or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Microsoft to introduce Google Glass competitor in 2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Microsoft to introduce Google Glass competitor in 2014 - Page 2

post #41 of 67
Guys Microsoft had this augmented reality glasses idea before Google even announced this. They filed for the patent back in 2011 and that means the idea had to have come before then. This was clearly before Google told the press about their augmented reality glasses plan. Just look it up.
post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Well, you weren't wearing that PC, so the analogy sort of falls apart right there. It doesn't matter how "attractive" they make them, you'll still look like a dork, and you'll still have to wear them.

 

The analogy doesn't fall apart.  Products improve over time in ways we can't imagine because new technologies allow for new forms.  Whether or not you want to wear even an attractive set of computerized glasses is a different story, and you're very much entitled to never buy them (obviously!).

post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

 

The analogy doesn't fall apart.  Products improve over time in ways we can't imagine because new technologies allow for new forms.  Whether or not you want to wear even an attractive set of computerized glasses is a different story, and you're very much entitled to never buy them (obviously!).

 

Saying it doesn't doesn't change the fact that it's not a valid analogy. The situations have absolutely nothing in common -- i.e., they aren't analogous. 

post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...

What's acceptable and even desirable attire is constantly changing. I've no doubt every one of us has worn or carried something that at one time would have been totally out of the question.

...

Google Glass could become that next tech status symbol just as the iPad was. Who knows for certain yet. My personal guess is yes it will.

 

It's not a question of attire and/or fashion trends. Glasses are annoying to wear. They can cause pain or discomfort on the bridge of the nose and behind the ears. Try to put on or take off a sweater while wearing them, chances are they'll get caught. People who wear glasses are constantly having to take them off and put them back on for a variety of reasons. They're a pain in the ass.

 

My personal guess is that you and Sergey are deluded in your beliefs. Google Glass are the next Bluetooth headsets. A few people will get them, and walk around looking like dorks, and people will talk about how stupid they look. They'll be a few fights over people filming people who don't want to be filmed and they'll be banned in most places of business, including the workplace. And, in the long run, we'll see a lot fewer people wearing them than even Bluetooth headsets, because they look even dorkier, are less comfortable and convenient, and no one wants to be around you when you're wearing them.

post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Saying it doesn't doesn't change the fact that it's not a valid analogy. The situations have absolutely nothing in common -- i.e., they aren't analogous. 

From dictionary.com - a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Knowing that both computerized glasses and desktop computers are types of products in the category of consumer electronics, I can infer that a process of miniaturization of components over the course of decades, allowing one product in this category to evolve into new and unexpected forms, will continue to occur, allowing another product in this category to evolve into new and unexpected forms. Logic.
Edited by wakefinance - 4/5/13 at 11:08am
post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post


The ones that provide all servers that Apple uses.
iCloud is Microsoft Azure for example.

This is something Apple fans forget. Apple is certainly lagging behind the Samsung, LG and Sony smart TV.
post #47 of 67
Perhaps they can be purchased with prescription lenses.
post #48 of 67
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post
This is something Apple fans forget.

 

Maybe if you have to speak of us in the third person, you shouldn't be here.


 Apple is certainly lagging behind the Samsung, LG and Sony smart TV.

 

APPLE DOES NOT MAKE A TELEVISION SET. THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE "LAGGING". STOP THE FUD.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

These smart glasses are going to be so outlawed, banned in public places, while driving and at corporate offices, however they will have a very beneficial gene pool cleansing Darwin effect.

On what basis will they be banned in public places?  Are we going to ban cameras in public places.  If you think this through, you'll soon realize just how hard it would be to ban these devices.   Is there anything that stops me from recording others in a public place using my iPhone?  What's your rationale for distinguishing between Google Glass and an iPhone recording.

 

To be sure, a time will come when the public will put limitations on what people can do with their gadgets.  Just like schedule I drugs use to be legal and no longer are, someday there will be illegal activities with your phone or Google Glass.

