A gentleman posted a video a few years ago on "wearable technology." He was using existing equipment. He had it in a glasses type display. If you looked at something, say writing, it would automatically offer to find more information out for you. Same for a UPS code. I believe it was also an "always on" camera and video recorder. The video may have looped after a certain amount of time. It did look like it had potential for new applications.
Ok, it also has to do with what you are used to. And what you gain by wearing them.
Glasses are nice to wear when you can't see well without them. They will be nice to wear when you get an immersive 3D view of someplace you've never been to.
Of course you will not wear them all the time. You don't want to be doing a lot of things all the time either, but you'd better do them at least sometime during your life. Or your day.
I'm not really saying you OUGHT to want to wear glasses, I'm saying you WILL want to. Or, in other words, knee-jerk resistence against glasses is irrational, like being anti-headphones.
Telling Apple to stop development of their stereo eyeglasses . . . the very idea . . .
It's not that glasses are nice to wear when you can't see without them, it's that they are necessary. They still suck, a point that the popularity of contacts (including multifocal contacts) and lasik surgery attest to. People, even those with poor eyesight, don't usually want to wear glasses, they wear them because they have to. And not only are they a pain to wear, they are a pain to carry around (e.g., reading glasses), so much so that many people don't carry them around, even when they need to.
And, just how often are people going to need, "an immersive 3D view of someplace," they've not been to? Not very often. Not often enough that they are going to carry around, or even buy, some special glasses to do that. Not wanting to carry around or wear something that's uncomfortable and gets in your way isn't, "knee-jerk resistance," it's human nature. Glasses are an idea that is DOA.
Seriously, it would be crazy for me to say that everybody will be wearing their phone or pod screens, but I would say that stereo glasses will have about the same level of adoption, maybe a bit more, as ear buds.
Wired ear buds are an enormous hassle compared to glasses, but they are worth it because you can handle your calls better, to say nothing about listening to music.
Different people have different tolerances for accessories and tools. I do know people who can't keep track of their glasses, or they abuse them terribly, scratching the lenses, snagging the temples, etc. But count the number of people you see wearing glasses and sunglasses and maybe earbuds during a day. Then we'll talk about glasses being an idea that is DOA.
As for wanting to virtually visit a place in 3D where you've never been before, I imagine there will be an endless appetite for that. But I'm only imagining, something I am prone to do.
Seriously, it would be crazy for me to say that everybody will be wearing their phone or pod screens, but I would say that stereo glasses will have about the same level of adoption, maybe a bit more, as ear buds.
Apple's version of a Glass project would seem more appropriate to movie watching IMO. Their patent describes beaming the images directly to both eyes, replacing what you would naturally see with a completely different or at a least minimally augmented view. Seems more problematic and potentially dangerous for walking or travel, but certainly good for watching media.
Oh boy the Smart watch, why does people want to where there devices especially sinse IOS is taking watches off the market. This would be harder to control(one hand) give people the creeps looking at you (sticking your wrist to your ear like it is a phone) not to mention smaller screen or harder to move do to a 4 inch watch.
Oh boy the Smart watch, why does people want to where there devices especially sinse IOS is taking watches off the market. This would be harder to control(one hand) give people the creeps looking at you (sticking your wrist to your ear like it is a phone) not to mention smaller screen or harder to move do to a 4 inch watch.
Not to mention more but can someone show me a bonus that makes since on it.
Oh boy the Smart watch, why does people want to where there devices especially sinse IOS is taking watches off the market. This would be harder to control(one hand) give people the creeps looking at you (sticking your wrist to your ear like it is a phone) not to mention smaller screen or harder to move do to a 4 inch watch.
Not to mention more but can someone show me a bonus that makes since on it.
I don't see this "wearable" stuff catching on, particularly not glasses, except with hardcore nerd-geeks. Maybe we'll see phones being replaced or augmented by "combadges" (although, we already have this with bluetooth headsets), but, we'll still carry around computers in our pockets. Most people just don't want to wear gadgets. And, even though I've joked about Dick Tracy watches, I don't think they'll become all the rage.
