Slashdot Mirror

Isn't there a better product that already does all of this without requiring a link through Google's servers? Amusingly, an Android device available at the Apple Store?

http://www.oakley.com/airwave

As far as I can tell, the Oakley HUD is a pretty good example of what companies should be doing with these head mounted computers (in spite of a fairly niche market). Glass is both too limited and too ambitious.

I want a version that can clip to an Oakley Medusa helmet (http://ca.oakley.com/products/2034/5519.

Yet, there is no way to have changing, polarized lenses (right now).

Although this won't help inside a car (as the windshield blocks UV), Transitions lenses can be polarized. As an alternative, they also offer Drivewear lenses that are polarized and respond to both visible light (less darking) and UV light (more darking). These are also available from Oakley.

Even people with greasy figers will be able to not worry about leaving marks on touch screens. Oakley has created a hydrophobic coating that could be used in cases like this to reduce the amount of skin oil and other fluids that the average slashdotter might accidently squirt on to the screen. Its not perfect yet but I can see this getting better and better as more and more touchscreens are introduced more money will be poured into developing solutions like this.

Oakley's got you covered - RAZRWIRE (what a catchy name, BTW, even if it has nothing to do with glasses or bluetooth) - check http://oakley.com/o/o2261d

Next you're going to tell me 'I was talking about _prescription_ eyeglasses'. So, trendy enuf to go Bluetooth, but not to go Lasik? Like, 'modern nerd'? Let me share a little secret with you - no Bluetooth headset is going to help you get a date with that cute redhead from Accounting, no matter how cool, if you don't drop first those 2-inch deep glasses ;)

If the Oakley Thump can make regular sunglasses look like a medical device for an unfortunate ear disease with the addition of earbuds and some flash memory, then we're a long ways off before somebody makes video glasses that don't look stupid. I mean, that shit still looks dumb in 2360 (wow I didn't even know geocities was still around. gg yahoo) The video glasses could be very cool for things like integrated HUD overlays while driving, but that won't really be needed until we have flying cars. I'd rock these ugly-ass glasses while I cruised by in a flying car. Have we learned nothing from href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096874/">Back to the Future II? Man, if the government only stop suppressing all the free-energy technology...

"its on a pair of sunglasses - ok its great for outdoors when its sunny, but if you either wear glasses, or spend a good deal of time indoors, or out at night, you can't really use them"

I first saw these in Vegas playing Poker at the Bellagio. These are an awesome idea for card players, although the 6 hour battery life won't survive any of my typical playing sessions. For those of you who don't play poker, Texas Hold'em is a lot like Sid Mier's Civilization...it's easy to sit there and say I just want to play 3 more turns and then find yourself saying the same thing 4 hours later.

Oakley has their own answer to this.

Oakley Thumps here.

didn't they have headphones awhile back that would work by sending vibrations directly to the head? I remember them being marketed for swimmers, I think. That would have been a much better use of the wraparound sunglasses - I wouldn't want to have to put things over AND in my ears, I want one or the other.

Oakley recently unveiled a new product, the Razrwire, that is derivative of their thump glasses. These feature a bluetooth earpiece that can integrate with a bluetooth phone. Hopefully they're more comfortable than I've heard the thumps are.

Oakley has a pair of sunglasses that include an MP3 player. Here is a link for some reviews. The prices are somewhat high (at least to me), here is the link for the two different versions (128/256 $395/$495).

Oakley has a pair of sunglasses that include an MP3 player. Here is a link for some reviews. The prices are somewhat high (at least to me), here is the link for the two different versions (128/256 $395/$495).

well there's always the oakley thump sunglasses - not so helpful in the dark, but certainly more practical than the hack. Pity about the capacity of course ;-)

Oh yeah baby, that's Stylish with a BIG S.

Take a gander here at the mp3 version. Don't be fooled by the photography, these babies are BULBOUS! I think they're going for the cyborg look.

All I know for sure is that when I say them in compusa I just couldn't stop laughing.

I can't imagine using those things snowboarding. They look like they'd fly off with one quick turn of the head. I like lightweight and simple glasses for boarding. They WILL come off your face, unless of course, you are much better than me and NEVER find yourself yardsailing down the slope. Did I mention that they look like shit.

You forgot sunglasses that play MP3's, my personal nominee for the most overhyped and ridiculous "convergence" of 2003.

Check out the teeth on the guys in the pictures on the Oakley site.

Are bad (metal filled) teeth in fashion these days?

Those things are silly.
What if you want to listen to MP3s when it's dark out?

Never mind that, what the hell is wrong with that guy's TEETH?!?

