I think Google Glass is pretty lame as it is currently. But I'll admit that there's a nugget of potential if things can get 10x cheaper and 10x smaller and 10x more functional - which actually does tend to happen in consumer electronics.
$1,500 to look like a cyborg and shout commands at your forehead is stupid. $150 for a pair of prescription/fashion glasses that are more or less indistinguishable from normal eyeglasses? Why not? See notifications, reminders, augmented reality directions and traffic (indoors too), info about things you're looking at, etc.
I can very easily imagine a few years down the road. Put together Google Now (predictive information for your day), Glass (augmented reality), Maps (existing Maps + indoor directories), image recognition, and voice search, and it's pretty compelling - so long as the information is not overwhelming. It's at least as good as pulling a 4-inch glass slab out of your pocket, glancing down, and typing out every little thing.
Good job arguing definitions instead of...the argument.
There's really nothing left to argue. There is absolutely every reason to think that Glass type products will not be adopted by any significant number of consumers for general purpose use. There aren't any good arguments for why they will be.
On the other hand, bad analogies, and people who don't understand the difference between a good and bad analogy are a plague on rationality, so anything that can be done to change that is a public service.
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?
For example: At some stores including the grocery store and gym I use have signs on the door notifying you that cameras are prohibited. Sure people bring in cell phones with camera, but you would be confronted by the store staff if you took out your cell phone and started filming. With Google glass they would not know if you were filming or not so they would probably ask you to remove them.
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.
They may well find certain niche uses, such as you describe. I'm not saying at all that they have no value for any application. What there won't be is general acceptance for "consumer" use.
There's really nothing left to argue. There is absolutely every reason to think that Glass type products will not be adopted by any significant number of consumers for general purpose use. There aren't any good arguments for why they will be.
On the other hand, bad analogies, and people who don't understand the difference between a good and bad analogy are a plague on rationality, so anything that can be done to change that is a public service.
Exactly! Do a public service and learn the difference.
Google glass emphasizes the real world by deprecating the device data to a small image for one eye. This is a plus for extreme sports, not general purpose computer use. Nothing wrong with this approach for that application, but.......
I'm certain Apple will enter this market with a more widely useful approach. It will be binocular, 3D, similar in appearance to narrow reading glasses. They probably won't be transparent because transparency involves the unacceptable trade-off of destroying contrast and color saturation with black an impossibility. A better approach is to use the stereo image from twin cameras and then simply overlay the digital on top of those images. No compromise needed. They would be opaque lenses which look like sunglasses from the outside.
The narrow shape allows them to be worn low on the nose such that your view of the world is the same as looking at the road through the windshield. A good name would be "iDash". It's you dashboard for the world. To maintain that this is unworkable is to concede that your car dashboard blocking the lower part of your field of view is unworkable, a plainly absurd claim.
Head tracking is not just for games. It enables a much larger digital space to work in. Turn your head slightly and pan and tilt a much larger screen space. This is as good in general use as it is for games.
The game industry technology will spin off to general computing. Education will evolve into an apprenticeship using simulation which is indistinguishable from games, the only difference being anchored in the real word, not just fantasy. For example, to train and test drivers run a simulation where if you don't look both ways at an intersection you get broadsided by a truck that ran the light and you appear in a hospital complete with a monumental bill or in the morgue. You really might learn about real world consequences resulting from carelessness. Instead we ask on the written test what the penalties are for a third DUI conviction, good to know maybe, but hardly relevant to the primary goal of actually demonstrating awareness and applied skill.
For me, such a platform, done right, would potentially replace my MP3 player, phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, home theater and game console. Only Apple have shown the courage to obsolete existing products. I almost don't care what the price is. After all, the above seven devices, each containing redundant CPU, memory, radios, display and sound, are far more expensive than such a device replacing them all.
Question - why no unicorns about Apple eye wear yet. The blogosphere is slipping cmon guys we need to hear more stupidity ----
or could it be Apple isn't doing it
hmmnn
oh yeah thats right the only reason Google wants it is to sell YOU aka "Google's product" to the evil advertisers who want all your private information
"DO NO EVIL - what a crock!" Remember you are NOT Google or Facebook's customer, you are their Product , the advertiser is the customer, Thats why you get NO support from Google or facebook - stupid
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.
When I think of your example I think that a large television installed in the OR is a better solution so that everyone in the room can see the same thing. It also doesn't distractingly live in the corner of the visual field of the person who's wielding extremely sharp objects inside the body of another person.
When I think of your example I think that a large television installed in the OR is a better solution so that everyone in the room can see the same thing. It also doesn't distractingly live in the corner of the visual field of the person who's wielding extremely sharp objects inside the body of another person.
It isn't just the TV screen, it is the camera viewing the same field as the physician. In fact, the installed TV screens will likely be used so that others can see what the physician is seeing.
Like my post said, I don't believe we have enough information to make the call. Only time will tell.
