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

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Reports on Friday confirmed that Google's forthcoming wearable computing device, Google Glass, will to some extent be compatible with Apple's iPhone, but the degree of interoperability between the two devices remains a mystery.

Google Glass
Google Glass. | Source: Google


Earlier on Friday, The Verge's Joshua Topolsky posted a first-person account of his experience trying out Google's face-mounted device. In it, Topolsky described the device's connectivity options as such:
The device gets data through Wi-Fi on its own, or it can tether via Bluetooth to an Android device or iPhone and use its 3G or 4G data while out and about. There?s no cellular radio in Glass, but it does have a GPS chip.
The manner in which Glass connects to a mobile device may determine a good deal of its functionality, especially given the tasks Google has shown the device performing. Demo videos for Glass show users snapping pictures, recording videos, and sending and receiving texts messages.

For Android devices, where Google controls the platform and will likely build in compatibility, this is no problem. For Apple's iPhone, though, Google could run into issues with APIs. iOS has APIs to allow devices ? such as the Pebble and Metawatch smartwatches ? to display text messages and iMessages from an iPhone. Those devices, though, skirt the issue by having their own custom-built apps running on the iPhone, limiting systems-level access.



Speaking to Glass's interoperability with the iPhone, a Google representative told AppleInsider that the device has its own Wi-Fi, has no cellular radio, has a GPS chip, and can tether via Bluetooth to an Android or iPhone device to access data: the same details reported by Topolsky.

Asked if this meant that Glass would have its own dedicated app on either platform or if Android would benefit from added functionality not available to iPhone users, we were told that the company had "no further details to share right now."

It seems unlikely that Google would limit Glass' capabilities on a rival platform, given the company's willingness to bring its services to Apple's iOS. Still, questions remain regarding just how much Glass will be able to do and how it will manage to do so. Google will likely reveal more about the device in the lead up to this year's Google I/O, given the device is expected to launch later this year for around $1,400.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 70
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    It'll be as compatible as Google Maps was before getting the heave-ho...

    ;)
  • Reply 2 of 70
    Hmm, that video looked totally shyte, but yet I think they are onto something.
  • Reply 3 of 70
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    It's only fair they do this. Why should Android users be the only ones that get to look like complete pricks?
  • Reply 4 of 70


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    It's only fair they do this. Why should Android users be the only ones that get to look like complete pricks?


     


    We need a chart or something to define the status of the person based on the technology they're wearing.


     


    If Bluetooth headsets make people look like 'douchebags' and glasses make them look like 'complete pricks', how must the full VR headsets of the early '90s make people appear?  image


     


    What about those mini-headsets that fit right in the ear? Just tiny bags? And the tooth-installed ones must be something entirely different.


     


    What about watches? Has there been enough gap between always wearing one and not needing to wear one for the concept of wearing one to warrant a negative name?



    I'd sort of like a small clock right in my wrist that only tells time. In my wrist. As in "changes the pigment of the skin cells to show numbers". As long as it doesn't mess with my arm hair, that'd be cool. I could get it in Palatino font!

  • Reply 5 of 70
    Much as I love apple gear, I really don't see myself wearing either and iWatch or Glass ... far too intrusive and geeky. But then, I still think people look daft, like they're talking to themselves, when using bt headsets. Maybe geeky really is the new cool.
  • Reply 6 of 70
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    It's only fair they do this. Why should Android users be the only ones that get to look like complete pricks?


     


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


    (asking for directions, setting memo's, commanding the phone to do something etc.)


     


    Personally, I'd rather talk into my sleeve like a fake Secret Service Agent than talk to thin air, so Apple's vapourware wins over Google's vapourware for me.  


     


    Also, I find it interesting that all the videos show you what the world looks like when you are wearing the glasses, but not many show how absolutely stupid the person looks walking down the street rolling their eyes back, and to the right all the time, and talking to themselves.  