Doug

1. What if you want to listen to MP3s when it's dark out?

You flip the lenses up.

Though it is a neat idea, I don't see the point. The average user is probably not going to use the Linux functionality, and thus probably won't pay the extra money for it. The form factor of the player is neat, though. But not as neat as Oakley's new glasses. http://www.oakley.com/catalog/eyewear/thump/

Apparently, not.

The section titled "Online Music Stores" (http://oakley.com/catalog/eyewear/thump/music/) indicates that Apple's iTunes with its ACC 128 kbps format is "n/a (iPod only)."

Oh well...

Oakley is for people with some sense of style.

Welcome to Slashdot, Mr Jannard!

Luckily those hideous lumps of plastic that you're flogging as "sunglasses" are so prohibitively expensive, that even if I would be subjected to severe neurological trauma and would lose all sense of style and proportion, I would probably still be able to avoid your products. Thank you, Oakley! ;)

400 dollars is 100% higher than the average pair of Oakley sunglasses. Even a sweet pair of polarized polaroid lenses only costs around 300. Here is what they're selling and for how much.

It DOES have an mp3 player attached. $400-$500 is reasonable for top of the line sunglasses with a mp3 player incorporated.

I myself am waiting until I can get shades with infrared and lidar, wireless internet, mp3s, ambient audio amplification, and a smartgun link. That's just me.

On the other hands Oakley are more and more worn by people who want to look cool and hip, and need quite a bit help with that image.

This impression people have of Oakley really bothers me, because they clearly market themselves to lots of different kids of people. Yeah, they do make lots of strange looking stuff, but their prescription glasses are very understated, with very subtle branding. Same goes for their wire line, which are only flashy if you want them to be.

I won't argue, though, that the right pair of Oakleys do look cool. However, the weight, the lenses, and the durability make them really cool.

On the other hands Oakley are more and more worn by people who want to look cool and hip, and need quite a bit help with that image.

This impression people have of Oakley really bothers me, because they clearly market themselves to lots of different kids of people. Yeah, they do make lots of strange looking stuff, but their prescription glasses are very understated, with very subtle branding. Same goes for their wire line, which are only flashy if you want them to be.

I won't argue, though, that the right pair of Oakleys do look cool. However, the weight, the lenses, and the durability make them really cool.

On the other hands Oakley are more and more worn by people who want to look cool and hip, and need quite a bit help with that image.

This impression people have of Oakley really bothers me, because they clearly market themselves to lots of different kids of people. Yeah, they do make lots of strange looking stuff, but their prescription glasses are very understated, with very subtle branding. Same goes for their wire line, which are only flashy if you want them to be.

I won't argue, though, that the right pair of Oakleys do look cool. However, the weight, the lenses, and the durability make them really cool.

On the other hands Oakley are more and more worn by people who want to look cool and hip, and need quite a bit help with that image.

This impression people have of Oakley really bothers me, because they clearly market themselves to lots of different kids of people. Yeah, they do make lots of strange looking stuff, but their prescription glasses are very understated, with very subtle branding. Same goes for their wire line, which are only flashy if you want them to be.

I won't argue, though, that the right pair of Oakleys do look cool. However, the weight, the lenses, and the durability make them really cool.

I would highly recommend their Wire line, particularly the Square Wire 2.0. They're not at all flashy like most of Oakley's stuff, but they still benefit from excellent lenses, durability, and barely noticeable weight. You could buy a really cheap pair, but the same sort of argument as Apple vs. Dell applies here.

Of course, if you're one to lose glasses frequently, maybe they're not worth it. I tend to take care of mine just cos I know I dropped a fair chunk of change on them. Still, I just recently lost my second pair in five years. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that they have since really improved the hinge design without changing the price. So there ya go... upgrades.

I would highly recommend their Wire line, particularly the Square Wire 2.0. They're not at all flashy like most of Oakley's stuff, but they still benefit from excellent lenses, durability, and barely noticeable weight. You could buy a really cheap pair, but the same sort of argument as Apple vs. Dell applies here.

Of course, if you're one to lose glasses frequently, maybe they're not worth it. I tend to take care of mine just cos I know I dropped a fair chunk of change on them. Still, I just recently lost my second pair in five years. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that they have since really improved the hinge design without changing the price. So there ya go... upgrades.

Oakley knows who they're marketing to. And a bunch of clean-cut models wearing clothes from the Gap isn't how they sell their products.


Do they sell their products by torturing people?

