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!

Next Generation of MP3 Glasses

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the tunes-on-the-move dept.

Music 178

Doggie Fizzle writes "A review of the Nu Tech Dark Shadow 256MB MP3 Sunglasses shows one of the latest attempts to multitask common items, whether we want it or not. The Oakley Thumps may have come first, but at 3x the cost of Nu Tech Dark Shadows, even frugal geeks can look smooth... From the review: "I am a sucker for any tool or gadget that tries to combine more than one use or function into a single item, but I also have learned from experience that many times such items fail to perform well at any of the tasks they were designed to do.""

cancel ×

178 comments

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

obviously (5, Funny)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148774)

Obviously not a Unix person.

From the slashdot article:

From the review: "I am a sucker for any tool or gadget that tries to combine more than one use or function into a single item,..."

or he'd already have known:

that many times such items fail to perform well at any of the tasks they were designed to do...

Re:obviously (2, Insightful)

Namronorman (901664) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148861)

Not only that but more to break, I'd imagine something like that's durability isn't that great. I think they look large and grotesque, this is probably something someone with too much money would buy just for a toy, and then never use them. That or this guy who said he uses them while he skis, that wouldn't be so bad I guess

"Dude, you just sat on my glasses!"

Re:obviously (2, Interesting)

HoldenCaulfield (25660) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149076)

Bleh, such a bad solution for skiing . . .

Sunglasses are a poor substitute for a good pair of goggles.

If you really want music while you're on the mountain, lots of helmets now have built in headphones [skiingmag.com] (some of them have Bluetooth as well)

Of course, you need to tap something into the headphones, but there are several ski shells that are designed with iPod's in mind . . . some even have controls built into the sleeves [burton.com] . Hell, there are even ridiculously expensive coats with built in iPods [spyder.com] .

If you don't have the cash to drop on a nice shell, there's also some crazy gloves [paragonsports.com] that are designed so that the wheel will still work through the glove. (Silly marketing tech sheet is here [tavoproducts.com] .)

Note: I'm not affiliated with any of the stores I linked to, they were just the first results of a cursory google search . . .

Re:obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149177)

perl is doomed then!

and obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149196)

not a design person either..

For me the whole point of making sunglasses an mp3 player is that the foldable bands of the glasses could be the earphones too. How hard is that?

Just extend the bands so they wrap around your ears in stead of using those small insert earphones that everyone hates ..sheesh

Hmm (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14148776)

The sad part is, you'll have listened to all the songs before the sun goes down.

Re:Hmm (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148849)

The sad part is, you'll have listened to all the songs before the sun goes down.

[similar to the old Foster Grant commercials]

"Who's that in those Dark Shadows?"

"It's Barnabas Collins, duh!"

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149154)

Or listen to Cory Hart...

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149257)

Not in Canada it won't! The wonderful 6 hours of sun this time of year makes the world a safer place.

Very annoying... (2, Insightful)

tehshen (794722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148783)

If you already wear glasses :/

Re:Very annoying... (1)

Jotii (932365) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148868)

Yeah, then it's 10 bucks wasted. You should've thought of that before buying them.

Re:Very annoying... (2, Insightful)

johnty (558523) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149359)

i see two main problems with this:

1. its on a pair of sunglasses - ok its great for outdoors when its sunny, but if you either wear glasses, or spend a good deal of time indoors, or out at night, you can't really use them
2. you can't change the earbuds. what happens if you want to replace them with better sounding ones? i guess you could cut the cord and attach new ones onto it, but i'm sure not everyone's willing to perform the surgery.

now if the mp3 player component was detacheable, or if the frame could be used with prescription lenses that change colour in the sunlight, then we're talking...

Old technology, how about something newer? (4, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148788)

This is an interesting item but it is so 1990. The review's comment of "I am a sucker for any tool or gadget that tries to combine more than one use or function into a single item" is exactly why we don't need so many all-in-one items, but instead, mininetworked items.