     


    The only person I saw wear these in real life looked like a complete goon.  

  • Reply 7 of 70
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    We need a chart or something to define the status of the person based on the technology they're wearing.

    If Bluetooth headsets make people look like 'douchebags' and glasses make them look like 'complete pricks', how must the full VR headsets of the early '90s make people appear?  :lol:

    What about those mini-headsets that fit right in the ear? Just tiny bags? And the tooth-installed ones must be something entirely different.

    What about watches? Has there been enough gap between always wearing one and not needing to wear one for the concept of wearing one to warrant a negative name?


    I'd sort of like a small clock right in my wrist that only tells time. In my wrist. As in "changes the pigment of the skin cells to show numbers". As long as it doesn't mess with my arm hair, that'd be cool. I could get it in Palatino font!

    I think watches and eyeglasses are common enough that they can not cause the doucheometer to red line but it has to fit the style and culture and not be over the top. Google Glass simply don't try to blend in with standard eyewear in any way. I think it's in the vein as having cuckoo clock on your wrist.

    1000


    Now BT headsets as small, simple and useful as they are will always look a bit douchie because they exist in a space where no other tech had existed before, unlike the eyeglass and watch. Perhaps when they can be small enough to be further inside or behind the ear that it's not meant to resemble a fashionable Borg attachment it won't have that stigma any longer.
  • Reply 8 of 70
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    Also, I find it interesting that all the videos show you what the world looks like when you are wearing the glasses, but not many show how absolutely stupid the person looks walking down the street rolling their eyes back, and to the right all the time, and talking to themselves.

    It does seem like it answers the question no one asked: "What could possibly make me look like more of a prick than holding my Galaxy Note to my ear?"


    PS: @Gatorguy, I kid! :D
  • Reply 9 of 70


    Not that long ago, nerds were defined as those who wore calculators on their belts (or wrists). Pagers came to identify doctors as much as stethoscopes. Then carrying a brick as a cell phone became the status symbol of the mid 80s. The belt returned to prominence when Blackberry emerged as iconic. When iPods became popular, however, it was the white earbuds rather than the device that represented the conspicuous symbol. Nowadays, with many smartphones designed after the iPhone, it is not always immediately obvious whether someone is an iFanboy or Fandroid, particularly since the device stays in your pocket more than half the time.


     


    Google Glass and the iWatch will represent a return to conspicuous consumerism. When either is in use, it won't hidden in the pocket or purse. It will be wrapped around your face, slapped on wrist. Others will wonder if you are recording them in photograph or video (or about to zap them as Cyclops the X-man might). 


     


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

  • Reply 10 of 70
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    It's only fair they do this. Why should Android users be the only ones that get to look like complete pricks?

    Hey, I resemble that remark.
  • Reply 11 of 70
    Huh. When I put on Google Glasses, I get "Directive 4: (Classified)" in my display. That's not evil, right?
  • Reply 12 of 70
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post  


     


    Also, I find it interesting that all the videos show you what the world looks like when you are wearing the glasses, but not many show how absolutely stupid the person looks walking down the street rolling their eyes back, and to the right all the time, and talking to themselves.  


     



    I still get caught off guard when someone is in the grocery store and starts talking as if they are talking to me but actually they are on their phone with BT headset. I also find it absolutely rude when people are talking on their phone while the coffee clerk is trying to take their order and people are waiting in line behind them as they say something like "just a second" and hold up their finger as if to say wait to the clerk.

  • Reply 13 of 70
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Now BT headsets as small, simple and useful as they are will always look a bit douchie because they exist in a space where no other tech had existed before, unlike the eyeglass and watch.

    False. Hearing aids.

    Not that long ago, nerds were defined as those who wore calculators on their belts (or wrists). Pagers came to identify doctors as much as stethoscopes. Then carrying a brick as a cell phone became the status symbol of the mid 80s. The belt returned to prominence when Blackberry emerged as iconic. When iPods became popular, however, it was the white earbuds rather than the device that represented the conspicuous symbol. Nowadays, with many smartphones designed after the iPhone, it is not always immediately obvious whether someone is an iFanboy or Fandroid, particularly since the device stays in your pocket more than half the time.

