'EyeBud' for the iPod Video

We are the Borg by TheSpoom · 2006-01-02 10:31 · Score: 4, Funny

This would be great if they had a red laser on the other side of the screen.

Course, I'd worry about putting it on the wrong way round.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs

Re:We are the Borg by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 16:27 · Score: 0

In Japan, EyeBud's are inly used by old people.
Re:We are the Borg by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-03 07:12 · Score: 0

Way to fuck up your meme.

Re:Coming Next... by GaLupo · 2006-01-02 10:32 · Score: 1

hmm lets see buy this or get a cheap laptop on ebay lol i pick get a cheap laptop or another mac mini

It may succeed. by Caspian · 2006-01-02 10:32 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The only problem is that the expected retail value of the EyeBud is around $600, about $200 more than a 60 gigabyte iPod.

In the "PC" (Wintel) market, this would be dead in the water, but the Apple market (including the iPod market) is far more trend-driven. People who buy Apple products (including iPods, excluding probably the iPod Nano and the Mac Mini) are relatively likely to be willing to spend hundreds of bucks on some shiny new geegaw, if it's appealing enough.

Don't write this one off just yet.

And if the Apple fans early-adopt this, we may see it for $200 or so in a few years! (Of course, if the Apple fans don't early-adopt it, we may see it in the discount bin at CompUSA for $200 anyhow. ;) )

--
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?

Re:It may succeed. by apflwr · 2006-01-02 10:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

In the "PC" (Wintel) market, this would be dead in the water, but the Apple market (including the iPod market) is far more trend-driven. People who buy Apple products (including iPods, excluding probably the iPod Nano and the Mac Mini) are relatively likely to be willing to spend hundreds of bucks on some shiny new geegaw, if it's appealing enough.

Seriously, WTF are you going on about? This isn't 1997 any more and the Wintel/Mac stereotypes are really tired. They make for good flamebait, but that's about it... Classifying Mac owners as trendy idiots who throw their money away is ridiculous (before you call me a fanboy I own a PC and a Mac and use them both, and I don't own or care to own an iPod.) And at this point far more PC users own iPods than Mac users. And yes, iPod owners are prone to buy accessories, but if you look at what actually sells (and the prices) the most popular ones make sense-- FM transmitters, protective cases etc. (There are some ridiculous ones, too, but that's a fringe market.)

As far as the product itself-- yes, it's a neat toy (though I get a headache trying to imagine using it.) No, it won't take the world by storm at that price, but it's new tech so it's not really supposed to.
Re:It may succeed. by CohibaVancouver · 2006-01-02 11:04 · Score: 1

Classifying Mac owners as trendy idiots who throw their money away is ridiculous
Yes and no. It seems like every year there's a bunch of stories about some new doo-dad introducted at Macworld that has Mac users salivating their way to the nearest Apple store. You don't hear the same thing about Wintel. Maybe that's just because there isn't a Wintel 'community' per se... Who knows?
Re:It may succeed. by Caspian · 2006-01-02 12:19 · Score: 1

I'm a Mac fan. Hate "PCs". That doesn't stop me from seeing the trends among Mac users, though. I'm also a geek; that doesn't stop me from seeing the fact that most geeks (for instance) lack social skills, or that most geeks are male.

Know thyself, and know thy peer group.

--
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Re:It may succeed. by GaryPatterson · 2006-01-02 13:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh yeah! As a Mac user, I love being freed from the burden of individual thought. Sometimes I wish I was a PC user with the power of thought, but then I return to the comforting, warm glow of my Mac.

Seriously - the parent post is just so much garbage. And it was modded insightful for trotting out another hackneyed stereotype that's long since been put to rest.

Mac users are exactly as trend-driven as Windows users and Linux users.
Re:It may succeed. by laffer1 · 2006-01-02 15:00 · Score: 1

True, but thats because apple is better at marketing than microsoft. Microsoft wants everyone to have a tablet pc and a media center pc. Media centers are starting to catch on as lamers find them at dell.com and hp.com compared to standard systems. Tablet pcs aren't popular in most markets because of their poor battery life. I wouldn't mind one if it was fast, ran linux or bsd and windows, and had a battery that could keep up with my iBook. I think tablet pcs are right up there with some of apple's mistakes though. Microsoft just has the money to keep pushing it for 5 years whereas apple does not. Hospitals use them now i guess.

Lamers love gimicks.. centrino anyone? When I got my first computer, I wanted a mac or a packard bell. (sad i know but i was a noob and 16) My aunt heard the word "Pentium" at work and so when we went to best buy and she asked what to buy all she said was "I want pentium". She did not know it was an intel processor or that most pcs contained intel chips.. just "I want pentium". To this day, my aunt refuses to use anything but pcs. I built her an amd box and she's bitched every year since about how its not a pentium! (amd k6-2 300mhz) It still runs. There are wintel zealots too, but most of them are computer noobs like my aunt. Had I got that mac in 1995, I would have been a great programmer by now. Thats all apple users had to do. Instead, I learned windows 3.11, dos 6.22, 95 and how to reinstall it 50+ times. Thanks microsoft for making me the IT person I am today.

--
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Re:It may succeed. by Enforce1 · 2006-01-02 15:47 · Score: 1

I'm not sure, but it seems that mac users are generally more educated. At least, recent switchers, I'm clearly not including the people that have been using a Mac II se to do their taxes since 1984.

I often recommend mac to people, as a completely satisfied mac user. The simple fact is that I'm tired of fixing windows. In 1998, it was ok to use a windows machine if you didn't know what you were doing. Now, you have to know what you're doing, or you'll be paying someone exorbitant amounts of money to run spyware scans.

OSX IS user friendly. Like it or don't. Go download a windows meta file.
Re:It may succeed. by Caspian · 2006-01-03 03:27 · Score: 0

To all those who think my above comment was "Flamebait" or a "Troll":

Firstly, I'm a Mac fan. I'm not a PC lover, a Microsoft fan, or a troll. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing the realities of my chosen community, and yes, Mac/Apple fans ARE still trendoids, far more so than PC folks.

Submitted as evidence:

Would the PC world pay forty bucks for a glorified volume knob? No, but these things have been on the Mac market for quite a while now.

How would a $100 trackball fare in the PC community? Pretty piss-poor, but these guys (and their ADB predecessors) were mainstays of the Mac community for years.