Why is Bluetooth such a relative failure? My PDA has bluetooth and I use it ALL the time. The problem is that I don't see very many viable, workable, user friendly bluetooth devices.

If I want an MP3 player, what I'd really want is a portable deposit/store/memory bank (SD card is fine), a very tiny MP3 player and a bluetooth set of headphones. I can't find anything of the sort that WORKS.

My bluetooth headset for my phone has TERRIBLE sound quality. The bandwidth for bluetooth should allow for a decent sound in stereo, but the mono headset is just crap. Can anyone recommend a good stereo set of bluetooth headphones that work?

I believe the future of portable music will probably not be the MP3 player, especially as network availability becomes more pronounced. I use Shoutcast on my PDA phone to stream my entire MP3 collection from home as I want to. GPRS at 33.6K is fairly crap quality, but when I am in range of a public WiFi router (my phone has WiFi as well) I can get pretty awesome quality streaming. Nowadays I am near a public WiFi router probably 15% of the time, compared to 5% last year.

Will we even NEED storage or a large bulky scratchable iPod when we can stream terabytes of music in a few years?

Re:Old technology, how about something newer? (2, Funny)

Gnight (163400) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148917)

I like the way you think. But I have to ask, why not just build the entire music player into the headsets? Why two pieces with the complicated bluetooth system connecting them?

How long until Apple/Napster/Yahoo comes out with a music player that does this? Think about it, the player automatically connects to iTunes (or whatever) over WiFi, logs into your account, and starts streaming music. That would be sweet.

Re:Old technology, how about something newer? (1)

tomlouie (264519) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148982)

> why not just build the entire music player into the headsets? Why two pieces ...

For the same reason headphones with integrated FM radios don't sell like hotcakes. Bulky, hard to upgrade, short battery life, expensive for manufacturers to offer choices of headset/player option, etc etc.

Tom

Re:Old technology, how about something newer? (2, Funny)

Gnight (163400) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149059)

So make it smaller. :-)

Re:Old technology, how about something newer? (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149025)

They will do it, probably.

The FCC just announced it will allow serving channels a la carte on cable. What a STUPID STUPID STUPID regulation we've had to deal with for decades. Guess what? Channels a la carte is so 1990, too!

People are getting used to on demand everything. On demand opeds via blogs, on demand news via the web and SMS, on demand coupons, on demand everything. Storing information that is identical between millions (or even dozens) of users when information can be shared can show a huge savings in many ways (electricity, storage space, labor to secure it, etc).

We will see the day, soon, that iTunes will stream via national WiFi networks music on demand.

As to why not just get an all-in-one? I think the answer in the long run is customization. For me, my PDA phone is a miracle. It does everything I could want in a PC, and it weighs nothing and fits in a pocket. If I need GPS, I have it via bluetooth the instant I get in my car. If I need music, I could get it via a bluetooth headset. If I need to check my car's maintenance needs, maybe it could communicate to my PDA what it needs. I think my next PDA phone will actually be a phone with bluetooth and a PDA with a bigger screen and a better processor. I honestly don't mind a few different devices, especially since some devices could be docked permanently (in the car, in the house, in my wallet murse, etc).

Information will become on demand once we have information available everywhere. I really think landline permanent connections will slowly give way to massive pipes connecting to access points able to feed thousands simultaneously. It would be in all the comm companies interests to offer completely free WiFi connections at 64Kbps, but sell access at 10Mbps for those who want it (or anywhere in between). What we need is to kick the damn FCC out and open up all that wasted regulated bandwidth to WiFi style services. Fine, have some organization monitor that bandwidth but why the hell do we need to differentiate between cell calls and analog TV and radio and whatever, when it all can just be IP?

Re:Old technology, how about something newer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149169)

The FCC just announced it will allow serving channels a la carte on cable.

REALLY!?! I have longed for the day where I could pick and choose what channels I wanted, and could do away with all the network crap that seems to spew nothing but cheesy reality shows and gospel. I can count the channels I watch with any regularity on one hand.

