macky the macky wrote: »
This is announced as if Google actually has a viable product rather then a new-smelling fart in the laboratory. More then likely this will amount to as much as the Microsoft Slate of the 1990s... a lot of smoke and mirrors before they get back to the Jet Pack and fitting an advertising display in the Nest Thermostat big enough to catch your attention from the adjoining room...
gatorguy wrote: »
Google has an incredible number of Macs, 43,000 of them give or take a few. I imagine that makes them one of Apple's larger customers and pretty darn Apple-friendly.
yojimbo007 wrote: »
Apple has been developing a similar technology for a long time ... Lets see whos implementation hits the market first?
That isn't not too uncommon. I use a MacBook Pro to do development across various platforms. Rather than trying to cobble together a Hackintosh to do iOS and OS X development, it is easier just to buy a say, a MacBook Pro or Mac Pro, and then dual-boot.
I think there's a legal advantage in disclosing your progress regularly. In doing so, you reduce the risk that someone else later patents something similar to what you are working on, claims novelty, and renders your efforts wasted.
I'm surprised Microsoft wouldn't be leading this technology with their Kinect success and all the hacks implemented with the technology. At any rate, I think it's silly to imagine that this will never get out of the lab. It's just a smaller Kinect, and smaller is one thing that technology does naturally. I'll bet that this capability will be commoditized in three years. Stereo vision technology has been used in robotics for years.
chipsy wrote: »
I personally highly doubt that Apple is developping a smartphone 3d mapping solution with their Primesense acquisition (which wasn't its primary function when Apple bought it). I expect Apple to release something more directly consumer oriented like that. F.e. improving the existing technology and integrating it in Apple TV.
philboogie wrote: »
But you can't take the Apple TV outside. So you mean something that I don't get.
chipsy wrote: »
It wouldn't be for mapping as in this case. But for interface navigation/gaming. Which was its primary function of Primesense when Apple bought it.
I see Apple further evolving those capabilities instead of trying to find a new function for it that isn't directly consumer oriented.
I propose that this technology would be very useful to the slew of robotic companies that Google just bought. Instead of having each of them develop, or license, a proprietary vision/3d mapping technology for navigation or object identification and location, they could just use or modify this product.
This would save a great deal of money, over the whole portfolio of companies, and also give them all an interoperability that could unify them.
I wonder what else they are working on or have that would apply generally to their robotic division. Cloud based computing would certainly apply.
bilbo63 wrote: »
Personally, I'm more interested in who does it best. I'd rather be best than first. – Just my two cents.
pepe779 wrote: »
And why do I fail to see the purpose of this "project"? Is it just me missing something here or is this just another google gimmick... Visually impaired people are an extremely specific market to develop for and augmented reality... seriously, come on google. So what else do they want to do with this - Kinect 3.0? I mean really, is google running out of ideas?
OK let me re-phrase my statements... The problem I have with this is that it is already presented in the media as some great piece of innovation, that is about to be released and thus it will leave too many people misled what this news really means. That's why I'm questioning the current value of this "project", because obviously the vast majority of people reading such news (and not only on Apple Insider) are end consumers, who want to know how will they benefit from this and if it's something that will become available in the market, what will be the price, etc. In other words - I think this news is presented to the wrong market and in a wrong way. If this is a technology that will basically only be the base for solutions used in very specific industries and will not become a mass-market product, then I don't know why I'm reading on so many sites that "Google is about to release a 3D tablet". Also, with all respect to google, they are chronically well known for abandoning their own ideas, no matter if we're talking about their countless work-in-progress ideas or the ones that actually became their products and were used by the public. So unless this actually transforms into something tangible, I take this news with a grain of salt.
I think they are missing the first point of product development. What is the problem that this addresses? If they aren't solving a current problem, then why are they developing it? Too be cool? Being cool doesn't solve a user problem. Is a 3D GUI better and easier to use than the current 2D GUI? I personally don't think it will be. I think there really isn't a use for it that the mainstream tablet users really need a 3D interface.
If some here had their way, we'd still be paying for maps and email capacity today.
Because hey, there's no way to monetize mapping, email, public video sharing right?
I love Apple's innovation. But thank Jesus/Allah/Buddah/flying spaghetti monster, that there's companies like Google out there who seek to push the boundaries of science and engineering and worry about the shareholders later.
Indeed, once upon a time, before the iPhone made Apple a superultramegacorp, its leadership and fans had the same mentality too. How unusual today to see fans worrying about Apple's stock price today rather than clamouring for raw innovation first.