Comments
I think Google Glass is pretty lame as it is currently. But I'll admit that there's a nugget of potential if things can get 10x cheaper and 10x smaller and 10x more functional - which actually does tend to happen in consumer electronics.
$1,500 to look like a cyborg and shout commands at your forehead is stupid. $150 for a pair of prescription/fashion glasses that are more or less indistinguishable from normal eyeglasses? Why not? See notifications, reminders, augmented reality directions and traffic (indoors too), info about things you're looking at, etc.
I can very easily imagine a few years down the road. Put together Google Now (predictive information for your day), Glass (augmented reality), Maps (existing Maps + indoor directories), image recognition, and voice search, and it's pretty compelling - so long as the information is not overwhelming. It's at least as good as pulling a 4-inch glass slab out of your pocket, glancing down, and typing out every little thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Yamazaki
Good job arguing definitions instead of...the argument.
There's really nothing left to argue. There is absolutely every reason to think that Glass type products will not be adopted by any significant number of consumers for general purpose use. There aren't any good arguments for why they will be.
On the other hand, bad analogies, and people who don't understand the difference between a good and bad analogy are a plague on rationality, so anything that can be done to change that is a public service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
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?
For example: At some stores including the grocery store and gym I use have signs on the door notifying you that cameras are prohibited. Sure people bring in cell phones with camera, but you would be confronted by the store staff if you took out your cell phone and started filming. With Google glass they would not know if you were filming or not so they would probably ask you to remove them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
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.
They may well find certain niche uses, such as you describe. I'm not saying at all that they have no value for any application. What there won't be is general acceptance for "consumer" use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
There's really nothing left to argue. There is absolutely every reason to think that Glass type products will not be adopted by any significant number of consumers for general purpose use. There aren't any good arguments for why they will be.
On the other hand, bad analogies, and people who don't understand the difference between a good and bad analogy are a plague on rationality, so anything that can be done to change that is a public service.
Exactly! Do a public service and learn the difference.
I'm certain Apple will enter this market with a more widely useful approach. It will be binocular, 3D, similar in appearance to narrow reading glasses. They probably won't be transparent because transparency involves the unacceptable trade-off of destroying contrast and color saturation with black an impossibility. A better approach is to use the stereo image from twin cameras and then simply overlay the digital on top of those images. No compromise needed. They would be opaque lenses which look like sunglasses from the outside.
The narrow shape allows them to be worn low on the nose such that your view of the world is the same as looking at the road through the windshield. A good name would be "iDash". It's you dashboard for the world. To maintain that this is unworkable is to concede that your car dashboard blocking the lower part of your field of view is unworkable, a plainly absurd claim.
Head tracking is not just for games. It enables a much larger digital space to work in. Turn your head slightly and pan and tilt a much larger screen space. This is as good in general use as it is for games.
The game industry technology will spin off to general computing. Education will evolve into an apprenticeship using simulation which is indistinguishable from games, the only difference being anchored in the real word, not just fantasy. For example, to train and test drivers run a simulation where if you don't look both ways at an intersection you get broadsided by a truck that ran the light and you appear in a hospital complete with a monumental bill or in the morgue. You really might learn about real world consequences resulting from carelessness. Instead we ask on the written test what the penalties are for a third DUI conviction, good to know maybe, but hardly relevant to the primary goal of actually demonstrating awareness and applied skill.
For me, such a platform, done right, would potentially replace my MP3 player, phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, home theater and game console. Only Apple have shown the courage to obsolete existing products. I almost don't care what the price is. After all, the above seven devices, each containing redundant CPU, memory, radios, display and sound, are far more expensive than such a device replacing them all.
Porn companies will release smart underwear that works with their videos etc.
Only they won't work on iOS
or could it be Apple isn't doing it
hmmnn
oh yeah thats right the only reason Google wants it is to sell YOU aka "Google's product" to the evil advertisers who want all your private information
"DO NO EVIL - what a crock!" Remember you are NOT Google or Facebook's customer, you are their Product , the advertiser is the customer, Thats why you get NO support from Google or facebook - stupid
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
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.
When I think of your example I think that a large television installed in the OR is a better solution so that everyone in the room can see the same thing. It also doesn't distractingly live in the corner of the visual field of the person who's wielding extremely sharp objects inside the body of another person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by admactanium
When I think of your example I think that a large television installed in the OR is a better solution so that everyone in the room can see the same thing. It also doesn't distractingly live in the corner of the visual field of the person who's wielding extremely sharp objects inside the body of another person.
It isn't just the TV screen, it is the camera viewing the same field as the physician. In fact, the installed TV screens will likely be used so that others can see what the physician is seeing.
Like my post said, I don't believe we have enough information to make the call. Only time will tell.
A developer announced today that he's found a way to send iOS notifications to Google Glass. Kinda cool, witha video linked below.