Re:Old technology, how about something newer? (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149251)

Because IP isn't real-time. I don't know about you, but I really am not a big fan of streaming video. Especially Real (Shudder)

Re:Old technology, how about something newer? (1)

starwed (735423) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149436)

why not just build the entire music player into the headsets?

Because sometimes you might want to just listen to your music through your headphones. Or maybe even broadcast it to multiple listeners in a small area. The holy grail here isn't a gadget but a modular system that can adapt to your needs simply by buying another module and plugging it into the system.

Re:Old technology, how about something newer? (3, Funny)

BattleRat (536161) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148969)

The sound quality of cell phones is rather limited by the quality of the whole telephone system. Since that is the case, the cell phone bluetooth headsets are engineered to meet that shoddy quality level. If you want to have a good listening experience, you need to buy a bluetooth headset that supports A2DP profile and a transmitter that does as well (computers and phones like a Nokia N91 or 8801). Some headsets, like Logitech's Bluetooth Wireless Headphones, include a bluetooth adapter that plugs into any standard headset jack (3.5mm I think). This one natively uses the higher bandwidth, higher quality sound profile. I think Laptop Magazine did a review a while back. I'll post a link if I find one.

Re:Old technology, how about something newer? (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149049)

Thanks. I found it based on your post :) I will check it out next month for sure. Good find!

Re:Old technology, how about something newer? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149303)

an iPod is bulky?

And you use a PDA? Are you kidding me?

Sorry... (3, Interesting)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148789)

The Oakley Thumps may have come first, but at 3x the cost of Nu Tech Dark Shadows, even frugal geeks can look smooth..

Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm, but I don't think you will look smoother, only geekier. I am geeky enough and I don't want to wear it on my face. Besides, the audio actually sucks....what, I had to try it on...common gimme a break!

Re:Sorry... (2, Funny)

Rethcir (680121) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148962)

Maybe this is why Manny [photobucket.com] is such a bad fielder..

Solar battery? (4, Insightful)

maiden_taiwan (516943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148807)

Seems like this would be the PERFECT product to have a rechargeable solar battery!

Since we're integrating gadgets... (1)

sczimme (603413) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149200)


Seems like this would be the PERFECT product to have a rechargeable solar battery!

Since we're integrating gadgets, we could place small solar panels on a hat and attach the hat to the glasses. The panels would charge the battery while providing additional sun protection, and it wouldn't look much dorkier than the Oakleys. (How could it?)

The silly things is, now that you've read that, some of you are thinking "Is he serious??" and some of you are thinking "What a great idea!". I'm sure you'll identify yourselves in short order. :-)

For the record, I think this would be marginally functional (inefficiency of solar panels, small surface area for collection) and not at all practical, but would be an interesting exercise.

In case you didn't realize (4, Insightful)

ankarbass (882629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148808)

these bulbous pieces of shit look dumb on everyone, not just you. So do the oakleys. You are just not going to make a cubic inch of electronics look smooth on a pair of glasses. A product like this will be ready for prime time when you can fit the entire player in the eraser head of a mechanical pencil.

Re:In case you didn't realize (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14148996)

A product like this will be ready for prime time when you can fit the entire player in the eraser head of a mechanical pencil.

No, a product like this will be ready for the prime-time when you can just put a receiver in the glasses and carry your normal MP3 player in your pocket. A market like that is only going to take off if the MP3 player people and the lasses people learn that open interoperability can make a market and user satisfaction grow. So that's never, then.

Re:In case you didn't realize (0, Offtopic)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149031)

Is that a pencil sticking out of your ear?

Re:In case you didn't realize (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149227)

Don't you people get the joke?

Re:In case you didn't realize (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149410)

I agree that the current problems are horrible. I don't understand why such garbage-looking stuff is being made available and marketed as if it was something cool.