Fancy a thousand dollar low-end laptop? Mac fans buy them in droves. I've bought several.

Maybe a sixty dollar ONE-BUTTON mouse? Mac users buy 'em. By the thousands.

How about a $2,500 monitor? You'd be hard-pressed to find a Mac fan who wouldn't buy one if they had the money.

Thirty-five bucks for a small rubber sleeve? Three hundred bucks for a small pair of flat panel speakers? All of these things would fail miserably in the PC world, but there's a market for them in the Mac world.

That's not to say Mac fans (including myself) are stupid, merely that they (we) like gadgets, and are willing (if not always able) to pay a premium to get shiny goodies.

So, yes, Mac users are trendoids, but not stupid trendoids. If you want to talk about stupid trendoids, look at the "audiophile" morons buying $300 power cables.

--
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?

Watch Speed 2 while you drive. by Morky · 2006-01-02 10:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh great. And you thought driving with a cell phone was dangerous.

Re:Watch Speed 2 while you drive. by Ankou · 2006-01-02 10:55 · Score: 3, Funny

eh only I thought in Speed 2 they were driving a cruise liner not a car, so yeah youd be ALL out of wack. "Engine room full reverse now, we are approaching the on ramp!"

Link Directly to the Article .... by rewinn · 2006-01-02 10:33 · Score: 5, Informative

here

--
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -

And *some* genius will be using it while driving by sehlat · 2006-01-02 10:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Giving a whole new meaning to the term "road hazard."

Pretty Neat... by Xserv · 2006-01-02 10:33 · Score: 0, Redundant

As far as gadgets go, it's pretty neat. The price is going to be the deterring factor for the general public though.

--
"I love lamp."

Re:Pretty Neat... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 11:03 · Score: 0

I'm not so sure I'd call it neat. Anyone else worried about the possible vision problems from these "eyebuds"? Especially given this recent story:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/ 29/0055249&tid=184&tid=141

I'm waiting for pocket sized portable projectors so you can project your stuff onto a wall and share it with your friends. And enemies for that matter.

Or... by NIK282000 · 2006-01-02 10:34 · Score: 3, Funny

Its makers say this creates the illusion of watching a 105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet

I'd say it creats the illution of watching a 1 inch screen at a distance of 1 inch. Also it creats the illution that you are a smarter consumer then you really are.

--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

Re:Or... by rogabean · 2006-01-02 10:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually I would say wearing it creates the impression that you are the sucker that you really are.

C'mon, while being a cool "toy", this thing is pretty much already dead in the water.

From the article: "Devices which isolate auditory input to one ear are comfortable (i.e., phones) but splitting one's field of vision is highly disorienting..."

This is very true. Not to mention the fact it looks really stupid. Who is really going to adopt and use this thing on a regular basis in it's current form?

It's a start to something that may one day be adopted and used, but right now? I would declare is a pretty cool "concept" item. Nothing more.

--
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
Re:Or... by kfg · 2006-01-02 10:57 · Score: 1

From the article: "Devices which isolate auditory input to one ear are comfortable (i.e., phones) but splitting one's field of vision is highly disorienting..."

Also from the article: ". . .a company that makes video imaging technology for military. . . uses. . ."

So I guess Moshe Dyan would have loved this thing, although he would likely bang his shins on the furniture a lot.

"Who is really going to adopt and use this thing on a regular basis in it's current form?"

People who regret not having a pronounced brow ridge?

KFG
Re:Or... by EnsilZah · 2006-01-02 11:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wonder if also creates the illusion that you're blind in one eye, because i usually watch movies with two of them.
Re:Or... by antifoidulus · 2006-01-02 11:41 · Score: 1

But there is a difference, the military users are trained to use this type of technology, and are very well disciplined. I don't want to have to be "trained' to use my $600 toy, nor should I have to have a lot of discipline to train myself to use a toy.

--
Monstar L
Re:Or... by Chris+Burke · 2006-01-02 12:10 · Score: 4, Funny

I liked that description, actually. I thought if you're going to claim it creates the "illusion" of having a huge TV, why not take it to the limit? "Its makers say this creates the illusion of watching a 46,200 inch screen from a distance of 1 mile!"

Who wouldn't want the illusion of a 46 thousand inch screen? Seriously I should go into marketing.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Or... by kurth · 2006-01-02 15:41 · Score: 1

Dammit! I wasted my mod points! +1
Re:Or... by kfg · 2006-01-02 16:09 · Score: 1

the military users are trained to use this type of technology

If they need training to watch a movie the recruiters really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

KFG
Re:Or... by Will_Malverson · 2006-01-02 17:32 · Score: 1

[Responding to "It's a 105-inch screen at 12 feet...] I'd say it creats the illution of watching a 1 inch screen at a distance of 1 inch.

This is a wild guess, but...

Your eye can't focus on anything one inch away. Hold your finger up to your eyeball and try to see your fingerprint. Unless you're very nearsighted, you simply can't focus your eye that close. So, along with the small screen, there is also a lens in front of that screen that works together with the lens in your eye -- when it's focused at 12 feet away -- to make what is essentially a microscope.

Earbuds by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 10:34 · Score: 0

It's a good idea as long as they're not as annoying as "earbuds".

Correction: iPod Shuffle, not iPod Nano. by Caspian · 2006-01-02 10:35 · Score: 1

My bad. I meant "excluding probably the iPod Shuffle and the Mac Mini" (i.e.: pretty much the only two Apple products with wide sales among poorer non-Apple folks)

--
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?

Wow! And to think... by Shturmovik · 2006-01-02 10:37 · Score: 0, Insightful

...I have to take a vacation away from my monitors just to let my eyesight recover. What the hell are these gadgets going to do to us?

For one eye??? by BTWR · 2006-01-02 10:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

a screen smaller than a quarter that is mounted in front of one eye.

So you're supposed to wink for an hour straight when you watch an episode of Lost?

Re:For one eye??? by DigiShaman · 2006-01-02 11:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Arrrrr...that's right me matey! It's for us one-eyed software pirates. ...arrrrr

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:For one eye??? by SheeEttin · 2006-01-02 11:47 · Score: 0

Actually, it may help you develop one of those useless tricks, like crossing your eyes: looking at something with only one eye. I'm not sure how I learned to do it, but I can unfocus my eyes, and look at something with only one eye focused.
It's rather pointless, except when you're doing something where both eyes show a different image, like the "eyebuds".

