That's all well and good, but what about the spec that really matters: does it beat Google Glass on dorkiness?

Re:Specsmanship (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46070313)

That's all well and good, but what about the spec that really matters: does it beat Google Glass on dorkiness?

I'm sure that Taiwanese firm can up the ante even further - transforming the "level of dorkiness" into "chinkiness chic".

Battery Life? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069341)

It'll be great for the 5 minutes the battery lasts.

Re:Battery Life? (2)

Saithe (982049) | about 6 months ago | (#46069781)

TFA said 3h battery with option to add another battery-pack on other ear. Now, if that is an accurate time while in-use remains to be seen.

Features != UX (5, Insightful)

gilgongo (57446) | about 6 months ago | (#46069345)

"detect speed, altitude, temperature, light and position. It has built-in GPS, Bluetooth 4.0 and a microphone. ..."

OK. It'll fail.

When will product managers understand that trying to compete by stuffing features into products does not a better product make? Has the tech design industry learnt *nothing* from the likes of Apple?

When Google's "inferior" product completely crushes them, I bet these idiots will be crying to their mystified managers that they didn't "market" it hard enough.

Muppets.

Re:Features != UX (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069687)

Shill harder.

Features != Capabilities (2)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 6 months ago | (#46069741)

When will product managers understand that trying to compete by stuffing features into products does not a better product make? Has the tech design industry learnt *nothing* from the likes of Apple?

You are confusing features with capabilities. The problem with features is mostly about complexity and interface.

A non-smart phone had many features, but was complex to use. You had to memorize which keys enabled which feature, and the unit was stuffed with things that the programmers felt were easy-to-program such as a calculator, timer, and texting.

In contrast, an iPhone has two or three orders of magnitude *more* features than a typical non-smart phone, but presents these with a much-simplified interface. For example, Icons are visually mnemonic to their function, and navigating the virtual display space (paging through lists of applications) is intuitive.

That the new hardware has better capabilities than Google glass means that people have an incentive to purchase the new hardware. It says nothing about the feature-set or complexity of the unit.

Re:Features != Capabilities (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 6 months ago | (#46069853)

What? The primary purpose of a phone is to make phone calls. If you had trouble doing that with a "non-smart" phone, a mini-computer with phone call capabilities isn't going to be any easier for you.

Re:Features != Capabilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46070139)

Actually, the mini computer with phone capabilities improves on this in many ways...

They make it easier and quicker to find contacts by providing much better scrolling mechanism than "up" and "down" buttons.
They make it easier to input data about contacts by providing much better input systems.
They make it easier to listen to voice mail by replacing the old "dial arbitrary number, then use crazy menu system" system with a simple list of voice messages.
They make it easier...

The idea that smart phones are somehow worse than dumb phones for usability solely as a phone is frankly ridiculous.

Re:Features != Capabilities (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 6 months ago | (#46070219)

You are still not using it as a phone, but a phone and contact manager and a high tech answering machine. A phone is a thing you dial numbers on and make a call out or that rings when a call is incoming (what a majority of people have in their household). Somehow the world was able to make calls without having a contact list at the press of a button for a good hundred years, without an answering machine for most of that time.

When you get stranded in some strange country and your pocket computer is gone, you get one phone call. Who's phone number are you going to type in?

Re:Features != Capabilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46070429)

The only number I know off the top of my head, my laywer.

Re:Features != Capabilities (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#46071203)

The primary purpose of a phone is to make phone calls.

Really? I use my phone dozens of times per day. I make or receive telephone calls on it perhaps twice per week.

Re:Features != Capabilities (1)

gilgongo (57446) | about 6 months ago | (#46071659)

"You are confusing features with capabilities. The problem with features is mostly about complexity and interface."

No, you're confusing good UI design with bad UI design. That's a different thing to what I'm talking about because in your example features can be rendered easy or hard to use by the way they are designed into the interface. Put it another way, you can have great features poorly executed, or poor features well executed - and in both cases the outcome is fail. Features are neutral until executed (AKA designed).

Instead, what I'm talking about is the knee-jerk reaction of product managers (as opposed to designers) who immediately start listing "better features" in order to compete with a rival. They don't realise that what they need to do instead is list customer needs, then come up with features from there. That's much harder to do of course. Who cares if I have 1080p video if I don't need to record any video?

 

Re:Features != UX (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46070509)

More than this, glass is intended to be tethered to a smartphone. The smartphone already has all of these sensors. That makes them completely useless, while adding cost, weight and decreasing battery life.