I don't think it is attainable, I don't want glasses that protrude into my ear canal.

girls (5, Funny)

uberjoe (726765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148809)

All I want are those x-ray specs I ordered from boy's life 15 years ago.

Just great. (5, Insightful)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148813)

So now when I lose my sunglasses (which happens a LOT), I've also lost my 256MB mp3 player? No thanks.

Re:Just great. (1)

Volanin (935080) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149056)

So now when I lose my sunglasses (which happens a LOT), I've also lost my 256MB mp3 player? No thanks.

Put some Celine Dion musics in it and people will return it to you in no time.

Croakies help with that (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149429)

I was surprised that the picture of the glasses doesn't show any sort of strap to keep the things from falling off, and Croakies or equivalent are also helpful because they encourage you to keep the things around your neck instead of putting them down on whatever convenient flat surface is nearby.

But yeah, I lose sunglasses all the time, mainly because I forget and wear them in from my car and then leave them. On the other hand, I'm happy with el-cheapo sunglasses, so it's not annoying unless my car runs out of sunglasses.

And what's more... (2, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148818)

even frugal geeks can look smooth...

...it's rumored that this cool gadget chases away all those pestering chicks too. It's a g33k's dream come true. And just in time for the gifting season!

Not for geeks (4, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148819)

...one of the latest attempts to multitask common items, whether we want it or not.

... even frugal geeks can look smooth...

These are not for geeks, as can be shown by your idiodic comment (who "looks smooth" with a huge box attached to the side of your head?). They are for bikers, runners, and people involved in sports. They are not for a WOW playing geek in his mom's basement.

Ever try to bike through traffic while screwing around with a headphone cable? Probably not. If you did then you would see that there is a huge market for these kinds of devices.

Mod -1, Not myopic enough (-1, Offtopic)

Golias (176380) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148913)

The rest of the Slashdot crowd is getting some serious navel-gazing done. Why does it seem that you are unable to carry your end of the log.

Attention, citizens! User 86786 has been found UNMUTUAL! UNMUTUAL!

Re:Not for geeks (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148919)

Saw the perfect design for jogger,biker,etc.
It was designed as a single piece that slipped over the ear and basiclly looked like one of the bluetooth headsets(without the microphone) but a little bigger. It had a decent sounding speaker that while close to ear so you could hear did not put a mini plug in so that most outside sound was blocked.

Re:Not for geeks (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148999)

Ever try to bike through traffic while screwing around with a headphone cable? Probably not. If you did then you would see that there is a huge market for these kinds of devices.

Given the number of jackasses I see weaving through traffic while talking on their phones, there probably is. But at least once a month I hear that click up ahead and lean left just in time to avoid getting doored. Losing that extra quarter-second of reaction time (and possibly my life along with it) isn't worth another few minutes of music. I'd strongly advise saving the MP3 players for country roads.

Re:Not for geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149186)

Hell, it used to be possible to 'look smooth' with a ghetto blaster on your shoulder.
Fashions change, one year's silly in another's cool.

Re:Not for geeks (1)

grappler (14976) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149277)

I agree. I have an iPod, which is great most of the time (car stereo, home stereo, walking around with headphones doing chores). I also have a pair of Oakley thumps for running, biking and skiing.

I probably wouldn't wear the thumps just walking around town. That seems a little too geeky. Besides, in that situation it's nicer to be able to navigate through menus on a screen. But having music with no headphone cords when doing something athletic is a cool enough idea that I got another gadget for just that purpose. It's the new walkman.

I have one gripe about the Oakley Thumps - I wore them running and they flaked out when they got sweat on them. I sent them back.

Come on Oakley, the biggest reason to have a product like this is for sports. They should be sweatproof.

Re:Not for geeks - Illegal (1)

joeware (672849) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149280)

Where I live (Seattle), I seem to recall it being illegal to wear headphones while riding a bicycle.

Re:Not for geeks (4, Insightful)

jratcliffe (208809) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149315)

"Ever try to bike through traffic while screwing around with a headphone cable? Probably not."