And besides, it helps you to zone out during those boring meetings.
Re:For one eye??? by The+One+and+Only · 2006-01-02 12:04 · Score: 1

Most people have a dominant eye. Put the screen in front of the dominant eye and the brain will focus on it, largely disregarding input from the other eye.

--
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Re:For one eye??? by David+Horn · 2006-01-02 12:25 · Score: 1

I have no problem independently looking out of one eye or the other, and can consciously "switch" between them. You just concentrate on looking out of one eye, and I don't see why anyone can't do it, unless they suffer from double vision or whatever.

I think the issue is that although they say it creates the illusion of a giant screen, it still manages to give users one helluva headache despite the optical distance correction. I can't see that problem being solved in the near future, and would advise that you steer clear.

--
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
Re:For one eye??? by slashname3 · 2006-01-02 15:11 · Score: 1

So when will they setup the Ipod to transmit a real time picture of what is infront of the wearer? Would need to lash the ipod to the users fore head like one of those fore head lamps.

The users of this stuff will get beaten up so bad.
Re:For one eye??? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 15:35 · Score: 0

Nope, just 42 minutes.
Re:For one eye??? by omahajim · 2006-01-02 18:36 · Score: 1

Thereby worsening the wondering eye syndrome in the other one.
Re:For one eye??? by omahajim · 2006-01-02 18:38 · Score: 1

sorry, wandering. couldn't read my post because my dominant eye was busy.
Re:For one eye??? by Prophet+of+Nixon · 2006-01-03 05:01 · Score: 1

I purposefully keep my dominant (left) eye shut whenever I'm just by myself reading a monitor or whatnot, just to control that. Without 'exercising' it, the right gets really wandery and goes all nuts. Sometimes if I notice that I'm only seeing the left side of my nose I'll check it and find out its fixated on some random shiny thing off to the side and not watching what I'm doing at all.

Now the really annoying thing is that I'm extremely right-handed, and extremely left-eyed. This makes my aim terrible with anything one handed (guns, rubber bands, baseballs, etc). I've sort of learned to shoot with the left, and I can write block (but not script) with it, but I still can't convince it to throw correctly, and I don't trust it with knives.

So I'm constantly consciously using my right eye to look at things and my left hand to do things, in an effort to somehow create balance between my hands and eyes. Some days its ok, some days its not.

I might actually consider getting something like this 'eyebud' (although not for an iPod) to use as a HUD of sorts on the right eye. It would keep the eye trained, and would not be dominant in my vision unless I wanted it to be.
Re:For one eye??? by cichlid · 2006-01-04 04:34 · Score: 1

> sorry, wandering. couldn't read my

> post because my dominant eye was busy.

S'ok, was pretty funny anyway

Cost argument is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 10:39 · Score: 0

Of course they'll fail if people decide the price is too high. But this argument...

> The only problem is that the expected retail value
> of the EyeBud is around $600, about $200 more than
> a 60 gigabyte iPod.
>
> ... is wrong. "Spend as little as you can arrange on the CPU and as much as you can afford on the peripherals" is good advice, just as good as when I first heard it in the 1970s.

eye eye captain by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 10:39 · Score: 0

Does watching a movie with one eye while the other eye tries to figure out what the hell to do not cause major headaches? This would drive me nuts.

Sounds cool, but... by Ruff_ilb · 2006-01-02 10:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

a) How well does it function? These things in the past have had dubious functionality, I'm not about to buy one now... coupled with
b) It costs a LOT - Lets face it, this better be one amazing product if it costs 600$. And I haven't exactly seen any reviews yet, either.

Another poster did mention that the apple market is trend-driven, but this is different. It's unlikely that this'll get the publicity needed to get off the ground, and unlike other apple products, this isn't immediately "hip". It's not visually appealing, it's not white or shiny, and it's not branded heavily with snappy commercials touting the apple logo.

Sorry, I'm writing this one off.

--
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums

QVGA on a 105" inch screen? by mark0 · 2006-01-02 10:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why would I want to look at a QVGA image on a 105" inch screen?

Re:QVGA on a 105" inch screen? by EGSonikku · 2006-01-02 10:45 · Score: 5, Funny

For the same reason I play NES emu's on my 51" Sony WEGA in 1080i Resolution.....BECAUSE I CAN!

--
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Re:QVGA on a 105" inch screen? by DustMagnet · 2006-01-02 11:46 · Score: 1

Why would I want to look at a QVGA image on a 105" inch screen?

You love 1/4 inch pixels.
You have presbyopia (short arms).
They needed some dork willing to be photographed wearing an EyeBud and since the whole office has been laughing behind your back since you started wearing a bluetooth earbug, you thought, "Why not?"

--
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Re:QVGA on a 105" inch screen? by ClamIAm · 2006-01-02 15:10 · Score: 1

Oh, and Princess Toadstool is hawt.

Sure, its pricy BUT by Netmaster · 2006-01-02 10:43 · Score: 0

I will buy one if I see it available. Absolutely. I think the very notion of this is superb. Wonder how the image quality will be.. but..

"105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet" by Aumaden · 2006-01-02 10:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or, a 16" monitor set to 800x600 when viewed from 2'.

Re:"105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet" by kisielk · 2006-01-02 11:20 · Score: 1

OR a 2000" screen viewable from 200 feet! It's like having a drive in movie, in your own living room! :p
Re:"105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet" by MustardMan · 2006-01-02 13:34 · Score: 1

Since when does the resolution have anything to do with the apparant size?

12 feet is a reasonable estimate for living room size - sofa on one wall, tv on the other. Looks to me like they are trying to give an impression that makes the consumer think "tv" and not "computer".
Re:"105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet" by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2006-01-02 16:52 · Score: 1

Or, a 16" monitor set to 800x600 when viewed from 2'.

That's better than DVD resolution, not that it would help with a quarter VGA image.
Re:"105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet" by drsquare · 2006-01-02 18:53 · Score: 1

Not really. Larger screens that are further away are easier to focus on, even if they take up the same percentage of your eyes. I'm sat two or three feet away from a 17" screen and it's not exactly comfortable.
Re:"105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet" by psavo · 2006-01-02 20:23 · Score: 1

No, at that distance atmospheric falloff already kicks in so image would have muted colors on larger screen viewed from distance. Larger screen would also have more shadowing/lighting problems.
Yeah, I'm nitpicking, so sue me.

