The smartwatch is a lot better idea than this, whether it's Apple or Samsung that release it first. I think Glass will work in certain situations (like professional situations, might be useful for training...) but a lot of people won't want to have that thing pointing at them when they talk to someone, or they won't want to wear glasses or to see stuff in front of their eyes all the time, or they just won't want to look like idiots.
Glass is actually going backwards because it removes 'easy' touch controls and even with voice control, in some situations you want to be able to do everything easily with a touchscreen.
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.
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!).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Glass is actually going backwards because it removes 'easy' touch controls and even with voice control, in some situations you want to be able to do everything easily with a touchscreen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Remind me ... 'Microsoft ..?' I can't quite remember who or what they are ...
The ones that provide all servers that Apple uses.
iCloud is Microsoft Azure for example.
dp
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236
It looks like Apple is lagging behind even Microsoft Glass.
If Apple EVER releases something like Glass...
... I stop eating chocolate for a week.
Will Never Happen
Because
Glass Is Stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
...
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.
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.
This is something Apple fans forget. Apple is certainly lagging behind the Samsung, LG and Sony smart TV.
Originally Posted by peter236
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
Are you as dense as you're putting on?