If they are targeting non-smartphone based users... it could make sense. But what point is a gps if you have to use it from within range of an access point?

Not all (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#46070541)

The smartphone already has all of these sensors.

Hardly. The smartphone has a light sensor, but it's not really usable for most uses being in your pocket... same thing for temperature (which most phones don't really have). Both of those things do more good on a sensor you wear in the open.

I don't think glasses are a good form-factor for anything but specialized uses (like protective goggles), but I do think there's a good use to be had for a lot of sensors to be put somewhere on us (my vote is, hat or attachment to garment).

Re:Features != UX (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46071063)

So the smartphone in your pocket will know when you turn your head? If you've got to put in a powerful chip to run the display, the additional sensors aren't that much more (money, power or space). Also, if you write an app to use these, and the phone teathered to it doesn't have all the same sensors, how is your app going to work? Having them all in the glasses makes app writing more predictable. Google Glass does the same.

(warning: written in Swedish) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069349)

a competing product that beats Google Glass on all specifications.

Not according to the Google Translated page I read, it says it loses on all specs, and it smells faintly of poo.

Re:(warning: written in Swedish) (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46071067)

Yeah, but it's unicorn poo.

And the specs that matter? (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#46069351)

I suspect that Google is going to be deeply unconcerned by anything that doesn't beat them to the punch on 'battery life' and 'What exactly does having this thing attached to my face do to make up for having this thing attached to my face?'

Re:And the specs that matter? (2)

tftp (111690) | about 6 months ago | (#46070645)

'What exactly does having this thing attached to my face do to make up for having this thing attached to my face?'

Google can make pretty penny on selling GG to people who already have an answer to that question. Numbers of those people are growing every day. Those people are absolutely certain that everything that happens to them is so precious, important and valuable that they just must, as a service to humanity, carry GG on their face all day and all night, lest we, poor peons, miss one of their exciting adventures. Those people consider it perfectly normal, social, and entirely not offensive, to [threaten to] record other people against their wishes. They also wear GG while operating two-ton vehicles on freeways and then claim that "GG was not turned on," as if anyone can prove it one way or another. Why not - nothing bad can ever happen to those people; they do not need to be careful at all.

Re:And the specs that matter? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46071081)

Why the hate? Wearable computers have been a techie dream for 30 years. Then, when it gets close, the Luddites come out of the closet to spread hate. And I don't understand why.

Re:And the specs that matter? (2)

tftp (111690) | about 6 months ago | (#46071215)

Because of side effects of new technologies. You can say the same thing about nuclear power, for example. If you buy the light side of it - easy power with little fuel - then you have to also buy the dark side of it (potential contamination of large territories that cannot be cleaned for a hundred generations.)

In this case the only thorny issue of GG is its camera - that may or may not record you. You are not important to millions of other people, but you are important to you. It may well be that I will see your face in a GG video and will never realize who you are; but your friends will recognize you; and your parents; and your GF; and your boss; and all the other people that you know and who know you. Is this important? Usually it is not. However sometimes it is important; GF #1 does not need to know who GF #2 is; your boss does not need to know that you are not sick at home but running an essential family errand that you could not wiggle out of. People like to keep private things to themselves. Sure, being in public already breaks this intent somewhat, but you can manage it as people managed that risk for thousands of years - you do not show up where you can be recognized. GG changes that - you can be recognized even if you are on the other side of the planet.

Note also that many techies are joining the crowd of those neo-Luddites - not because they are despising the technology, but because they are concerned about what this technology brings us. Not all new technology is automatically good for the society. This here new and shiny collar may be new and shiny, but if you look carefully, it is a slave's collar. Do not wear it, even if it is artfully made.

Not the Point (5, Insightful)

gr4nf (1348501) | about 6 months ago | (#46069367)

The point of Glass isn't putting a powerful computer on your face (well, it's not the only point, anyway). It's Google and its Sum-Of-All-Knowledge apps. Who's gonna want a more powerful system if they can't use Google's maps on it?

Re:Not the Point (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46070049)

Exactly the point. I want a device that will integrate with all my Google things, not some random collection of shit that some Taiwanese company threw together. It's the same reason why iPhone is popular. Same reason why the Nexus line is popular. Same reason why Kindle is popular. Integration. This is why companies like Microsoft and Facebook suck, they have nothing to integrate with, or just don't get it.

Re: Not the Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46071207)

You just made the guys working on bing maps sad. Hope you're happy, ya jerk.

Re:Not the Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46070245)

Who's going to want Google Glass after many glassholes will be beaten by random people angry for being illegally recorded?