 

I don't think there will be a ban on any of these devices because there are legitimate uses that don't infringe people's privacy.  If someone asked me how to do it, I would suggest that they ban using software that identifies people in the video and stores or transfers the video with the identifying information unless the person knows or consents. Obviously this has problems too, but I think it is a good start and has a much more realistic probability of occurring than a ban. 

post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

a couple of years after MS's offering, Apple will come in and 'invent' the wearable computing market.  Introducing the 'iGlass'

 

 

Apple announces they forked off a new version of OSX ... myOS, and it's UI totally controlled by monitoring neural commands by monitoring the bloodflow brainwaves of the temporal region, using technologies they developed from their Authentec purchase.   Liquid Metal is used to manufacture the computer into the frames and temples of the glasses, and a heat pump technology developed in Reno for their data center is shrunk down to power the units tapping power from the heat given off from the head.  Facetime is performed by a telescoping 12" arm with  micro mirror that auto projects when you wish to use the 'rear' camera  with image stabalization, and the ability to remove the glasses from the video stream.   The A10xxx chip, a 2nm etch, is an 8 core BAoC (BadAss on a Chip) that has the computational capacity of AWS in 2012, and it's electrical consumption is measure in nanoAmps.

 

Retails at $299 with the 16GB unit.  $429 for LTE enabled.  Ordered enabled Friday Morning, Shipping by end of month for  all anglo/latin derived languages.  Asian languages will ship 2 weeks after than, Cyrillic and Hebrew in 2 months.  a JiveTalking version will ship in 3 months.    the iGlass Mini will also ship at the same time for children under the age of 18, with parental controls built in 

 

Oh, and One More Thing...  

 

All iGlasses come with icloud enabled video capture on all the time.  As you walk, everything you see/hear/feel is recorded and uploaded to iCloud... no more taking class notes, scrambling for that camera app, no having a policeman 'creatively' distort your actions,  noforgetting what your wife said, what exactly that guys expression was when you first saw him... nothing.   And the cost... is Free for the first year, and $25/year after that for upto 4Petabytes of data, which we figure is 8 hours of capture a day.

 

 

Dvorak, Lyons, Ballmer, Zuckerburg, Sergey, Larry and CmdrTaco  all claim Apple's entry as 'lame', 'expensive toyware', 'immature' in the market, with a lack of lens colors, display sizes (what about old people...don't they need bigger screens)?, no support for flash, and mind controlled microsoft office, because we all know that people want to manipulate spreadsheets while they drive.

Nice post. LOL.

post #51 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I think these things are simply a geek toy and will die off as a novelty that is more of a distraction and a pain in the rear to deal with as you'll be taking them on/off all day long.

 

I wear prescription glasses and hate having to wear them, but i have to.  To put something else on in addition to prescription glasses is just STUPID.  I don't see how they will work in addition to prescription glasses, nor do I want to find out.

This is a tough call. It all depends on what uses people come up with.  For example there is some significant interest in the medical community to be able to access medical records through Google Glass.  Think about a physician in an operating room with her hands inside a patient and needs information.  The ability to get the information without touching a keyboard or scrubbing in again after leaving the room is a pretty compelling reason to use a dorky pair of glasses. 

 

I think Google Glass is one of those things that is too unpredictable to call its success or failure. Only time will tell. 

post #52 of 67
Watch for these things to show up in gyms, and locker rooms.
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

From dictionary.com - a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Knowing that both computerized glasses and desktop computers are types of products in the category of consumer electronics, I can infer that a process of miniaturization of components over the course of decades, allowing one product in this category to evolve into new and unexpected forms, will continue to occur, allowing another product in this category to evolve into new and unexpected forms. Logic.

Wishful thinking and superficial analysis is another way to describe it.