There are independent tests that have verified that the optics are superior in Oakley sunglasses which is quite remarkable for using such a large wrap. A quick compairson is located HERE and the full test results can be downloaded (PDF) HERE. Private Pilot is the independent testing company.

There are independent tests that have verified that the optics are superior in Oakley sunglasses which is quite remarkable for using such a large wrap. A quick compairson is located HERE and the full test results can be downloaded (PDF) HERE. Private Pilot is the independent testing company.

One of these might help too...

One of these might help too...

Lance wears Oakley Zeros during racing/training.

(awesome time trial shot eh?)

"Am I the only one that finds this insanely awesome?"

Sure not; I, too, find this girl insanely awesome.

I think anyone would understand that a word isn't able to stop UV rays.
br>Here's some reading on the tests Oakley does on their eyewear:

http://oakley.com/technology/impact_protection/
http://oakley.com/technology/lens_clarity/

You can read more on their site.

Care to post the standards the EU requires on their £2.99 pairs?

By the way, could you please point out which pair of Oakleys cost (£2.99 + £295 =) £297.99 or $537.75? I couldn't find them...

I think anyone would understand that a word isn't able to stop UV rays.
br>Here's some reading on the tests Oakley does on their eyewear:

http://oakley.com/technology/impact_protection/
http://oakley.com/technology/lens_clarity/

You can read more on their site.

Care to post the standards the EU requires on their £2.99 pairs?

By the way, could you please point out which pair of Oakleys cost (£2.99 + £295 =) £297.99 or $537.75? I couldn't find them...

Notice how both guys in the pictures have false teeth? Maybe they got their heads kicked in for wearing rather geeky mp3 players.

Notice how both guys in the pictures have false teeth? Maybe they got their heads kicked in for wearing rather geeky mp3 players.

Yeah, ask Oakley Sunglasses. They seem to have discovered it...

Only $395 for the 128mb version and $495 for the 256 version. I still think the combination of an iPod with a pair of Oakleys is cooler, and less expensive...

Usually, they have it in a contract. For example, bicycle shops (I've worked in them 3 of the past 4 years) often have a contractual clause with the manufacturer/distributor (not always the same company) prohibiting them from selling the bikes on the Internet. For bikes, the reasons are obvious -- 1.) they come unassembled and require someone that actually knows what they're doing to put them together, and 2.) bike fit is extremely important (there's more to it than standover height, but that's an explanation for another time).

Why Games Workshit, er, Workshop, is doing this is beyond me -- it's downright stupid, because more channels = more sales.

I guess I can see the point, though...in retail most items are marked up XX% over wholesale prices, and wholesale price is a YY% mark-up over the manufacturing costs. GW probably figures that for Internet sales, they can just mark their product up to retail cost for consumers and get XX% + YY%.

Incidentally, it's not illegal to fix prices on an item if it's in the initial contract written between the company and the retailer -- Oakley has done it for 20 years. You can't sell Oakley products above or below a certain price...if you're caught, the contract is voided and you won't be selling Oakley stuff anytime in the near future.

This is just GW being a bunch of tight-fisted buttheads. I'm sure the gaming industry has probably been shrinking for the past ten years, thanks to the huge increase in video game sales, and certain publishers are probably looking for any methodology they can to increase revenues...

Now don't get me wrong, I like the goggles, but will the make a cyborg variety?

Cell phones that look like phones, and take pictures. Digital camera's that
look like camera's, and record mp3's, and internet terminals that look like a
small appliance.

I want all 3 combined in a pair of some cool looking
Oakley sunglasses so I can get the
cool terminator overlay of my slashdot while I
take naked pictures of
Natilie
Portman listening to

they might be giants.

Check out these Oakley sunglasses with titanium frames - not cheap by any means, but very, very sexy!

Why can't Oakley make a decent "cool" wearable set that hides the wires or is wireless, light, and provides basic text or vector graphics? That would be pretty sweet. The problem will all those wearables is you look like a goddamn freak with them on, unless you're a doctor in a hospital or something. If oakley or another sunglass manufacturer could get in the game, you'd have something that was a hell of a lot more trendy.

This also begs the question, is there any kind of standard protocols for head mounted displays? I don't imagine so, but it would be nifty if something could be established to provide a wireless link to the device you're using for a data source (be it a palmpilot, wearable, or even a cell phone). For the first generation of true wearables, I'd be happy just to see a good-looking, extrememly light product that did extremely crisp text display and maybe primitive vector graphics. I could use something like that for all sorts of memos and related information, not to mention it would make a great display for driving - speed, et al - and racing, too.

Too much emphasis on fancy right now.. take a lesson from the Palm; Start simple, and do it well.