Google confirms iPhone compatibility for Glass, but questions remain over notifications

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 70
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    I went to Google's SF Glass Foundry and got to use the device for two days. It most certainly isn't vaporware. 

    I cannot provide details as I am under NDA, but I can say this; it was awesome. I actually felt loss returning the device after two days, almost as I had lost one of my senses.  I cannot wait until I get my Explorer unit hopefully soon. :)

    It feels so pedestrian now to actually have to do the following with my cellphone:
    1) reach into my pocket
    2) pull out my phone
    3) turn on my phone
    4) unlock my phone
    5) look at the text/email/time/whatever
    6) turn off my phone
    7) put back in pocket
    ....vs just having to flick my eyes for half a second a bit up.


    Google is on to something here--- even if Glass is not the device for you, in the future a similar device will be. It's just too convenient.

    Thanks for the eyewitness report. As usual, best to keep an open mind till the thing is in hand, or on face.

    I initially thought it was a mistake to address one eye only, since we already have a problem socially with one-hemisphere dominance. I'm hoping Apple's approach will carry on what shows in their patents so far—full stereo vision, using both eyes.

    Can you tell us if it is switchable, I mean movable, from one eye to the other? Or do you only get either a left or a right eyed model, depending on your eye dominance?
  • Reply 42 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    Thanks for the eyewitness report. As usual, best to keep an open mind till the thing is in hand, or on face.



    I initially thought it was a mistake to address one eye only, since we already have a problem socially with one-hemisphere dominance. I'm hoping Apple's approach will carry on what shows in their patents so far—full stereo vision, using both eyes.



    Can you tell us if it is switchable, I mean movable, from one eye to the other? Or do you only get either a left or a right eyed model, depending on your eye dominance?


     


    I don't want to risk the NDA so I can't give details... I can say that I am left eye dominant and it was no problem and was still awesome. 

  • Reply 43 of 70
    jakebjakeb Posts: 559member
    $1400? Man, this thing really is a Segway for your face.
  • Reply 44 of 70
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Perhaps my post was too ambiguous, I mean tech as fashion, not as simply as assistance for the disabled. Note that hearing aids try always sought to be inconspicuous, not standout and say "Hey, look at me, I'm mostly deaf."

    1000

    Those are marketing shots. They're always more obvious than the shots suggest. And that doesn't go back further when those options simply weren't available. I suppose people have forgotten about that now.

    Also: headphones, earbuds. The knowledge of iPods spread in part because of their white earbuds. I think I see a sociological connection with headphones, earbuds and BT earpieces, it might be a level of distaste with the idea they're ignoring you.

    I went to Google's SF Glass Foundry and got to use the device for two days. It most certainly isn't vaporware. 

    I cannot provide details as I am under NDA, but I can say this; it was awesome. I actually felt loss returning the device after two days, almost as I had lost one of my senses.  I cannot wait until I get my Explorer unit hopefully soon. :)

    It feels so pedestrian now to actually have to do the following with my cellphone:
    1) reach into my pocket
    2) pull out my phone
    3) turn on my phone
    4) unlock my phone
    5) look at the text/email/time/whatever
    6) turn off my phone
    7) put back in pocket
    ....vs just having to flick my eyes for half a second a bit up.

    Google is on to something here--- even if Glass is not the device for you, in the future a similar device will be. It's just too convenient.

    I get the convenience, but $1400 convenient? I dunno. The cost will go down, but that'll be a few years.
  • Reply 45 of 70
    jeffdm wrote: »
    Those are marketing shots. They're always more obvious than the shots suggest. And that doesn't go back further when those options simply weren't available. I suppose people have forgotten about that now.

    Also: headphones, earbuds. The knowledge of iPods spread in part because of their white earbuds. I think I see a sociological connection with headphones, earbuds and BT earpieces, it might be a level of distaste with the idea they're ignoring you.

    1) Of course they've gotten smaller but they've never tried to be obvious to wit pass themselves off as fashion statements.

    2) When a coffee shop of some public place reading I will almost always where my headphones without playing anything. It helps drown out a little of the sound but my main goal to keep people from interrupting me. Unfortunately it simply doesn't work well enough that I've thought of replacing my in-ear phones with some massive headphones that cover up the entire ear.
  • Reply 46 of 70
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,400member
    I think it would be better as a contact lens type of device. Kind of like what they do to the 'protector' chick in that Canadian show continuum.less obtrusive.
  • Reply 47 of 70
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    entropys wrote: »
    I think it would be better as a contact lens type of device. Kind of like what they do to the 'protector' chick in that Canadian show continuum.less obtrusive.

    Sure. Something smaller, less obstructive and more natural looking is better butthetech to make that possible isn't close to being a reality.

    You also need to consider that when it is afeasible will it be necessary. Who knows, maybe by then nanobots will make itso we don't need manually pop something on our cornea.
  • Reply 48 of 70


    I've been long overdue for a new pair of glasses and if my insurance can pay for it, why not? image

  • Reply 50 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    A great deal of the functionality of the goofy glasses is the same functionality purported to be in Apple's upcoming goofy bracelet.  