No, because I'm not enough of an idiot to wear headphones while riding - hearing's important my friend.

This makes sense (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148821)

Now you can misplace your MP3 player in your hair.

But really this is a good combo, since glasses have parts going right beside your ear anyway, so it's handy to have your MP3 player on your face protecting your eyes from UV damage, while damaging your ears with music that is too loud.

Re:This makes sense (1)

Fussen (753791) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148961)

Some guy is standing on the street staring into the sun while listening to recordings of aircraft taking off outside of a construction site.

The circle is complete.

Re:This makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149088)

But really this is a good combo, since glasses have parts going right beside your ear anyway, I wear monocles you insensitive clod!

MPEG playing Vibrator. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14148822)

That's what I want! That way I can watch pr0n while getting off!

How about a cell phone controlled vibe? (2, Funny)

xoip (920266) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149127)

The Toy [thetoy.co.uk] just in time for Christmas

$500 for Oakley Thumps? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14148824)

What a ripoff. A nice pair of polarized sunglasses will set you back around $100 to $150. Throw in an iPod Shuffle for $100.

I can't even tell (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148827)

I can't even tell when people on mini headsets aren't actually talking to me. Now I can look forward to talking to people and not being heard, even though the seem to be nodding their heads.

i'm not even a parent, but it'll be like the world is full of teenagers

Re:I can't even tell (1)

Fayth (935073) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149430)

Yeah...esp people who are on the phone w/ their mini head set and looking -right- at you as they talk. -_- People like that need a good slapping for manners. :D

Sounds neat (1)

CrazedWalrus (901897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148830)

..Unless you want to listen to your MP3s at night.

Elwood: It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses.
Jake: Hit it.

Re:Sounds neat (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148955)

Unless you're listening to, or are, Corey Hart.

3-Inch CD (0, Offtopic)

staticsage (889437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148839)

"Installation CD on 3-Inch CD"

Damn, my CD drive is made for 5 1/2 inch CDs. Looks like I'll have to pass on these specs.

Re:3-Inch CD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149209)

5.5" CD? WTF? A 5.5" CD wouldn't even fit in my CD drive.

120 mm CDs are standard.
120 mm = ~4.75"

As for 3" CDs, 80 mm = ~3"
80 mm CDs work in virtually all tray-loading CD drives. I fail to see a problem unless the user only has a slot-loading drive, in which case he/she can probably download whatever is on the disc. This really is a non-issue.

Re:3-Inch CD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149322)

Your CD drive probably handles 120mm and 80mm compact disks quite well. There are no "inches" in the CD standard but they are approximately 4.72 inches and 3.15 inches in legacy measurements. Go forward into the 18th century already!

Trying to do too much (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14148842)

This is like, I don't know, putting an email alert light on a mouse.

That sounds like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14148846)

...a dazzling idea.

Again, I'm so sorry.

Does it come with several replacement lenses? (0)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148852)

If not, I would never buy it.
Once the lenses are scratched it is worthless, unless you enjoy listening to music with blurred vision.

For under $500, I'll show you the wonders of super glue when applied to your favourite sunglasses & mp3 player.

Re:Does it come with several replacement lenses? (1)

staticsage (889437) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148893)

It comes with one set of replacement lenses.

Some days comedy just writes itself (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149036)

unless you enjoy listening to music with blurred vision

[insert your own drug joke here]

Re:Some days comedy just writes itself (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149085)

unless you enjoy listening to music with blurred vision
[insert your own drug joke here]

Harold: hahahahaha...I'm so high

Kumar: We're not low.

Re:Does it come with several replacement lenses? (1)

E-Rock (84950) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149093)

Yes it does. It also costs less than $100, which is what a nice set of sunglasses will set you back anyways.