--
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
Re:"105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet" by ravyne · 2006-01-02 20:37 · Score: 1

actually, putting my math skills to use, its roughly a 20" monitor at a distance of about 22" which is a pretty average distance one might sit from their monitor at their desk. Also, unless I'm looking at the wrong thing, the resolution is 800x600, which is plenty adequate to watch video or game, though I do shudder at the thought of an 800x600 desktop.
Re:"105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet" by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 20:44 · Score: 0

Why shudder at that thought? All desktops at the company I work at are set to 800x600 now, after we convinced the manager to switch from 640x480. In fact, I'd bet that most people use 800x600 or 1024x768.

"smarter consumer"? by commodoresloat · 2006-01-02 10:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Also it creats the illution that you are a smarter consumer then you really are.

There's no way in hell someone wearing one of these would be mistaken for a "smart consumer." It's pretty clear that anyone who spends nearly twice the price of their ipod to watch video on a screen smaller than the ipod on a contraption that makes the wearer look like an alien is pretty much a complete tool.

Re:"smarter consumer"? by Zenmonkeycat · 2006-01-02 15:03 · Score: 1

That may be, but you're going to look like a smarter tool than normal.

--
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Re:"smarter consumer"? by icj · 2006-01-02 17:27 · Score: 0

Yes its the new i-dork

Not the Only Problem by Comatose51 · 2006-01-02 10:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The only problem is that the expected retail value of the EyeBud is around $600, about $200 more than a 60 gigabyte iPod."

That's not the ONLY problem. It is also VERY dorky looking and you can't really move about with that thing on, which really takes away the reason for having an iPod. iPods are mobile. They function well and they look nice (huge factor for those outside of the geek/nerd crowd). So, you're left using this while stationary. If you're going to do that, why not just watch it on a TV or monitory and save yourself $600? I could imagine frequent business travellers using one of these but hard to imagine anyone else having an use for it.

--
EvilCON - Made Famous by /.

Re:Not the Only Problem by Confuzzled · 2006-01-02 16:59 · Score: 1

I have to agree with the parent. Price is not the issue; one of the best selling accessories for the iPod is the Bose SoundDock, which costs as much as the iPod.

The problem with this thing is that watching something with an eye-patch device, that looks dorky, has a mess of wires, etc. makes absolutely no sense. Have you been to the eye doctor and had to cover one eye while reading a chart? uncomfortable huh.

This thing is dumb. Make it sexy, make it both eyes, make it cool looking, you can sell it for 600 bucks no problem.

-c
Re:Not the Only Problem by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2006-01-02 20:02 · Score: 1

So, you're left using this while stationary. If you're going to do that, why not just watch it on a TV or monitory and save yourself $600?
Or, you know, HOLD THE IPOD UP TO YOUR EYEBALL. If you would like to create the illusion of an infinitely large screen, you can press your eyeball onto it directly.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Not the Only Problem by klreed42 · 2006-01-03 01:30 · Score: 1

IF the device really works...

People have portable DVD players, which they use when they are not stationary, have a large screen TV, or other thing.

I see people use these on the trains, in planes, in minivans, on vacation, etc.

IF this device worked well, looked nice, and didn't have the huge potential of giving people obscene headaches, it provides people with reusing a smaller portable DVD player, they can load 5? 10? DVDs onto a good IPOD, and they can play them anywhere they go. Pretty damned nice.

As other people have stated, having a two eye visor would be better. Especially if you can shift the display to 1 eye if you wanted and then have the other eye be see through to see what is going on in RL...
Re:Not the Only Problem by bigpat · 2006-01-03 04:20 · Score: 1

hat's not the ONLY problem. It is also VERY dorky looking and you can't really move about with that thing on, which really takes away the reason for having an iPod. iPods are mobile. They function well and they look nice (huge factor for those outside of the geek/nerd crowd). So, you're left using this while stationary. If you're going to do that, why not just watch it on a TV or monitory and save yourself $600? I could imagine frequent business travellers using one of these but hard to imagine anyone else having an use for it.

You aren't exactly mobile if you are watching video on your eyepod in the first place. So, the same people actually using the video ipod for watching video could potentially make use of a display like this. In this case mobile means sitting on a plane or sitting on a train.

digital camera use by Maskirovka · 2006-01-02 10:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Given that nearly all digital still cameras, and all digital video cameras have video out (usually RCA), I could see some photographers buying this as a chimping tool.

Re:digital camera use by Jonboy+X · 2006-01-02 15:18 · Score: 1

Given that nearly all digital still cameras, and all digital video cameras have video out (usually RCA), I could see some photographers buying this as a chimping tool.

Wow, you learn something new every day here on Slashdot. I had no idea "chimp" was a verb, but I will take a WAG at its meaning and attempt to use it in casual conversation as often as possible from now on.

What?

--

"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
Re:digital camera use by jZnat · 2006-01-02 16:53 · Score: 1

I looked that up, and now I really don't want to see that happen...

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:digital camera use by Maskirovka · 2006-01-02 18:26 · Score: 1

I looked [chimping] up, and now I really don't want to see that happen...

Here's a better reference

I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by saha · 2006-01-02 10:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I doubt eMagin's new toy for the iPod will succeed. Sony tried a simliar product years ago and the Glasstron never took off.

I also disagree with your statement that Apple hardware is all about fickle and impressionable folks being wooed by gee whiz industrial design and ergonomics. People happen to like Apple hardware and software solution because it offers a well integrated solution that minimizes finger pointing. As some OEM PC vendors we've encountered have tried to pass the buck with us and wanted us to pay more for a problem they believed was a Windows issue when we already payed for service/warranty.

Perhaps you care to explain how a survey of 140,000 readers of Consumer Reports rated Apple service higher for A) solving problems, B) waiting on the phone, C) support staff, D) web support of both Desktop and Laptop systems. Perhaps consumers gravitate towards the Honda Accords instead of the Dodge Neons. Both have a steering wheel and four tires, but most people are willing to pay more for the Accord.

Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by TubeSteak · 2006-01-02 10:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

car analogies aside, companies like Dell, Gateway, IBM, Sony, etc are (in a sense) victims of their own success.

They have much much higher hardware sales than Apple and consequently, their tech support must placate many more people.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 10:56 · Score: 0

I also disagree with your statement that Apple hardware is all about fickle and impressionable folks being wooed by gee whiz industrial design and ergonomics. People happen to like Apple hardware and software solution because it offers a well integrated solution that minimizes finger pointing.