    But when it is not in a pocket, a lot of iPhone cases go out of their way to keep the Apple logo visible.

    Google Glass and the iWatch will represent a return to conspicuous consumerism.

    It could, but we don't know if Glass will be accepted as-is, and "iWatch" may be a real project, but it's unconfirmed as a product. I don't think they're as obvious as a tablet though.
  • Reply 14 of 70
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    I still get caught off guard when someone is in the grocery store and starts talking as if they are talking to me but actually they are on their phone with BT headset.

    Maybe a free BT headset program for the schizophrenic will help make them seem less crazy when they to themselves. An esteem builder.
  • Reply 15 of 70
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jeffdm wrote: »
    False. Hearing aids.

    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


    Before glasses gets mentioned as aiding people not that I said simply as. Needing glasses has never really had the same stigma. Sure, as a child you can be mocked and called four-eyes but as an adult wearing corrective lenses can help you be viewed in a positive manner, but in relation to your intellect, maturity and attractiveness. Finally, there are sunglasses which are very common for all ages that serve both a practical and superficial purpose that don't appear to have a negative connotation among any age, except perhaps with a brand or style.
  • Reply 16 of 70
    It's all bs.

    I wish tech sites would make a distinction between products ready for primetime and lab experiments.
  • Reply 17 of 70
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,364member


    Soli, I'd be willing to betcha there will be more stylish frames and options by the time Google Glass hits the consumer market as early as the end of this year. I've seen a couple of different articles about eyewear design partners coming on board with them.

  • Reply 18 of 70
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    It does seem like it answers the question no one asked: "What could possibly make me look like more of a prick than holding my Galaxy Note to my ear?"


    PS: @Gatorguy, I kid! :D

    At least glasses can be designed to look less prickish.
  • Reply 19 of 70
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    Before glasses gets mentioned as aiding people not that I said simply as. Needing glasses has never really had the same stigma. Sure, as a child you can be mocked and called four-eyes but as an adult wearing corrective lenses can help you be viewed in a positive manner, but in relation to your intellect, maturity and attractiveness. Finally, there are sunglasses which are very common for all ages that serve both a practical and superficial purpose that don't appear to have a negative connotation among any age, except perhaps with a brand or style.


     


    I started wearing glasses, reluctantly, about 10 years ago as my once perfect vision started to go fuzzy. Now I have prescription sunglasses for driving which are focused on long distance, clear distance glasses for driving at night, regular glasses for walking around, regular sunglasses for walking around and computer glasses that are focused at the exact distance of my monitor at work. That's a lot to manage. One of my friends keeps recommending contacts but I just don't like the thought of sticking something in my eye, besides he has on more than a couple occasions developed an infection from not replacing his contacts often enough or something like that.


     


    Anyway, long story longer, I can't see how Google Glass can accommodate people who actually wear corrective lens even if all they have is a pair of clear and a pair of sunglasses. This seems like a product for people who have perfect vision, or wear contacts, but even so they seem to be incompatible with sunglasses so at the very least you are going to need two pairs of Google Glass at $1400 each unless they make them with some sort of interchangeable lenses.

  • Reply 20 of 70


    Personally, I'm bothered by Google Glasses just because of the terrifying new world it purports to bring.


     


    I don't want to see a generation raised on having an HUD on their faces 24/7. I don't want to see more morons causing accidents and killing people because they're looking at their HUDs instead of where they're going. I wouldn't be bothered by it except that the idiots killing themselves off also kill off intelligent people who can't get out of their way. If these things have GPS in them, they'd really ought to shut off and be wholly inoperable above speeds greater than 15MPH. 

Sign In or Register to comment.