For an analogy to be useful, the two things need to be strongly similar in relevant features. Yours doesn't meet that standard. The similarities are shallow, and comparing a desktop computer to Glass is like comparing an oak tree to a crocus, they're both plants, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends.
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

These guys are set out to copy each other in the hopes they can get a first-foot in a new area. After they are done looking like idiots, Apple will come out with their own, entirely unique and useful version, the rest of the industry players will realize (yet again) that they have no clue, and will try to pull a Samsung and claim it was "natural progression" of tech.

Rinse and repeat.

That's exactly right. Apple is rarely first in a field, they are just *first to get it right,* and then everyone else changes what they were previously doing to copy Apple (e.g. MP3 players, mobile phones, tablets).

 

That is the difference between saying "People copy Apple," (what Apple fans think) and "Apple invented it." (what trolls think Apple fans think). When trolls say things like "Apple didn't invent multitouch," or "Apple didn't invent the mouse," they are totally missing the point.

post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


Wishful thinking and superficial analysis is another way to describe it.

For an analogy to be useful, the two things need to be strongly similar in relevant features. Yours doesn't meet that standard. The similarities are shallow, and comparing a desktop computer to Glass is like comparing an oak tree to a crocus, they're both plants, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends.

 



Good job arguing definitions instead of...the argument.

post #56 of 67

I think Google Glass is pretty lame as it is currently. But I'll admit that there's a nugget of potential if things can get 10x cheaper and 10x smaller and 10x more functional - which actually does tend to happen in consumer electronics. 

 

$1,500 to look like a cyborg and shout commands at your forehead is stupid. $150 for a pair of prescription/fashion glasses that are more or less indistinguishable from normal eyeglasses? Why not? See notifications, reminders, augmented reality directions and traffic (indoors too), info about things you're looking at, etc. 

 

I can very easily imagine a few years down the road. Put together Google Now (predictive information for your day), Glass (augmented reality), Maps (existing Maps + indoor directories), image recognition, and voice search, and it's pretty compelling - so long as the information is not overwhelming. It's at least as good as pulling a 4-inch glass slab out of your pocket, glancing down, and typing out every little thing.

post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Yamazaki View Post

Good job arguing definitions instead of...the argument.

 

There's really nothing left to argue. There is absolutely every reason to think that Glass type products will not be adopted by any significant number of consumers for general purpose use. There aren't any good arguments for why they will be.

 

On the other hand, bad analogies, and people who don't understand the difference between a good and bad analogy are a plague on rationality, so anything that can be done to change that is a public service.

post #58 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

These smart glasses are going to be so outlawed, banned in public places, while driving and at corporate offices, however they will have a very beneficial gene pool cleansing Darwin effect.

On what basis will they be banned in public places?  

For example: At some stores including the grocery store and gym I use have signs on the door notifying you that cameras are prohibited. Sure people bring in cell phones with camera, but you would be confronted by the store staff if you took out your cell phone and started filming. With Google glass they would not know if you were filming or not so they would probably ask you to remove them.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

This is a tough call. It all depends on what uses people come up with.  For example there is some significant interest in the medical community to be able to access medical records through Google Glass.  Think about a physician in an operating room with her hands inside a patient and needs information.  The ability to get the information without touching a keyboard or scrubbing in again after leaving the room is a pretty compelling reason to use a dorky pair of glasses. 

 

I think Google Glass is one of those things that is too unpredictable to call its success or failure. Only time will tell. 

 

They may well find certain niche uses, such as you describe. I'm not saying at all that they have no value for any application. What there won't be is general acceptance for "consumer" use.

post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

There's really nothing left to argue. There is absolutely every reason to think that Glass type products will not be adopted by any significant number of consumers for general purpose use. There aren't any good arguments for why they will be.

 

On the other hand, bad analogies, and people who don't understand the difference between a good and bad analogy are a plague on rationality, so anything that can be done to change that is a public service.

 

Exactly!  Do a public service and learn the difference.

post #61 of 67
Google glass emphasizes the real world by deprecating the device data to a small image for one eye. This is a plus for extreme sports, not general purpose computer use. Nothing wrong with this approach for that application, but.......

