I actually saw a guy walking down the street wearing Google Glass the other day. I felt embarrassed for him. It just seemed so wrong. But then I had to wonder... will this feel common and ordinary in a decade or two?
Konica Minolta actually applied for a patent on an implementation that actually is somewhat similar to Google Glass IMO, and predating Tony Fadell's submissions. I believe Apple references them as a matter of fact.
Interesting stuff, particularly another Apple patent submission in 2012 for a concept device along the same lines as Google Glass but trying to claim a priority date for Fadell's old 2006 patent app. Hmmmm. . .
Not quite sure what you're implying here.
The filing date for the first patent (US8212859) is October 13, 2006
The second patent has a priority date of October 13, 2006.
So what's wrong with setting the priority date of the second patent to the filing date of the first?
right, just like they did not once think that there was a need for a 7 inch tablet, or a phone with a 4inch and larger screen, or a phone with a stylus like the Note... Oh wait, they actually popular now.
But hey, lets all wait for the Candy color iPhone and iOS - now we talking!
The dumbing down of Apple by iOS (and the people it brought with it into the community) is just mind bending.
The filing date for the first patent (US8212859) is October 13, 2006
The second patent has a priority date of October 13, 2006.
So what's wrong with setting the priority date of the second patent to the filing date of the first?
An individual can stake a claim to an earlier priority date for another of their own previous patent apps if that's what you're asking. It's only a filers statement not a legal conclusion.
Of course they didnt release it, they were too busy deciding on colors for the new phones. Cook is a joke, so now what? A refreshed Mac and iPad sometime in the next couple months and see you in the Fall of 2014?
I actually saw a guy walking down the street wearing Google Glass the other day. I felt embarrassed for him. It just seemed so wrong. But then I had to wonder... will this feel common and ordinary in a decade or two?
You're correct when you say "it just seemed so wrong."
Google Glass uses one eye only. It is a fiendishly asymmetric deployment of "eyewear." Like an eyepatch, it takes over the face for others looking at you. Others can't help it because we are all wired for two-eyed symmetry between ourselves and others, from birth, at the most basic neurological level.
Wiring at this most basic level is being flaunted, characteristically, by the schizoid left-brainers at Google.
AI is badly misinterpreting what Fadell is saying. He was talking about a two-eyed "visor" (bad choice of word there, Tony) that you wore sitting still, not out in the world like an "augmented reality" heads-up display. A wearable video screen or screens (for stereo 3D) is what Apple has been working on. They have two-lensed eyewear patents, which Gatorguy has obscured, also characteristically, with his usual diversionaries.
Fadell does not say anything like it wasn't worth it. He says they didn't have time, and there were other things to be focusing on, like iPhones and iPads. Apple was a small and strained company then, and I think they still are now. I personally think they are still going to do something in this area. They'd be crazy not to. But it won't be anything like the crime against nature that is Google Glass.
"It's easier to say Yes and throw a beta tag on it, then it is to say No and not have a we're-first product to brag about." - excerpt from The Google Way, a fictitious book by Sir Gay Bryn
Comments
Yeah, much better to work on iPhone 4 v4.0 (aka iPhone 5S) than something new.
Not an Apple hater... just want a darn 5" iPhone... dang it!
... And frustrated.
No need to be frustrated.There are HUGE possibilities out there.
Unless you have someting against Android.
I actually saw a guy walking down the street wearing Google Glass the other day. I felt embarrassed for him. It just seemed so wrong. But then I had to wonder... will this feel common and ordinary in a decade or two?
I'll be surprised if Apple didn't submit a patent application for any of them. I wonder if Geordi Laforge is listed anywhere.
And here ya go. (Can't do this with a Bing search
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2008046075A9
https://www.google.com/patents/US8212859
Konica Minolta actually applied for a patent on an implementation that actually is somewhat similar to Google Glass IMO, and predating Tony Fadell's submissions. I believe Apple references them as a matter of fact.
https://www.google.com/patents/US20060120247
Interesting stuff, particularly another Apple patent submission in 2012 for a concept device along the same lines as Google Glass but trying to claim a priority date for Fadell's old 2006 patent app. Hmmmm. . .
Not quite sure what you're implying here.
The filing date for the first patent (US8212859) is October 13, 2006
The second patent has a priority date of October 13, 2006.
So what's wrong with setting the priority date of the second patent to the filing date of the first?
right, just like they did not once think that there was a need for a 7 inch tablet, or a phone with a 4inch and larger screen, or a phone with a stylus like the Note... Oh wait, they actually popular now.
But hey, lets all wait for the Candy color iPhone and iOS - now we talking!
The dumbing down of Apple by iOS (and the people it brought with it into the community) is just mind bending.
The dumbing down of Apple by iOS (and the people it brought with it into the community) is just mind bending.
Shut up and go away.
Actually, Apple made two prototypes.
The Consumer verson:
"iEye"
...and the Military version:
"iEye Captain"
What? Apple didn't see the value in making people look like morons walking around with shit stuck to their face? Say it isn't so.
You mean morons like this?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
You mean morons like this?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Take the hand away; what happens?
You mean morons like this?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
So, a Google boss said a moronic thing and you fall for it?
Do not forget, you need at least one of your hands to put that thing on your face. Does that action makes you a moron?
AH!
An individual can stake a claim to an earlier priority date for another of their own previous patent apps if that's what you're asking. It's only a filers statement not a legal conclusion.
Now you hush.
Who knows about now
You're correct when you say "it just seemed so wrong."
Google Glass uses one eye only. It is a fiendishly asymmetric deployment of "eyewear." Like an eyepatch, it takes over the face for others looking at you. Others can't help it because we are all wired for two-eyed symmetry between ourselves and others, from birth, at the most basic neurological level.
Wiring at this most basic level is being flaunted, characteristically, by the schizoid left-brainers at Google.
AI is badly misinterpreting what Fadell is saying. He was talking about a two-eyed "visor" (bad choice of word there, Tony) that you wore sitting still, not out in the world like an "augmented reality" heads-up display. A wearable video screen or screens (for stereo 3D) is what Apple has been working on. They have two-lensed eyewear patents, which Gatorguy has obscured, also characteristically, with his usual diversionaries.
Fadell does not say anything like it wasn't worth it. He says they didn't have time, and there were other things to be focusing on, like iPhones and iPads. Apple was a small and strained company then, and I think they still are now. I personally think they are still going to do something in this area. They'd be crazy not to. But it won't be anything like the crime against nature that is Google Glass.
And you're not?
And this is Apple's strength; they're proud ogf the products they didn't release.
Xerox is proud of the products they didn't release, too. But they are not proud of the fact that they didn't release them.
Then you're holding it wrong ¡
Good one!