Re:Not the Point (2)

tlambert (566799) | about 6 months ago | (#46070905)

Who's going to want Google Glass after many glassholes will be beaten by random people angry for being illegally recorded?

Covertly taken photographs, or it didn't happen...

Re:Not the Point (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46071077)

It's very hard to illegally record someone.

Re:Not the Point (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 6 months ago | (#46071599)

People who don't want Google watching and recording everything that they do.

Re:Not the Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46071631)

You mean "people who are too paranoid to think rationally", then, because Glass does neither of these things.

Hope they will do a better job than Vuzix... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069387)

...since the M100 is, as far as I've tried, unusable.

The good part of Google Glass is that in it's current incarnation IS USABLE, and it has been designed 1.5 / 2 years ago (_designed_ not presented).
Turn them on, do some basic configuration, and you are up and running in a matter of _minutes_.
The M100 comes with _nothing_ more than a bare android: you must do everything by yourself, and it not nearly comparable from the usability point of view.

This one, they seems they copied much of the design from google, and it's a good thing. We'll see if they will be up to the task...

Google Glass Dildo - A BETA UP YOUR ASS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069389)

give it to me baby [Slashdot]
BETA, BETA!

drive right through my legs, Slashdot Beta, I tire of you.

Will it make my face less punchable than Google Gl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069433)

The only spec that matters is how it looks.

Re:Will it make my face less punchable than Google (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 6 months ago | (#46069483)

so the killer app is a killer APPearance?

CmdrTaco on Google Glass (1)

game kid (805301) | about 6 months ago | (#46069473)

No stereo. Less speed than a ChipSiP. Lame.

Specs mean nothing (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 6 months ago | (#46069485)

There are a slew of android devices out there that easily best iOS devices in every form factor. User experience and software support mean everything in a mobile platform - unless it's easier to use and more useful than what google is offering, it's DOA.

Re:Specs mean nothing (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 6 months ago | (#46069549)

There are Android that beat iOS on user experience as well. Marketing plays a huge role.

Re:Specs mean nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46070075)

Such as? I use a Nexus but I still like the layout of iOS better.

Borg! (2)

Infestedkudzu (2557914) | about 6 months ago | (#46069515)

The winner will be the one that can be modded to be assimilated

I just 3D printed a pair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069523)

and they work great. I almost ran out of carbon in my cartridge but barely made it! 3D printing is awesome. I just downloaded the files and not 5 minutes later I had my glasses.

When? (4, Funny)

Threni (635302) | about 6 months ago | (#46069583)

It seems like I've had to read about Google Glass for about 2 years now. Really boring, no interest in it, but inescapable. Google, please release it so all the early adopter tossers can drop £1500 or whatever and strut around like the fucking hipster idiots that they are, then, as a released, naff product the tech press will take a little less of an interest in it and we can all move on with our lives.

Re:When? (1)

anti-todo (3513619) | about 6 months ago | (#46071933)

amen.

The only possible win: (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 6 months ago | (#46069607)

"And it looks like a pair of ordinary Raybans...."

If not, then: FAIL.

Software (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069643)

Is really all that matters at this point.

Yes Sir. (1)

earls (1367951) | about 6 months ago | (#46069745)

Nailed it. What good are twenty million sensors when you don't have a proper UI to control them? And that's just proper software to control the equipment - what about the rest of the ecosystem?

Re:Software (1)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46071345)

Backend software at that.

By it's self Glass is shite, synced to the phone something, but without the backend servers it's nothing.

Perfect way to look like a f'n retard! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069651)

Perfect way to look like a f'n retard!

Cost increase? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069653)

Both in price and battery life? The idea that it has a built-in GPS is a little scary.

Smart Glass? (2)

msobkow (48369) | about 6 months ago | (#46069697)

Fortunately with that choice of names we can still call their customers "glassholes". :P

For all you know... (1)

real gumby (11516) | about 6 months ago | (#46069735)

This summary is needlessly breathless. For all we know, Google plans to use this chipset in the next rev glasses.

Moverio BT-200 or MetaPro Spaceglasses Look Better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069743)

This looks as bad as Google Glass. I don't want something that looks like a piece of medical equipment and only provides a small screen in one eye. I wanted a full augmented reality experience that covers the entirety of both eyes with transparent overlays.

Something like the Epson Moverio BT-200:

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Landing/moverio-bt-200-smart-glasses.do

Or the MetaPro Spaceglasses:

https://www.spaceglasses.com/

Re:Moverio BT-200 or MetaPro Spaceglasses Look Bet (1)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46071337)

And I want *you* regulated to a small desert island.

