I haven't used it personally, but in demos that I've seen, it looks like Google has done a lot of work on making an interface work in very limited space for Glass. I wouldn't be surprised to see them basically transfer that card interface straight to the watch.
I'm not attracted to the monocled eyepiece on Glass (why they can't be just called Google Glasses is beyond me), but I'd probably consider a pair if they had *two* lenses therefore looking like a pair of normal sunglasses. The whole Borg look will never catch on but a seemingly ordinary pair of sunglasses with the display on the inside just might.
I'm not attracted to the monocled eyepiece on Glass (why they can't be just called Google Glasses is beyond me), but I'd probably consider a pair if they had *two* lenses therefore looking like a pair of normal sunglasses. The whole Borg look will never catch on but a seemingly ordinary pair of sunglasses with the display on the inside just might.
Kinda like this but with the eyepiece behind the glasses?
Ha ha....well I suppose. However, the only way I'd be seen dead wearing a pair was if they looked 100% indistinguishable from a pair of regular sunglasses - pretty challenging technically I suppose. This pic is getting closer, but still looks like a half human, half cyborg attachment that only geeks would wear. And, even though I am a geek, I'd prefer if people didn't know that ;-)
Just looking at the quality of Googles' software initiatives I for one could never feel inclined to check out any of Googles' attempts at their HW efforts. Probably never will.
I think they are a tasteless company, with no respect to style, no wish for creating a coherence experience, or having their products work in congruence with one another for that matter.
Google. All the money in the world couldn't ever buy them class. It's just not in their DNA.
I agree but but I think world domination is ... I worry one day, one of the Boston Dynamics' Googled robots will grab us by the neck and says in a cold, hard voice "You will be assimilated ..."
Google's Android lead, Sundar Pichai, announced at SXSW that they'll be releasing an SDK specifically for wearables in the next two weeks, Certainly possible that like in the smartphone space Google will pretty much leave it up to others to build'em and be the OS behind 'em. That's what I personally expect will happen. Google will collaborate with one of the manufacturers on a Nexus-like introduction wearable then pretty much stay on the sidelines as far as hardware itself.
Google's Android lead, Sundar Pichai, announced at SXSW that they'll be releasing an SDK specifically for wearables in the next two weeks, Certainly possible that like in the smartphone space Google will pretty much leave it up to others to build'em and be the OS behind 'em. That's what I personally expect will happen. Google will collaborate with one of the manufacturers on a Nexus-like introduction wearable then pretty much stay on the sidelines as far as hardware itself.
I hope Apple is filing for and buying up patents on wearable computing devices, if for no other reason than to take the wind out of Google's sails.
I would expect they are simply because wearables are going to be a massive and long market, but I can't get behind Apple (or anyone) using patents to stop others from innovating. I expect major patent reform within a few years that will put an end to these patent trolls.
I would expect they are simply because wearables are going to be a massive and long market, but I can't get behind Apple (or anyone) using patents to stop others from innovating. I expect major patent reform within a few years that will put an end to these patent trolls.
There is nothing wrong with inventing things with the sole purpose of licensing the IP or laying out a path for your own company for future products. Surely no one thinks that every patent Apple, Microsoft, IBM or Google owns is guaranteed to be useful.
There is nothing wrong with inventing things with the sole purpose of licensing the IP or laying out a path for your own company for future products.
I'm not sure I can give a blanket agree to your first point but I agree with the second if the intent is for your own company's future products. With the former, that would also include patent trolls; companies whose entire foundation is to buy up patents with no intention of creating products, and then sue everyone they think might be uses those patents. I find this practice — which we've seen applied toward independent developers for using SDK-provided in-app purchases — to be unethical.
I'm not I can give a blanket agree to your first point but I agree with the second if the intent is for your own company's future products. With the former, that would also include patent trolls; companies whose entire foundation is to buy up patents with no intention of creating products, and then sue everyone they think might be uses those patents. I find this practice — which we've seen applied toward independent developers for using SDK-provided in-app purchases — to be unethical.
I tend to agree that if a company or individual were to acquire IP solely to hold something over another company, that would not be something I would be interested in doing, HOWEVER that is not illegal. A property owner may exert their property rights as they see fit. If they are not engaged in blackmail or extortion, or some similar obviously illegal activity, they are free to exploit their IP to recoup their costs and make a profit.
I tend to agree that if a company or individual were to acquire IP solely to hold something over another company, that would not be something I would be interested in doing, HOWEVER that is not illegal. A property owner may exert their property rights as they see fit. If they are not engaged in blackmail or extortion, or some similar obviously illegal activity, they are free to exploit their IP to recoup their costs and make a profit.
No, it's not illegal but it's not right. It's exploiting a loophole in the patent system, a system that was designed to protect the little guy with a good idea. This is why I think it'll be changed within a few years.
No, it's not illegal but it's not right. It's exploiting a loophole in the patent system, a system that was designed to protect the little guy with a good idea. This is why I think it'll be changed within a few years.
Boy, I hope not. IMO, the patent system is fine. It's the hue and cry of opposing corporations with money and political connections making the "problem" seem bigger and worse than it is. As some stories have pointed out, there were similar complaints that made headlines in patent history. This usually comes in waves as new, disruptive inventions are brought to market, upsetting established players and sometimes there are seismic shifts and companies end up going out of business. That's to be expected. The patent system works and I distrust the short-term, re-election oriented concerns of politicians over the more reliable record of the USPTO and the courts. It's not perfect, but more meddling by the horrendous gang of imbeciles in Washington is not preferable.
No, it's not illegal but it's not right. It's exploiting a loophole in the patent system, a system that was designed to protect the little guy with a good idea. This is why I think it'll be changed within a few years.