Just pointing out, but this was EXACTLY what was said about tablets about 10-15 years ago when the XP Tablet edition slates were on or coming on the market.
Then came the iPad. And even while the iPad was in development and just a rumor, people were saying, "Oh, nobody wants to carry around a tablet, that will never catch on."
Oh boy the Smart watch, why does people want to where there devices especially sinse IOS is taking watches off the market. This would be harder to control(one hand) give people the creeps looking at you (sticking your wrist to your ear like it is a phone) not to mention smaller screen or harder to move do to a 4 inch watch.
Cell phones have had a clock on them since they launched, and I, like many, many others, still wear a watch. It's more convenient to glance at your wrist than pull out your phone. It's also easier and less noticeable to do so in a social or business meeting.
As for harder to control, you already control your cell phone with one hand most of the time (the exceptions being typing and some games). Usually you hold the phone with one hand and control with the other.
People would not put the watch up to their ear, either. They would either pair a bluetooth receiver or use speakerphone.
Finally, take a look at flexible LCD technology that's on the verge of a widespread launch. Now pair that with a wide wristband and you have a device approximately the same width as a men's wristwatch at its widest with the same screen real estate as an iPhone 5 with no restriction on movement.
Just pointing out, but this was EXACTLY what was said about tablets about 10-15 years ago when the XP Tablet edition slates were on or coming on the market.
Then came the iPad. And even while the iPad was in development and just a rumor, people were saying, "Oh, nobody wants to carry around a tablet, that will never catch on."
Well, since you don't usually attach tablets to your face, I don't think you can really assert that it's at all analogous. But, applying your logic, we should assume that anything "people" (which I guess means "anyone" in this context) say won't catch on will? As far as I can tell, that's your entire argument.
Besides, I don't recall anyone saying that tablets will never catch on. The way I remember it was that everyone was waiting eagerly for a tablet they'd want to use. You know, one that wasn't a Microsoft desktop OS shoved onto a tablet. Just pointing out that revisionist history doesn't lend credibility to a bad argument.
Apple's version of a Glass project would seem more appropriate to movie watching IMO. Their patent describes beaming the images directly to both eyes, replacing what you would naturally see with a completely different or at a least minimally augmented view. Seems more problematic and potentially dangerous for walking or travel, but certainly good for watching media.
And, in that sense, strictly as an entertainment device used in the home, glasses, or something like them, may gain some currency. But, as devices people wear around while navigating the world, while it's a nerd-geek's wet dream, it's never going to be widely adopted.
Well, since you don't usually attach tablets to your face, I don't think you can really assert that it's at all analogous. But, applying your logic, we should assume that anything "people" (which I guess means "anyone" in this context) say won't catch on will? As far as I can tell, that's your entire argument.
Besides, I don't recall anyone saying that tablets will never catch on. The way I remember it was that everyone was waiting eagerly for a tablet they'd want to use. You know, one that wasn't a Microsoft desktop OS shoved onto a tablet. Just pointing out that revisionist history doesn't lend credibility to a bad argument.
"Attaching to your face" is irrelevant. There are more and better locations for wearable tech, not to mention people ALREADY use bluetooth headsets which are exactly the same amount of attachment.
But no, what I'm saying is dismissiveness is pointless. You have no basis to say it won't catch on, less even than the ones who said tablets won't (Of which there were plenty, regardless of your convenient memory lapse).
And did you ever use XP Tablet? No, wait, I can answer that for you. No, you didn't. Because it was not just a desktop OS shoved onto a tablet, it was excellent. I still have my XP tablet and nothing currently on the market can run a full feature tablet as well. But a lot of that is because Apple decided not to include a pen or, more importantly, an active digitizer.