Am I Reading This Correctly? (1)

kenwd0elq (985465) | about 6 months ago | (#46069835)

Am I reading this right? Google Glass has a _product_, while Chipsip has a _plan_?

Brings back memories of Microsoft Vaporware announcements, which were intended solely to fend off other companies' plans.....

Neither of these is something I'm likely to be interested in, but at least one of them actually exists.

GO Team ChipSIP YAH! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069899)

Fuck Schmidt in the butt and cut off Googles Balls and fry them up on a Bar-B-Q Australian style. YAH!

Hay ChipSIP. Capture Eric Schmidt for us. Send him to Coober Pedy, Australia, Amazon FEDEX. We will duct-tape a stick of TNT to his penis, and ram another one up his butt, we will use a condom to protect the anus tissue lining his exit track.

Wire the charges with nitro caps on a parallel circuit and then throw the switch! BURN BABY BURN. MASTERBLASTER! Yaa Haaa! Dats Gotta Hurt!

Do not worry ChipSIP. We are very eco-counsious fellows here in Coober Pedy. We will clean up the "Schmidt" mess and dig a hole, put'm in, add kerosene and flame'm up. Should burn for a day or two. Need that extra heat the kill the germs you know.

Ha ha. (y)

RK3188=suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069931)

wont work with there purported specs the RK3188 runs way to hot and uses way to much power for this applacation
also rockchip sucks

some details (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069951)

Chipsip product was in development for over a year. First prototypes were shown last march. Chipsip is not interesting in manufacturing it. It is just a technology showcase product and a reference design that will be sold to mainland white box OEMS.

It is remarkable that it has ChipSiPs own display module, which is a custom biaxial piezogoniometer mems IC that should be many times more power efficient than a regular matrix based display.

plans are news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46069955)

Honestly, the fact that a taiwanese company has PLANS to make a glass-like product is news? Google has had their product in people's hands for, what, 6 months? A year? And... goes this product support all current Glass apps? Google's trying to make an ecosystem with lots of hardware choices ... not make a single product ...

Glass's problem is battery life, pure and simple, and it's a toy until the battery life gets over 8 hours.

hopefully they all fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46070201)

Google Glass is the douchiest thing since bluetooth earpieces and iPhones. Today's technology is an embarrassment to humanity.

Re:hopefully they all fail (1)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46071333)

You got that right.

Re:hopefully they all fail (1)

anti-todo (3513619) | about 6 months ago | (#46071871)

I agree with and approve of this comment.

Health (1)

aslashdotaccount (539214) | about 6 months ago | (#46070543)

Has anyone considered the long-term effects of having a radio so close to the brain? One reason why I myself haven't gotten into the Google Glass craze is because I'd like to be able to play a few rounds of pig with my child when he/she grows up.

Re:Health (1)

tftp (111690) | about 6 months ago | (#46070691)

Bluetooth operates at low power (1 mW for Class 3, 100 mW for Class 1.) GG is not likely to run at anything but the lowest power - it costs battery life. GG will not harm you. However it remains to be seen if your eyesight will be affected. EM radiation issues were studied by many teams; however, as I understand, GG was never studied by eye doctors and medical researchers. There are several aspects of a HUD like GG that may be relevant (focusing of the eye; shifting of the view center; and probably a dozen more that I know nothing about.)

Re:Health (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46071093)

Call me when they have an eye-facing camera that deduces focal distance, and adjusts the image depth to match, so you don't have to change focus to see the projected image

Re:Health (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 6 months ago | (#46071043)

Yes, it's been considered. Radio waves are non-ionizing, which means they cannot cause direct damage to DNA (the radiation effect that typically causes cancer). The only potential health risk with radio frequencies is heating effects, and head-mounted devices simply don't have enough power for that to be a serious risk. There are a few scientists who postulate it is theoretically possible for long term exposure to low-power radio waves to cause damage, but there is no known scientific means for such damage to occur (studies to date have been mostly inconclusive, but the general trend is that radio waves no matter how close to the head cannot cause damage from head mounted or handheld devices).

Re:Health (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46071629)

Yeah? Radio waves dont damage DNA? HA haaaa

Read this

THE BIOINITIATIVE REPORT 2012
A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)

http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/ ...
Briefly stated, here is what we knew in 2007.
  Bioeffects and adverse health effects of chronic exposure to low-intensity (non-thermal) non-ionizing radiation are established.
  Existing FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits are not sufficiently protective of public health.
  The World Health Organization has classified ELF-EMF as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen (2001).
  New, biologically-based public exposure standards are critically needed.
  It is not in the public interest to wait.