Yeah right. Face it, apple users = trend whores who buy anything with a fancy ad
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by NardofDoom · 2006-01-02 11:09 · Score: 2, Funny

The only way that would be true is if Mac users are, on the whole, smarter than Windows users.
Which is totally believable.
\Mac user.

--
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by adam1234 · 2006-01-02 11:12 · Score: 1

Yeah, sure. Or the fact that THEIR TECH SUPPORT IS IN INDIA. Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling. Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling. Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by TheSpoom · 2006-01-02 11:14 · Score: 1

I guarantee you Dell and Gateway have outsourced a lot their tech support, I'm pretty sure about IBM, not so much about Sony (but probably).

Screw hardware sales, the reason these companies don't have good tech support is because they don't support their own products. Third party companies providing this sort of outsourced tech support can only do so much, having been there.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by peragrin · 2006-01-02 11:30 · Score: 1

Um Apple outsells Gateway IBM Sony, If memory serves Apples is Number 3 or 4 on the list.

Dell, HP are one and two.

Apple does outsell most of the others though.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by HairyCanary · 2006-01-02 11:35 · Score: 1

They have much much higher hardware sales than Apple and consequently, their tech support must placate many more people.
What you mean is that consequently, their tech support must be much larger. How do you draw a correlation between size of customer base and support quality? Apple can provide the same support whether they have 100,000 customers, or 100,000,000. They'd just hire more techs and follow the same recipe they have now, on a proportionally larger scale.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by crabpeople · 2006-01-02 11:58 · Score: 0

"Perhaps consumers gravitate towards the Honda Accords instead of the Dodge Neons. Both have a steering wheel and four tires, but most people are willing to pay more for the Accord."

I am currently shopping for a car. every single japanese small car that i have looked at has been way too small for me (im tall so picture knees next to the steering wheel). the price you pay for something has NOTHING to do with its worth as a product. I wish apple snobs would realize this. The reason that apple support is better is because they sell you a whole package, OS and hardware together. On the other hand, M$ doesnt support jack all unless you pay big bucks. The reason? diversity of hardware available to windows users.

"Perhaps you care to explain how a survey of 140,000 readers of Consumer Reports rated Apple service higher"

Higher than what? M$? Dell? Cisco? I would be surprised if people calling dell were treated any less well than people calling apple. If they were, they probably added some component or software that made things more difficult for the tech. Both those problems will start happing with apple when they release their OS to x86/64.

for the past 15+ years apple has stood for hardware lockin, while wintel has meant verity and choice. it will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.

--
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by theLOUDroom · 2006-01-02 11:58 · Score: 1

People happen to like Apple hardware and software solution because it offers a well integrated solution that minimizes finger pointing.

By deliberately breaking other company's compatibiliy?

Is this also why Windows is so successful?

Apple has been successful with the ipod in the same way that Microsoft was successful with Windows. It's not that they're the best, they're the biggest and they're well established. They're the "kleenex" of MP3 players.

The actual ipod itself isn't that great. No radio, no recording capability, built-in DRM. People who care and know what they're buying can do better for themselves elsewhere.

There's also the huge factor that Apple had the first major online store for music downloads. This speaks nothing about the quality of the ipod or their customer service, but has a significant effect on sales.

Perhaps consumers gravitate towards the Honda Accords instead of the Dodge Neons. Both have a steering wheel and four tires, but most people are willing to pay more for the Accord.

This is just a piss-poor analogy. You should have at least used the Civic as an example. The cars don't even target the same markets. The base MSRP for a Neon is around $13,000. The base MSRP for an accord is around $23,000. They're different classes of vehicle both is size and price.

Even then, what the heck are you saying? Consumers are more satisfied with high-price, high-quality goods therefore.....what?

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by sootman · 2006-01-02 12:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

>They have much much higher hardware sales than Apple and consequently, their tech support must placate many more people.

Um... can't they just hire more people? If Apple sells (totally made-up numbers here) 10,000,000 computers and services their customers with 10,000 people, why can't Dell sell 100,000,000 computers and service their customers with 100,000 people?

The point is, Apple is doing *something* right--paying more, hiring better people, treating them better, running their support center better, making easier-to-support gear, who knows--and the fact that they sell less gear is not the reason that they have better support.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by bill_mcgonigle · 2006-01-02 12:51 · Score: 1

I am currently shopping for a car. every single japanese small car that i have looked at has been way too small for me (im tall so picture knees next to the steering wheel).

Do you want a small car or a vehicle that you can fit in? Us big folk need the right size vehicle. A Subaru Forester is about the smallest car we stratospheric types can sit in.

Likewise, my shortest friend has trouble driving my Chevy Pickup.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by bill_mcgonigle · 2006-01-02 12:54 · Score: 1

Yeah right. Face it, apple users = trend whores who buy anything with a fancy ad

You're right - that latest Macintosh ad is the shnizz-zus.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by Blakey+Rat · 2006-01-02 13:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

The actual ipod itself isn't that great. No radio, no recording capability, built-in DRM. People who care and know what they're buying can do better for themselves elsewhere.

The iPod isn't; but iTunes is. iTunes is *the* reason Apple sells iPods. Have you seen the software that comes with those other players? It ranges from terrible to abomination. Now you might think iTunes is bloated, but at least it works well.

--
Comment of the year
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by kimvette · 2006-01-02 13:18 · Score: 1

You can't record with an iPod?

http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2004/06/22/i pod_recorder.html
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/04/23/cx_ah_ 0423tentech.html
http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/118245 &mode=thread
http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com _content&task=view&id=130

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by symbolic · 2006-01-02 13:26 · Score: 1

I also disagree with your statement that Apple hardware is all about fickle and impressionable folks being wooed by gee whiz industrial design and ergonomics. People happen to like Apple hardware and software solution because it offers a well integrated solution that minimizes finger pointing.