And all of this is secondary to the fact that if Apple puts it out, people will buy it. Look at the iPad mini, for god's sake. That thing is a train wreck, but people still buy them.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
Do we even have a reliable heart rate monitor that works with iPhone yet (Bluetooth 4.0)?
http://www.amazon.com/Wahoo-Fitness-Heart-Strap-iPhone/dp/B006NZH0TU
http://www.amazon.com/60beat-BLUE-Heart-Monitor-iPhone/dp/B0096DM3ES/ref=pd_sbs_sg_4
I think the Nike Fuel is pretty neat but it's not a heart rate monitor...not sure you can reliably from that kind of loose, comfortable, wrist device.
A gentleman posted a video a few years ago on "wearable technology." He was using existing equipment. He had it in a glasses type display. If you looked at something, say writing, it would automatically offer to find more information out for you. Same for a UPS code. I believe it was also an "always on" camera and video recorder. The video may have looped after a certain amount of time. It did look like it had potential for new applications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Ok, it also has to do with what you are used to. And what you gain by wearing them.
Glasses are nice to wear when you can't see well without them. They will be nice to wear when you get an immersive 3D view of someplace you've never been to.
Of course you will not wear them all the time. You don't want to be doing a lot of things all the time either, but you'd better do them at least sometime during your life. Or your day.
I'm not really saying you OUGHT to want to wear glasses, I'm saying you WILL want to. Or, in other words, knee-jerk resistence against glasses is irrational, like being anti-headphones.
Telling Apple to stop development of their stereo eyeglasses . . . the very idea . . .
It's not that glasses are nice to wear when you can't see without them, it's that they are necessary. They still suck, a point that the popularity of contacts (including multifocal contacts) and lasik surgery attest to. People, even those with poor eyesight, don't usually want to wear glasses, they wear them because they have to. And not only are they a pain to wear, they are a pain to carry around (e.g., reading glasses), so much so that many people don't carry them around, even when they need to.
And, just how often are people going to need, "an immersive 3D view of someplace," they've not been to? Not very often. Not often enough that they are going to carry around, or even buy, some special glasses to do that. Not wanting to carry around or wear something that's uncomfortable and gets in your way isn't, "knee-jerk resistance," it's human nature. Glasses are an idea that is DOA.
Seriously, it would be crazy for me to say that everybody will be wearing their phone or pod screens, but I would say that stereo glasses will have about the same level of adoption, maybe a bit more, as ear buds.
Wired ear buds are an enormous hassle compared to glasses, but they are worth it because you can handle your calls better, to say nothing about listening to music.
Different people have different tolerances for accessories and tools. I do know people who can't keep track of their glasses, or they abuse them terribly, scratching the lenses, snagging the temples, etc. But count the number of people you see wearing glasses and sunglasses and maybe earbuds during a day. Then we'll talk about glasses being an idea that is DOA.
As for wanting to virtually visit a place in 3D where you've never been before, I imagine there will be an endless appetite for that. But I'm only imagining, something I am prone to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Resistance is futile. ...
There won't be any need for resistance, there simply won't be any adoption, it's DOA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Resistance is futile.
Seriously, it would be crazy for me to say that everybody will be wearing their phone or pod screens, but I would say that stereo glasses will have about the same level of adoption, maybe a bit more, as ear buds.
Apple's version of a Glass project would seem more appropriate to movie watching IMO. Their patent describes beaming the images directly to both eyes, replacing what you would naturally see with a completely different or at a least minimally augmented view. Seems more problematic and potentially dangerous for walking or travel, but certainly good for watching media.
Originally Posted by Stourque
I'm waiting for a shoe phone.
I actually have one. No idea where it is; probably the attic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
I don't see this "wearable" stuff catching on, particularly not glasses, except with hardcore nerd-geeks. Maybe we'll see phones being replaced or augmented by "combadges" (although, we already have this with bluetooth headsets), but, we'll still carry around computers in our pockets. Most people just don't want to wear gadgets. And, even though I've joked about Dick Tracy watches, I don't think they'll become all the rage.
Just pointing out, but this was EXACTLY what was said about tablets about 10-15 years ago when the XP Tablet edition slates were on or coming on the market.