     



     


    Purported, not verified.  Who knows what will be in this bracelet. If it even ever happens.

  • Reply 51 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


     


    I wonder if these devices, conspicuously in use as they must be, will be automatically banned in casinos, subways and other public places.



     


    I believe it was Apple that had a patent on tech to block cameras and even cell phones. For such places.


     


    And I can't help wondering if this kind of concern and possible lawsuits from it is part of why Google made the unit so ugly and obvious. No way not to know you might be filmed by the people wearing that nonsense

  • Reply 52 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    Waiting for Person of Interest episode where Harold hacks someones Google Glasses and use it to track him/her.



     


    Will that be before or after the episode where he has a custom pair built for John to watch video feeds etc.


     


    And reveals that he invented the whole thing, just like social media.


     


    for a view of our possible future check out the show Continuum. 

  • Reply 53 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    but I see people all the time distracted with their cell phones while driving cars which is really scary and these young people are growing up with this mindset.


     


    Is that a tech issue or a values one. People scoffed at the woman that gave her 13 year old an iPhone with a 20 point contract but it sounds like she's trying to raise a kid that won't be face in device all the time, among other issues.

  • Reply 54 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    . But don't put it right on my eyes. And don't put any information around the center of my field of view.


     


    Thats the part that bugs me. As I understand it they are projecting this information right into folks eyes. That's how they are keeping the info private. 


     


    And it bothers me that a tech company is allowed to do this. Call me paranoid but my eyes are my life and career and I do background checks on the doctors that RX my contacts. The notion of some tech company having the power to point anything into my eyes gives me shudders. I can't believe there isn't a way to use a lens that somehow obscures the image from the outside. So it's on the glasses not my eyeballs.

  • Reply 55 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jakeb View Post



    $1400? Man, this thing really is a Segway for your face.


     


    Yep which will hamper any kind of mass adoption.


     


    thîs could be a place where Apple under delivers and its the right way to go. Their glasses, watch etc could be dumb displays of a sort working only when paired to an iPhone, iPad or Touch. Display, Bluetooth earpieces (for stereo music playback) and camera with perhaps a Siri trigger on the side frame etc. but all real action is in the device. 


     


    This could allow them to make it cheaper than this Google Glass and thus encourage adoption by a greater mass. Then in a year or two they could develop the means to put more functionality in the 'fashion' devices. 

  • Reply 56 of 70
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,365member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


     


    Thats the part that bugs me. As I understand it they are projecting this information right into folks eyes. That's how they are keeping the info private. 


     


    And it bothers me that a tech company is allowed to do this. Call me paranoid but my eyes are my life and career and I do background checks on the doctors that RX my contacts. The notion of some tech company having the power to point anything into my eyes gives me shudders. I can't believe there isn't a way to use a lens that somehow obscures the image from the outside. So it's on the glasses not my eyeballs.



    If you take just a tiny bit of time to watch the Topolsky video at TheVerge you'll see you're mistaken. Images are not "projected right into folks eyes" so you can stop shuddering now.image


    http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/22/4013406/i-used-google-glass-its-the-future-with-monthly-updates

  • Reply 57 of 70
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member


    From the sounds of it, these are just BlueTooth headsets and since they aren't actual phones built in, they can't be traced. Which means, if you buy these and wear them in public places, expect someone to hit you over the head and steal them from you. I think there will be lots of people trying to steal these things since they are expensive geek toys. I'd stay away and not bring attention to oneself. Just a thought

  • Reply 58 of 70
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,365member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post


    From the sounds of it, these are just BlueTooth headsets and since they aren't actual phones built in, they can't be traced. Which means, if you buy these and wear them in public places, expect someone to hit you over the head and steal them from you. I think there will be lots of people trying to steal these things since they are expensive geek toys. I'd stay away and not bring attention to oneself. Just a though



    Stolen like Apple gear is stolen so don't take your iPad or MacBook out in public either? IMO you're over-thinking it.


     


    BTW, it's not just a Bluetooth headset. 


     


    " there’s WiFi and Bluetooth, along with GPS, but no cellular radio – but the familiar sensors are present, including a gyroscope and an accelerometer to keep track of where the wearer is facing and what angle their head is at.


    The eyepiece itself runs at 640 x 360 resolution and, when Glass is positioned on your face properly, floats discretely just above your line of vision; on the inner edge of the L-shaped housing there’s an infrared eye-tracking camera, while a bone conduction speaker is further back along. Glass is designed to get online either with its own WiFi connection, or to use Bluetooth and tether to your smartphone. That given, it’s pretty much platform agnostic for whatever device is used to get online: it doesn’t matter if you have a Galaxy S III in your pocket, or an iPhone, or a BlackBerry Z10, as long as they can be used as a modem."

  • Reply 59 of 70
    This reminds me of my daughter's favorite cartoon, Dragonball Z. The Saiyans wore scouters over one eye to provide read outs on power levels and such. Is this "prior art" I wonder?
  • Reply 60 of 70
    gtr wrote: »
    It'll be as compatible as Google Maps was before getting the heave-ho...

    ;)

    Yep just enough to say its compatible but will leave out the best features. I don't blame them though, it is their product.
Sign In or Register to comment.