Let's see...the non-replaceable iPod battery, the problems with scratched screens on the iPod Nano, cracks in the casings of the Mac cube, etc. The original nano didn't even include something as basic as a texture on the scroll wheel so that people be able to use it with less effort. It's ALL about folks being wooed by gee whiz industrial design and ergonomics, because Apple's batting record with respect to product design flaws isn't all that great.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by lordmatthias215 · 2006-01-02 13:40 · Score: 1

Well it could bery well be that a good majority of Apply tech support reps are also Apple nuts (not derogatory). I mean a serious apple user is in my experience very gung ho about his computer, and wants to spread the gospel of Mac to the uneducated user. Most pc gurus are jaded due to people who use their CD-ROM's as cupholders. Then add to that the fact that many PC companies are outsourcing, and as far I've seen Apple isn't. I have a hard time understanding people over the phone sometimes, and it doesn't help when the person has a strange accent and is talking a mile a minute. I like Apple's style, but I don't like the lack of mainstream software, and the high cost. If I could buy a Mac with comparable stats as the PC I built for myself, and have the cost fall reasonably close to my PC, I would probly go out and buy a Mac to tinker with. But I just don't feel right tinkering with a $1500 dollar computer, and the Mini seems a little underpowered. But I digress...
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by BrokenHalo · 2006-01-02 13:50 · Score: 1

because Apple's batting record with respect to product design flaws isn't all that great.
You forgot to mention the in-ear type of buds for the iPod that won't stay in because Apple entirely failed to take human anatomy into account...
I've got a pair, and it has sat on the shelf ever since I bought it.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by Millenniumman · 2006-01-02 14:15 · Score: 1

Apple has far less ads for it's computers than other companies.

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by c_forq · 2006-01-02 14:33 · Score: 1

M$ doesnt support jack all unless you pay big bucks. The reason? diversity of hardware available to windows users.

We aren't talking about M$ here, we are talking about PC makers, which can choose what hardware to use and support (Dell, for example, until recently used only Intel chips and motherboards, Samsung RAM and Samsung drives).

--
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 15:20 · Score: 0

Perhaps you care to explain how a survey of 140,000 readers of Consumer Reports rated Apple service higher for A) solving problems, B) waiting on the phone, C) support staff, D) web support of both Desktop and Laptop systems. Perhaps consumers gravitate towards the Honda Accords instead of the Dodge Neons. Both have a steering wheel and four tires, but most people are willing to pay more for the Accord.

If polling the masses always resulted in being right, why did George Bush, and Adolf Hitler get elected?
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by Chmarr · 2006-01-02 15:53 · Score: 1

My apple earbuds fitted great. A set of plantronics earbuds I bought for this and other reasons didn't fit anywhere near as well.

My guess is that apple sized them to fit 'most ears'.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by EvanED · 2006-01-02 16:13 · Score: 1

I'm not trying to argue against the specific point which is that Apple would have the same problems as Dell et. al. if they were larger (I think that if their product quality remained the same they wouldn't have the problems), but you can't necessarily just scale up what you already have. Increased numbers of people mean increased numbers of people who Apple'd need to coordinate between.

As a concrete example, think of what happens when, in 6 months, Apple releases the new iFancyToy. They need to provide support for the iFancyToy. In scenario A, Apple sells the same number of units they are selling now. In scenario B, Apple sells 10x that number. Assuming that their tech support actually gets experience with the products before they try to support it, that means that 10 times the support personel must be trained. This means one of two things: larger training session sizes, or more levels of training. (For instance, if in scenario A each training session has 100 people and there are 1000 support personel (no clue how accurate these numbers are but it hardly matters), that means 10 classes. In scenario B, there are 100 classes. But that means you either need 10 times the time to train or 10 times the number of instructors. Who then need to be trained.) It also means that aple needs to produce more prerelease units to use for training.

This is somewhat an artifical example, and may be pretty pathetic, but in reality providing the support network for an organization 10 times the size isn't just taking what you have and duplicating it 10 times unless you want chaos between the copies.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by EvanED · 2006-01-02 16:18 · Score: 1

They're the "kleenex" of MP3 players.

Hey, Kleenex *is* the best facial tissue.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by Digital11 · 2006-01-02 16:23 · Score: 1

I dunno, I'm 6'4", 285 and I drive a Mitsubishi Spyder Eclipse...

--
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 16:33 · Score: 0

roflmao
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by theLOUDroom · 2006-01-02 17:16 · Score: 1

You can't record with an iPod?

I suppose I should clarify. You can't record with the ipod you just took out of the box. You need adapters and a mic and those adapters are ipod specfic and don't come with an ipod. It's an extra cost and extra stuff to carry.
IMO, if you're planning on doing a significant amount of recording, you should plan on buying something other than an ipod. Basically I consider recording on the ipod to be an afterthought and an add-on. It's not something you can do with an ipod by itself.

Compare this to my mp3 player which has an internal microphone, AND can record from internal mic, external mic, line, or fiber using industry-standard connections.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by theLOUDroom · 2006-01-02 17:23 · Score: 1

The iPod isn't; but iTunes is. iTunes is *the* reason Apple sells iPods. Have you seen the software that comes with those other players? It ranges from terrible to abomination. Now you might think iTunes is bloated, but at least it works well.

I tend to think iTunes is more successful because it is tied in with the iTunes store, which has cornered the majority of the market for online music downloads.

The software itself could suck donkeyballs but the songs are DRM'ed so it's not like you can switch.
I'm not saying that iTunes necessarily sucks. (Although DRM certainly does.) I'd much rather use it than any version of Microsoft's media player, but I don't believe the quality of the iTunes software is the reason for success.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by Golias · 2006-01-02 22:11 · Score: 1

Gosh, I'm jealous. I can't think of how many times I wanted to stop in mid-jog and record the sounds of passing traffic on my portable MP3 player. Why, or why, didn't I buy the same gizmo as you? How will I continue to endure?

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by Golias · 2006-01-02 22:15 · Score: 1

the non-replaceable iPod battery

No such animal.

Replacing the battery on my iPod was easier than adding memory to my Dell laptop. A lot easier.

1. Pop the case open with the little plastic tool which the battery maker includes for free.
2. Unplug a little ribbon connector that's in the way.
3. Swap the battery.
4. Plug the connector back in.
5. Snap the iPod case shut again.

The battery cost twenty bucks, and has an even higher capacity than the original.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:I doubt eMagin's new toy will have mass appeal by DDLKermit007 · 2006-01-03 01:08 · Score: 1

Yeah nevermind the part where Real just didn't want to pay Apple for licencing. Apple is more than happy to let anyone who wants to use thier DRM just like Microsoft's WMA just they have to licence it just like with Microsoft. Real paid Microsoft and didn't want to pay Apple. I could POSSIBLY understand if realy didn't pay Microsoft and cracked thier DRM to where they wouldn't need to pay, but they didn't. Go troll elsewhere once you learn more than "OGM 1 #@t3 @pp113!!!"