I don't know about you, (1)

BattleRat (536161) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148872)

but there are many times I want to listen to my tunes at night or in a dark room, especially during the winter months since it gets dark a 5PM. I personally don't see the need for a sub-par MP3 player, married to a sub-par set of sunglasses. I guess these things are made for a day on a deserted beach (where fashion isn't required) or the uber budget conscious. I'd say that I, much like any self respecting geek, would much rather have a high quality pair of sunglasses and a separate high quality MP3 player. A polished turd, is still a turd - even with a built in MP3 player.

next gen or last gen? (1)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 8 years ago | (#14148879)

you've got to be kidding me. the only difference between these and the oakleys is that no nerds will actually buy these because no one that knows how to ALT+TAB is stupid enough to buy crap like this.

give me a BREAK

Plastic Pocket Protector (2, Insightful)

queenb**ch (446380) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148898)

Sheesh...does this thing come with a plastic pocket protector, too? Like some of the other posters, it's obvious enough to even the most casual observer that I'm a geek. Do I really need to paste a sign on my forehead? My Treo plays MP3's rather well and can play them through the headset I'm already wearing. Why add ANOTHER set of headphones?

2 cents,

Queen B.

Re:Plastic Pocket Protector (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148939)

Do I really need to paste a sign on my forehead?

It would cover the big "L" that's already there.

Ha! :-) Hey, I tease.

But seriously, this is another solution looking for a problem, and the problem is "How can we get more people looking like dorks?"

I'll take "Marketing Tiger Team Atrocities" again for $200, Alex.

Re:Plastic Pocket Protector (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149028)

What is "Instant Obsolescence?"

Hmm... (1)

MaestroSartori (146297) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148903)

...ugly sunglasses with a built-in USB memory-stick-mp3-player and crappy headphones? That'll work.

The Oakley one might sell on the back of the name, there are brand snobs out there. I don't think I'd touch this thing with a bargepole though.

Re:Hmm... (1)

PrimeNumber (136578) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149115)

The oakly thump looks craptastic as well. The only people I see wearing Oakleys outside of ski resort areas are the mullet && {camino || mustang}, redneck or nascar crowd.
 
But then again I do live in Houston, so I may be wrong on that one....

Sunglasses? (2, Funny)

NardofDoom (821951) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148908)

If I ever see anyone wearing MP3 player sunglasses I'm going to smack them. And this is coming from someone with a Bluetooth headset.

Oakley Thumps (1)

Se7enLC (714730) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148932)

Oakley Thumps here [oakley.com] .

didn't they have headphones awhile back that would work by sending vibrations directly to the head? I remember them being marketed for swimmers, I think. That would have been a much better use of the wraparound sunglasses - I wouldn't want to have to put things over AND in my ears, I want one or the other.

Re:Oakley Thumps (1)

Gnight (163400) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149156)

Oakley Thumps here.

I like the picture of the guy wearing the glasses in the middle of that page. It looks like he's getting getting his eardrums blasted out. lol, "Where's the volume knob!!"

Re:Oakley Thumps (1)

SpinJaunt (847897) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149325)

All this technology is wrapped in some of the most revolutionary eyewear sculpture on the planet. Oakley XYZ Optics® gives you virtually distortion-free vision, even at the sides of raked-back lens contours. Plutonite® lens material blocks 100% of all UV, and Iridium® lens coatings optimize vision in any light. When it comes to impact resistance OAKLEY THUMP exceeds ANSI Industrial Standards. Models are available with premium Oakley polarization for glare filtering without the haze and distortion of conventional polarized lenses.
I'm bought.

Oakley Razrwire (1)

greysky (136732) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148936)

Oakley recently unveiled a new product, the Razrwire [oakley.com] , that is derivative of their thump glasses. These feature a bluetooth earpiece that can integrate with a bluetooth phone. Hopefully they're more comfortable than I've heard the thumps are.