I'm certain Apple will enter this market with a more widely useful approach. It will be binocular, 3D, similar in appearance to narrow reading glasses. They probably won't be transparent because transparency involves the unacceptable trade-off of destroying contrast and color saturation with black an impossibility. A better approach is to use the stereo image from twin cameras and then simply overlay the digital on top of those images. No compromise needed. They would be opaque lenses which look like sunglasses from the outside.

The narrow shape allows them to be worn low on the nose such that your view of the world is the same as looking at the road through the windshield. A good name would be "iDash". It's you dashboard for the world. To maintain that this is unworkable is to concede that your car dashboard blocking the lower part of your field of view is unworkable, a plainly absurd claim.

Head tracking is not just for games. It enables a much larger digital space to work in. Turn your head slightly and pan and tilt a much larger screen space. This is as good in general use as it is for games.

The game industry technology will spin off to general computing. Education will evolve into an apprenticeship using simulation which is indistinguishable from games, the only difference being anchored in the real word, not just fantasy. For example, to train and test drivers run a simulation where if you don't look both ways at an intersection you get broadsided by a truck that ran the light and you appear in a hospital complete with a monumental bill or in the morgue. You really might learn about real world consequences resulting from carelessness. Instead we ask on the written test what the penalties are for a third DUI conviction, good to know maybe, but hardly relevant to the primary goal of actually demonstrating awareness and applied skill.

For me, such a platform, done right, would potentially replace my MP3 player, phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, home theater and game console. Only Apple have shown the courage to obsolete existing products. I almost don't care what the price is. After all, the above seven devices, each containing redundant CPU, memory, radios, display and sound, are far more expensive than such a device replacing them all.
post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post

Well where electronic clothes would be convenient: shoes, rumors of rings and watches, glasses and cap, what is the next pearsonel area targeted?

Porn companies will release smart underwear that works with their videos etc.

Only they won't work on iOS

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

It looks like Apple is lagging behind even Microsoft Glass.
Or apples in secret testing
post #64 of 67
Question - why no unicorns about Apple eye wear yet. The blogosphere is slipping cmon guys we need to hear more stupidity ----

or could it be Apple isn't doing it

hmmnn

oh yeah thats right the only reason Google wants it is to sell YOU aka "Google's product" to the evil advertisers who want all your private information

"DO NO EVIL - what a crock!" Remember you are NOT Google or Facebook's customer, you are their Product , the advertiser is the customer, Thats why you get NO support from Google or facebook - stupid
Edited by Paul94544 - 4/8/13 at 12:57pm
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

This is a tough call. It all depends on what uses people come up with.  For example there is some significant interest in the medical community to be able to access medical records through Google Glass.  Think about a physician in an operating room with her hands inside a patient and needs information.  The ability to get the information without touching a keyboard or scrubbing in again after leaving the room is a pretty compelling reason to use a dorky pair of glasses. 

 

I think Google Glass is one of those things that is too unpredictable to call its success or failure. Only time will tell. 

When I think of your example I think that a large television installed in the OR is a better solution so that everyone in the room can see the same thing. It also doesn't distractingly live in the corner of the visual field of the person who's wielding extremely sharp objects inside the body of another person.

post #66 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by admactanium View Post

When I think of your example I think that a large television installed in the OR is a better solution so that everyone in the room can see the same thing. It also doesn't distractingly live in the corner of the visual field of the person who's wielding extremely sharp objects inside the body of another person.

It isn't just the TV screen, it is the camera viewing the same field as the physician.  In fact, the installed TV screens will likely be used so that others can see what the physician is seeing. 

 

Like my post said, I don't believe we have enough information to make the call.  Only time will tell.

post #67 of 67

A developer announced today that he's found a way to send iOS notifications to Google Glass. Kinda cool, witha  video linked below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bHtzWC6IZkI

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Microsoft to introduce Google Glass competitor in 2014