Here is what we know in 2012. There is more evidence, over a broader range of studies. The levels of biological responses are extraordinarily low (down to the nanowatt and picowatt power density level).

New studies address fertility and reproduction, fetal and neonatal effects, cognitive and behavioral problems in children and neurological damage. There are more mobile phone base station studies with longer testing periods, much more information on genetic damage and confirmation of increased risk of brain cancers from not one or two studies, but from many studies and many authors including the World Health Organization’s massive 13-country INTERPHONE STUDY (Interphone Study Group, 2010).

There are many studies reporting effects of cell phone radiation (even on standby-mode), wireless laptop exposure, cell phone use by mothers resulting in altered fetal brain development in the offspring, and more evidence that the blood-brain barrier and memory are at risk from cell phone use. There is evidence from human and animal studies that key areas of the brain are negatively affected by RFR at legal levels.

There is better understanding of the important physical and biological factors that make ELF-EMF and RFR potent disruptors of living tissues and basic metabolic processes. More and more, EMF devices are being used for medical treatments in cancer, bone and wound healing and re-tuning the nervous system. Increased depth of evidence in many threads is presented in this report by well-regarded scientists and researchers from around the world. The number of good studies has grown. The exposure levels causing effects are documented to be much lower than in the past. The epidemiological evidence is now showing risks for a variety of adverse health outcomes. All this should be taken seriously by governments, and translated quickly into more protective safety standards, and in the interim, into strong preventative actions, warnings and substitution of safer technologies and redesigned devices.

Bioeffects are clearly established and occur at very low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. Bioeffects can occur in the first few minutes at levels associated with cell and cordless phone use. Bioeffects can also occur from just minutes of exposure to mobile phone masts (cell towers), WI-FI, and wireless utility ‘smart’ meters that produce whole-body exposure. Chronic base station level exposures can result in illness.

Many of these bioeffects can reasonably be expected to result in adverse health effects if the exposures are prolonged or chronic. This is because they interfere with normal body processes (disrupt homeostasis), prevent the body from healing damaged DNA, produce immune system imbalances, metabolic disruption and lower resistance to disease across multiple pathways. Essential body processes can eventually be disabled by incessant external stresses (from system-wide electrophysiological interference) and lead to pervasive impairment of metabolic and reproductive functions. ...

Hand (1)

curmi (205804) | about 6 months ago | (#46071103)

Google showed their hand way to early on Google Glass. What, did they think no one would go straight out and copy what they'd done? Wait until you see what Samsung have been building Google...

Re:Hand (1)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46071331)

Except back end is *everything*.

No one stops to think "should we do this?"
These devices should be banned in public.

But you won't agree, I'm now a Luddite, and no one will get it until they are under the sword.

My last breath will be "WTF is wrong with your generation?"

Re:Hand (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 6 months ago | (#46071887)

That someone posting on a technology website doesn't realize that Google Glass isn't novel in any way, technological or otherwise is IMHO a shame. There have been HUD-type glasses allowing agumented reality long before Googles entry into the market and even incorporating processing into the frame of glasses have been done before.

Laugh (1)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46071323)

Yet no one pauses to think "should we do this".

As if the hunch backed idiot masses using "smart phones" wasn't bad enough.
Example: Constant scanning mode, "oh that guy is arguing with his SO", upload photo + facial data to "asshole.com" next subscriber to Ahole.com scans, facial data clicks "oh look there's an asshole".
A whole new level of technological oppression.

Insert scenario here.

And you thought state based CCTV was bad...wait until this crop of sociopathic millennials goes to work on the public.

Rise of the Borg. (1)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46071347)

That is all, return to your snacks.

Specs don't matter... (1)

Cantankerous Cur (3435207) | about 6 months ago | (#46071367)

Any hardware is only as good as the software supporting it.

wearables aren't about specs, but interface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46071569)

Hardware specs are irrelevant in this space. The only thing that matters is user experience. The reason you still can't get glass at retail is because Google still haven't dialed in the user experience to anyone's satisfaction (I have direct experience of this). There's exactly no chance that some random taiwanese company's hardware is going to compete with google's product. And since google is not working on open-source android-based software for glass, they won't have the convenience of just using an open source package on their wearable computer. Glass is very much NOT just a remote display for your phone. It is a computing platform in its own right, with a sophisticated and difficult to engineer user interface that has to balance usability with obtrusiveness. It's a difficult task that google has been working on for a long time now. No one without enormous resources and a very creative interface design team is going to beat them to the punch at this point.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>