Not even worth checking out. (5, Insightful)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#14148943)

When I was in school at Berzerkely, I supported myself as a personal care attendant assisting the physically handicapped. A (frighteningly intelligent and insightful) friend of mine once commented that I could design the ultimate cybernetic prosthesis, one which could replace any damaged body part and work perfectly, but that the vast majority of those with physical handicaps would shun my invention if it didn't look good - i.e., most physically handicapped people would choose a good-looking but non-functional prosthetic over a functioning but ugly one. I confirmed this by talking candidly with many of my clients.

Somehow, I just don't see these things catching on. They're ugly.

Re:Not even worth checking out. (0)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149009)

Gee, I dunno. I think I'd deliberately opt for the one that most looked like it came from a black ops killer android. I'm serious.

umm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149012)

so what if you want to listen to your mp3s when you are inside?

that's the problem with multi-function devices...

Big deal (1, Redundant)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149018)

This isn't very useful to those of us who wear glasses.

Hmm, maybe an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit would help... :-)

Next Gen Version (1, Troll)

squoozer (730327) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149021)

Will come with a tiny display in front of each eye that will be able to show visulizations as well. Now that will be "cool". I can't wait for someone to bring out a half way decent VR headset for a reasonable price. Oh and make good use of it :o)

where? (4, Funny)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149030)

So, where can I get a pair of these Dork Shadow sunglasses?

Here's another interesting mp3 player (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149061)

If you're a swimmer, here is another interesting mp3 player. It is called the SwiMP3 [mp3newswire.net] and it can be worn and listened to while swimming.

Another interesting thought about mp3 players: Apple's domanance with mp3 players makes it harder for other players to make a solid-state mp3 player with more than one gig of memory. The only non-Apple solid state player with over one gig is the SanDisk Sansa M250 [sandisk.com] (street price lower); this player is made by a company that makes their own flash memory. This is a shame, since the iPod Nano, in typical Steve Jobs style, uses a proprietary interface which doesn't talk with Linux well.

If one is willing to use a hard disk mp3 player, there are 60 gb [ewiz.com] 1.8 inch hard disks available; I expect to see a 60gb handheld mp3 player in the near future.

Wireless Earbuds/Headphones (1)

Paul Slocum (598127) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149081)

Howabout just some wireless headphones or earbuds that can clip onto your glasses. Then you can choose the mp3 player you want (or use the one you already have), and more importantly, choose some glasses that don't make you look like a complete fool.

w00t! (1)

un1xl0ser (575642) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149090)

How long before we start seeing these on woot.com [nyud.net] ?

Blog [nyud.net]
Podcast [nyud.net]

ipod shuffle almost does this (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149133)

I seen embed/hide their shuffle in a hat with wires down to the ears. Its not bulky. In fact you have the opposite problem with being the size and weight of a stick of gum, you may not notice you've lost it if its not on. You cant make it much smaller and still have controls and earphones jack. If you could only bluetooth away the wires.

A few more years of Moore's law the price falls on the 100-song model to that of transistor radio and losing it doesn't matter. Else you keep the current price for 1000 songs.

Got Mine! (1)

jIyajbe (662197) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149162)

These are an uglier version of the ones that come up on Woot from time to time. After the third time I saw 'em, I got a pair from Woot; arrived yesterday. I'm loading tunez on them now. I paid 11% what these cost, for half the storage space.

The Woot version doesn't have the big box on the ear pieces; from a distance, you can't really tell there's anything unusual about them, although I look like a Secret Service d00d with the earphones.

None of this should be taken to mean that I am NOT a dork, nor that these are not the dumbest thing I've ever bought.

I like 'em anyway. I think it's funny.

jIyajbe

MP3s for music? Bah! (1)

jemejones (935096) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149176)

It's all about podcasting, now. For me, anyway. Speaking of which, this might not be a terrible means of recording a podcast, particularly an interview with another person. TFA says that the recording quality is decent:
Once again, voice recording with the Dark Shadow glasses was a very pleasant surprise. When using the voice recording feature, the Dark Shadow glasses saves files in the WMA format at a bit rate of 32kpbs. Now obviously 32kpbs is not great for recording music or something that requires lots of detail, but for recording a conversation between two people the Dark Shadows did amazingly well, and from a larger distance than I thought they would. They picked up voices from across the room and played them back clearly without any more effort than pushing a couple of buttons.
Most podcast audio quality sucks, anyway, so this can't get much worse.