Yawn by djupedal · 2006-01-02 10:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Devices such as this have been on the market for decades. Small ambient screen mounted in a set of glasses, just big enough that when you focus on the 'percieved' image, it appears more distant, and thus much larger.

As for the price, how can that be a factor, when the cost of filling a 60 gb iPod can run into the thousands of dollars..? [rhetorical, so don't bother...]

Re:Yawn by ClamIAm · 2006-01-02 15:13 · Score: 1

As for the price, how can that be a factor, when the cost of filling a 60 gb iPod can run into the thousands of dollars..?
Sure, you say it rhetorically. But in reality, if the US didn't have such draconian copyright measures, I could 100% legally fill my ipod with all my DVDs. But that doesn't fit into the business model that the cartels have chosen willingly.

This is not totally new by ishmalius · 2006-01-02 10:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you have been keeping track of the "wearable computing" market recently, you would know that something like this has existed for years. The one I have seen is a clip-on for a pair of eyeglasses, and which holds the tiny screen a few cm in front of the left eye.

I think that the "newness" part of this is that it is specifically designed for an iPod.

Pirates by TubeSteak · 2006-01-02 10:52 · Score: 4, Funny

I think this product will go down well with the Flying Spaghetti Monster crowd.

Since pirates wear an eye patch to begin with, this is the ultimate product for them. No longer do they have to pay full cost for a pair of video goggles they will only use half of.

I can see it now:
Renounce your past relegion.
Be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Free Eye Patch, Video iPod, and EyeBud upon conversion.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Re:Pirates by Amouth · 2006-01-02 12:50 · Score: 1

hell i would convert for "Free Eye Patch, Video iPod, and EyeBud"

but it would have to be the yet to come video 60gb nano...

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Pirates by jb.hl.com · 2006-01-02 15:08 · Score: 1

Renounce your past relegion.
Be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Free Eye Patch, Video iPod, and EyeBud upon conversion.

Sorry, I think The Who got there first.

--
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --

Why do we link to blogs? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 10:54 · Score: 0

OK, so the link in the story points to someone's blog, which does little more than copy-and-paste a segment from the article and then link to it. Why not just link directly to the article? Why should I have to wade through Joe Random's hideous blog layout and drive up his hit counter in a feeble attempt to make some cash off annoying ads?

I fully support linking to someone's blog when there's actually something interesting up on there mind you, i.e. original content. I figure /. is already pretty much a "hey look at this cool story" blog, so why should I have to go through a second one in order to get to the actual article?

WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 10:55 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Why the fuck did you guys just link to a fucking blog? Link to the fucking article, for crying out loud!

people will want to drive with this on. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 10:58 · Score: 0

This is the quickest way to look like a complete Dork I've ever seen. This will never be cool until you can make it look completely like glasses / sunglasses including no wires. then this will be cool.

Only one eye by Mr.+Freeman · 2006-01-02 11:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Watching a video in one eye really sucks. It doesn't matter if it creates the illusion of seeing a 105" screen from 12', if it's only in one eye then most of that value is lost.

This will also contribute to eye strain by having to focus on something that close, while one eye is still focused really far away, or vice versa.

--
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.

Yeah, Like I'm Going to See This? by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2006-01-02 11:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Even with correctable glasses I can't focus on anything closer than about 4 inches. You think I -- and anybody else my age with the natural progression of eyesight as we age -- are going to be able to watch this thing?

And what about the eyestrain of focusing to close over a long period of time (e.g. 2hr35min Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire)?

Until the laser writes directly on the retina and corrects automatically for vision problems, I don't think this is for me.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Re:Yeah, Like I'm Going to See This? by SupaPuerco · 2006-01-02 11:17 · Score: 1

I bet that it is actually focused at infinity, so you don't have to squint to see it, but can instead look normally. Something like a heads up display in fighter jets.
Re:Yeah, Like I'm Going to See This? by Amouth · 2006-01-02 12:54 · Score: 1

I amwaiting for something like this (not for ipod) that tracks the focus of the lends of your eye and distorts the image accordingly so that is always apears in focus..

but that would require some math people to think and work well with others.

so don't plan on it in our life time

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Yeah, Like I'm Going to See This? by timeOday · 2006-01-02 14:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

How dumb do you think these people are? All such devices have a lens in front of the eye so the focal distance is much further out. How much further out I can't say, but since they mentioned 12 feet it very well may be that.
Re:Yeah, Like I'm Going to See This? by edgr · 2006-01-02 21:31 · Score: 1

I imagine that there would be corrective optics built into the device, so your eye only has to focus at a relatively distant image. In this case, it is 12 feet, which is why it is touted as appearing like a 102-inch display at 12 feet rather than a 42 thousand inch screen at one mile or any other size/distance (as other posters have suggested).
Re:Yeah, Like I'm Going to See This? by Nuklearwanze · 2006-01-02 21:47 · Score: 1

dont worry, you dont have to focus your eyes on that device sitting directly in front of your eye... it probably works just like when looking through the view finder of a digital camera, where the focal point is also much further out than the lc display of the finder.

fat pixels by ucblockhead · 2006-01-02 11:04 · Score: 1

I don't know that I'd want a viewing area that big. It's apt to make the low resolution of the videos much more apparent on the small screen.

--
The cake is a pie

Style over content by atomic_toaster · 2006-01-02 11:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's a neat idea, but this particular model will never catch on as the EyeBud has the unfortunate effect of making the wearer looking like a Borg from Star Trek (and not 7 of 9, either!). While the iPod is a great device, the main reason that it was practically sold-out in stores and online this Christmas is its sleek look, small size, and stylish marketing campaign. In general, that's when all techy devices catch on in the general population, from home PC's to laptops to cell phones -- when they're small enough and attractive enough that the user doesn's look like a geek. Well, that and the price tag; nobody's going to pay $600 to look like the biggest dork on the block.

Bring the price down under $200, and streamline the design so that it looks like an extension of a bluetooth headset or maybe a pair of mirrored Oakley look-alikes. Sure, that'll probably take a couple of years. But only then will it be worth marketing this device as "the next big thing".