Boy, I hope not. IMO, the patent system is fine. It's the hue and cry of opposing corporations with money and political connections making the "problem" seem bigger and worse than it is. As some stories have pointed out, there were similar complaints that made headlines in patent history. This usually comes in waves as new, disruptive inventions are brought to market, upsetting established players and sometimes there are seismic shifts and companies end up going out of business. That's to be expected. The patent system works.
Now look what you've done: you're going to have [@]SolipsismX[/@] break his 'two posts per thread on weekdays' rule!
Now look what you've done: you're going to have [@]SolipsismX[/@] break his 'two posts per thread on weekdays' rule!
Any posts by Soli are a worthwhile read and I consider him a good friend even though we've never met. He is completely honorable. I would never consider a discussion with him an argument.
Any posts by Soli are a worthwhile read and I consider him a good friend even though we've never met. He is completely honorable. I would never consider a discussion with him an argument.
I fully concur. A discussion is exactly that and never an argument. Doesn't matter if he has a different view or opinion; the great thing about him is that he wants to be accurate, and doest want simply to be right.
What if the best use of a smart watch is serving as a personal assistant that screens your calls, messages and delivers personal alerts based on time of day & your needs?
Sort of like what Siri & Google Now are trying to do on smartphones - but more alerting / less searching.
If that happens, then would Google get the upper hand over Apple?
I ask this because Google also owns a little thing called a 'search engine' that I hear makes decent coin selling text alerts they call, "ads".
"Roger, that Spiced Pumpkin Latte you liked last year is available again at Starbucks. You're only a block away - should I order one for you?"
In other words, Google might be in a better position to cash-in on wearable computing.
Comments
Kinda like this but with the eyepiece behind the glasses?
Ha ha....well I suppose. However, the only way I'd be seen dead wearing a pair was if they looked 100% indistinguishable from a pair of regular sunglasses - pretty challenging technically I suppose. This pic is getting closer, but still looks like a half human, half cyborg attachment that only geeks would wear. And, even though I am a geek, I'd prefer if people didn't know that ;-)
Here are some with a hidden camera in them (just that; not anything else), which is basically all that Google Glass means to Google.
I agree but but I think world domination is ... I worry one day, one of the Boston Dynamics' Googled robots will grab us by the neck and says in a cold, hard voice "You will be assimilated ..."
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/127772-google-releasing-android-sdk-tailored-for-smartwatches-other-wearables
I hope Apple is filing for and buying up patents on wearable computing devices, if for no other reason than to take the wind out of Google's sails.
I would expect they are simply because wearables are going to be a massive and long market, but I can't get behind Apple (or anyone) using patents to stop others from innovating. I expect major patent reform within a few years that will put an end to these patent trolls.
There is nothing wrong with inventing things with the sole purpose of licensing the IP or laying out a path for your own company for future products. Surely no one thinks that every patent Apple, Microsoft, IBM or Google owns is guaranteed to be useful.
I'm not sure I can give a blanket agree to your first point but I agree with the second if the intent is for your own company's future products. With the former, that would also include patent trolls; companies whose entire foundation is to buy up patents with no intention of creating products, and then sue everyone they think might be uses those patents. I find this practice — which we've seen applied toward independent developers for using SDK-provided in-app purchases — to be unethical.
I tend to agree that if a company or individual were to acquire IP solely to hold something over another company, that would not be something I would be interested in doing, HOWEVER that is not illegal. A property owner may exert their property rights as they see fit. If they are not engaged in blackmail or extortion, or some similar obviously illegal activity, they are free to exploit their IP to recoup their costs and make a profit.
No, it's not illegal but it's not right. It's exploiting a loophole in the patent system, a system that was designed to protect the little guy with a good idea. This is why I think it'll be changed within a few years.
Boy, I hope not. IMO, the patent system is fine. It's the hue and cry of opposing corporations with money and political connections making the "problem" seem bigger and worse than it is. As some stories have pointed out, there were similar complaints that made headlines in patent history. This usually comes in waves as new, disruptive inventions are brought to market, upsetting established players and sometimes there are seismic shifts and companies end up going out of business. That's to be expected. The patent system works and I distrust the short-term, re-election oriented concerns of politicians over the more reliable record of the USPTO and the courts. It's not perfect, but more meddling by the horrendous gang of imbeciles in Washington is not preferable.
Now look what you've done: you're going to have [@]SolipsismX[/@] break his 'two posts per thread on weekdays' rule!
Any posts by Soli are a worthwhile read and I consider him a good friend even though we've never met. He is completely honorable. I would never consider a discussion with him an argument.
I fully concur. A discussion is exactly that and never an argument. Doesn't matter if he has a different view or opinion; the great thing about him is that he wants to be accurate, and doest want simply to be right.
As to the topic at hand, I would really like to read upon the technical feasibility of display sizes and its relation to iOS. The http://www.silisoftware.com/tools/screen.php?utm_campaign=website&utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email is a great tool, but there's much more to it than just this.
Just thinking out loud....
What if the best use of a smart watch is serving as a personal assistant that screens your calls, messages and delivers personal alerts based on time of day & your needs?
Sort of like what Siri & Google Now are trying to do on smartphones - but more alerting / less searching.
If that happens, then would Google get the upper hand over Apple?
I ask this because Google also owns a little thing called a 'search engine' that I hear makes decent coin selling text alerts they call, "ads".
"Roger, that Spiced Pumpkin Latte you liked last year is available again at Starbucks. You're only a block away - should I order one for you?"
In other words, Google might be in a better position to cash-in on wearable computing.
Or not.
Health monitoring seems like the hottest-selling wearable category today, and Apple seems headed in that direction for the first iWatch.
Will be fun to see how this sorts out.