Then came the iPad. And even while the iPad was in development and just a rumor, people were saying, "Oh, nobody wants to carry around a tablet, that will never catch on."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah
Oh boy the Smart watch, why does people want to where there devices especially sinse IOS is taking watches off the market. This would be harder to control(one hand) give people the creeps looking at you (sticking your wrist to your ear like it is a phone) not to mention smaller screen or harder to move do to a 4 inch watch.
Cell phones have had a clock on them since they launched, and I, like many, many others, still wear a watch. It's more convenient to glance at your wrist than pull out your phone. It's also easier and less noticeable to do so in a social or business meeting.
As for harder to control, you already control your cell phone with one hand most of the time (the exceptions being typing and some games). Usually you hold the phone with one hand and control with the other.
People would not put the watch up to their ear, either. They would either pair a bluetooth receiver or use speakerphone.
Finally, take a look at flexible LCD technology that's on the verge of a widespread launch. Now pair that with a wide wristband and you have a device approximately the same width as a men's wristwatch at its widest with the same screen real estate as an iPhone 5 with no restriction on movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jai151
Just pointing out, but this was EXACTLY what was said about tablets about 10-15 years ago when the XP Tablet edition slates were on or coming on the market.
Then came the iPad. And even while the iPad was in development and just a rumor, people were saying, "Oh, nobody wants to carry around a tablet, that will never catch on."
Well, since you don't usually attach tablets to your face, I don't think you can really assert that it's at all analogous. But, applying your logic, we should assume that anything "people" (which I guess means "anyone" in this context) say won't catch on will? As far as I can tell, that's your entire argument.
Besides, I don't recall anyone saying that tablets will never catch on. The way I remember it was that everyone was waiting eagerly for a tablet they'd want to use. You know, one that wasn't a Microsoft desktop OS shoved onto a tablet. Just pointing out that revisionist history doesn't lend credibility to a bad argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple's version of a Glass project would seem more appropriate to movie watching IMO. Their patent describes beaming the images directly to both eyes, replacing what you would naturally see with a completely different or at a least minimally augmented view. Seems more problematic and potentially dangerous for walking or travel, but certainly good for watching media.
And, in that sense, strictly as an entertainment device used in the home, glasses, or something like them, may gain some currency. But, as devices people wear around while navigating the world, while it's a nerd-geek's wet dream, it's never going to be widely adopted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, since you don't usually attach tablets to your face, I don't think you can really assert that it's at all analogous. But, applying your logic, we should assume that anything "people" (which I guess means "anyone" in this context) say won't catch on will? As far as I can tell, that's your entire argument.
Besides, I don't recall anyone saying that tablets will never catch on. The way I remember it was that everyone was waiting eagerly for a tablet they'd want to use. You know, one that wasn't a Microsoft desktop OS shoved onto a tablet. Just pointing out that revisionist history doesn't lend credibility to a bad argument.
"Attaching to your face" is irrelevant. There are more and better locations for wearable tech, not to mention people ALREADY use bluetooth headsets which are exactly the same amount of attachment.
But no, what I'm saying is dismissiveness is pointless. You have no basis to say it won't catch on, less even than the ones who said tablets won't (Of which there were plenty, regardless of your convenient memory lapse).
And did you ever use XP Tablet? No, wait, I can answer that for you. No, you didn't. Because it was not just a desktop OS shoved onto a tablet, it was excellent. I still have my XP tablet and nothing currently on the market can run a full feature tablet as well. But a lot of that is because Apple decided not to include a pen or, more importantly, an active digitizer.
And all of this is secondary to the fact that if Apple puts it out, people will buy it. Look at the iPad mini, for god's sake. That thing is a train wreck, but people still buy them.
Originally Posted by jai151
Look at the iPad mini, for god's sake. That thing is a train wreck, but people still buy them.
Given your context, I'd like to ask your reason for thinking this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Given your context, I'd like to ask your reason for thinking this.
Awkward size, old technology, and tepid to negative reviews.
Originally Posted by jai151
Awkward size, old technology, and tepid to negative reviews.
Haven't seen the latter, myself. And I don't think the use of an A5 is a point against it, but that's me.