Sweet merciful jesus those are ugly (4, Insightful)

TomorrowPlusX (571956) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149187)

Do they expect me to *pay* for the luxury of wearing -- on my face no less -- something that looks like a Geigeresque metal-sheened plastic turd? I would be ashamed to leave the house wearing one of these. I might as well have a sign on my chest that says "Too much money, and no standards" And, to anybody who says these are for cyclists and such. Well. I'm a cyclist, I ride 50+ miles on weekends on a road bike, and I bike to work daily in downtown washington dc in rush-hour traffic. My iPod works *just* fine, and as a bonus, I still get to wear my real glasses, so I can see the taxis that want to annihilate me.

And In Other News (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149193)

Dayton, OH - Thomas P. Wetsalot has invented an MP3 condom, and hopes that by getting some Slashdot editor to do his advertising, he can rake in the dough.

"It's a remarkable device." Wetsalot said. "It has 128mb of RAM, and in comes in ordinary and French Tickler. We're hoping to have the self-lubing model ready for 2006, though we've had some troubles with electrocutions. Another big innovation will be the ability to download songs via our patented USB butt plug."

$20 sunglasses + $20 player != $400 status item (3, Insightful)

wsanders (114993) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149232)

I think mostly what us nerds object to is the conversion of two commodity "nerd tools" into an overpriced status item.

We want an Open Source sunglass+MP3 player!

Limited usefulness, but irreplaceable (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149250)

Most of the people here seem to have missed the point. This is not a product for you guys sitting in your mom's basement in the dark. This is for people who actually leave the house and do things called "activities".

Personally, I've been waiting on the Oakley Thump to come down in price to a level that didn't make me laugh. These may just be a good alternative.

What are they good for? well, bike riding, jogging, yard work...all of the things I like to have music for. I've developed a real distaste for having my earphones forcible jerked out of my head every few minutes since the cord has a magical property to entangle in things it had no reason to.

Are they ugly? Sure they are. Which of you was trying to make a fashion statement with your MP3 player in the first place?

Worst Idea (1)

NVP_Radical_Dreamer (925080) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149290)

Napoleon:
This is probably the worst idea ever

Kip:
Like anyone could ever know that...

What, no face? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149308)

A review of a pair of sunglasses, and not even one single picture that shows what they look like when worn by a person...?

Only on slashdot... are the reviewers a) to ugly to show themselves b) lacking good looking girlfriends to do the modeling for them...

mp3 sunglasses? next gen?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149309)

Obviously I'm not in the loop. I didn't know that there was an initial offering of mp3-enabled sunglasses.

Better idea:

mp3 enabled Beer Goggles

Or better still,

mp3 enabled beer helmet

who needs mp3 enabled sunglasses?

These communist marketeers (1)

Pac (9516) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149340)

one of the latest attempts to multitask common items, whether we want it or not.

I hate this New Order Globalized Communism we found ourselves into. I hate being forced to buy gadget upon gadget some marketing department idiot thought of, whether I want it or not. I miss the days where we could freely choose where and on what to spend our money

the truth of the matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14149387)

s/smooth/idiotic

bloody annoying (1)

DJCF (805487) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149390)

one of the latest attempts to multitask common items, whether we want it or not

Its not hard to understand that if you dont want it, dont buy it.

I for one certainly want one.

Sucker (1)

The_Rippa (181699) | more than 7 years ago | (#14149423)

"I am a sucker for any tool or gadget that tries to combine more than one use or function into a single item, but I also have learned from experience that many times such items fail to perform well at any of the tasks they were designed to do."

I'd say if you buy something like sunglasses with an mp3 player built in, you definitely are a sucker.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>