Re:Style over content by man_ls · 2006-01-02 11:39 · Score: 1

We need more Eyetaps (http://www.eyetap.org/)

I'd wear that around in public, borg-like or not.
Re:Style over content by blincoln · 2006-01-02 12:53 · Score: 1

It's a neat idea, but this particular model will never catch on as the EyeBud has the unfortunate effect of making the wearer looking like a Borg from Star Trek

Not even that cool. The Borg look evil and ominous, whereas wearing this device makes you looks like you're got on some sort of orthodontic or post-cranial-surgery headgear.

If they could make one that was VERY lightweight, and wrapped around the back of your head (but not the front) like those "behind the head" headphones, and had a transparent screen with no visible frame, MAYBE it wouldn't look absolutely stupid.

The giant bit across the forehead is the worst part. No one other than Klingon cosplayers like to highlight their foreheads.

Basically, from an artistic perspective, Seven of Nine has well-designed headgear. It highlights her eye, but doesn't obscure it, and it doesn't overwhelm the rest of her face. It also looks nicely-crafted, like a piece of jewelry, instead of some cheap white plastic (which again contributes to the "I wear this for medical reasons" appearance).

It might catch on with the kind of people who like Segways, however.

--
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman

Did anybody get the number of that truck? by dangitman · 2006-01-02 11:04 · Score: 1, Funny

Somebody call an ambulance!

No, wait, look at all this expensive gear he's got. Just take it!

Hey, what does this funny headset do? Oh it's a video display ... hey, porn!

SCRRRRRREEEECH-WHACK

Did anybody get the number of that truck?

--
... and then they built the supercollider.

Re:Did anybody get the number of that truck? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 11:51 · Score: 0

i bet you have no friends.
Re:Did anybody get the number of that truck? by bk4u · 2006-01-02 12:45 · Score: 1

Awesome, finally something for that long drive to work!

--
Remember kids, with great power comes great opportunity to abuse that power
Re:Did anybody get the number of that truck? by 26242 · 2006-01-02 14:24 · Score: 0

ya dude, you said it.

wtf did he say?>?? i have no idea!!

EyeBud? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 11:05 · Score: 0

Don't they mean iBud?

next step to pervasive computing? by harshits · 2006-01-02 11:06 · Score: 1

Does it seem to be the next step to pervasive computing, have a small processor, monitor in front of your eyes, and give voice commands, and u have a full fledged computer..

Re:next step to pervasive computing? by ClamIAm · 2006-01-02 15:16 · Score: 1

have a small processor, monitor in front of your eyes, and give voice commands, and u have a full fledged computer.
So my brain, reality, and my voice doesn't count? Well maybe, but that's just because nobody follows my voice commands :(

It's not the driving that kills you, it's the plot by dangitman · 2006-01-02 11:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Speed 2 is dangerous to watch even if one is stationary.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.

it won't be a success... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 11:07 · Score: 0

Until I see www.freeeyebuds.com and a million people with a link whoring themselves online.

How will I wear my 3D Glasses with this? by syntap · 2006-01-02 11:10 · Score: 1

But in all seriousness, what will this do to one's vision if you watch an hour or two of this every day, say in your right eye. Will your eyes get screwed up because of so much time with each one viewing different depths?

Warning! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 11:12 · Score: 0

Chronic use of eyebuds can cause blindness.

Expensive is relative by stavromueller · 2006-01-02 11:13 · Score: 0

I wonder if they make them for universal input (like froma D-Sub or monitor cable). I would like to do that with my pocket PC, which has a monitor cable output adapter.

--
I kill harmless processes for sport

Why on earth ... by bearinboots · 2006-01-02 11:16 · Score: 2, Funny

... would you need a portable video display for a portable video display?

Re:Why on earth ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 12:37 · Score: 0

Yeah, why not just duct tape the iPod onto your head?

What COULD work... by Spy+der+Mann · 2006-01-02 11:17 · Score: 1

are the transparent orange eyeglasses like the ones Vegeta used in DragonBall-Z. They look WAY BETTER than the eyebud.
(And that's about the only thing worth watching in DBZ lol)

I can buy a few of those instead of buying a .... by baylanger · 2006-01-02 11:17 · Score: 0

projector and a 105" screen, right?

I seriously don't think the image quality is that great. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't find this information :-(

Used to Bluetooth? by michaelmalak · 2006-01-02 11:26 · Score: 2, Funny

From the nested link to Seattle Post Intelligencer:

But eMagin executives say they expect people to get used to the appearance, in the same way that Bluetooth headsets are no longer uncommon.

I don't know about you guys, but I think Bluetooth headsets make people look like Elvis, and I won't wear one for that reason. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I think a pre-2000 Secret Service wire looks cooler.

Re:Used to Bluetooth? by Lord_Dweomer · 2006-01-02 12:48 · Score: 1

While you may be joking, you are in the minority as bluetooth headsets have caught on like you wouldn't believe. They are a permanent accessory for any cab driver or business man, and it only seems logical that business peoplewill want to have visual data in front of them as well on a large screen.
Lets face it, one of the biggest problems with the video iPod is the screen size. True, I don't think this device will be the one that wins over the market, but I'm glad to see consumer versions of these things hitting the market as it is inevitable as computers get smaller and faster and media becomes more important in the lives of people.
I look forward to competitors who will shrink the form factor of this and make it more streamlined. It will need to be TINY and SEXY if it is going to win over the early adopters. Although it wouldn't hurt them to hire a bunch of models to walk around wearing this.
The other upside of this is that it appears from the picture that others won't be able to view your screen. Not only would that be good for business people on the go....but it doesn't take much imagination to see other possibilities.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Re:Used to Bluetooth? by iamdrscience · 2006-01-02 13:09 · Score: 1

but it doesn't take much imagination to see other possibilities.
Porn.

A problem? by lzandman · 2006-01-02 11:32 · Score: 0

The only problem is that the expected retail value of the EyeBud is around $600, about $200 more than a 60 gigabyte iPod.

Why is that a problem? It may be to you, but fortunately we aren't all poor... :-)

What I want in a video visor by rk · 2006-01-02 11:44 · Score: 1

I want the projection to be in both eyes.
I want the projection ro be able to be moved from the center field of view to an off-center position, through an open software interface. Bonus points for being able to split it left and right and/or up and down.
In that software interface, I want to have full control of alpha for both the video display, and for the outside view. That way, I can use it for totally immersive stuff, or unobtrusive heads-up interfaces, or any mixture I find worthwhile.

Is this unobtainium for mere mortals today, or is there something out there?

Re:What I want in a video visor by swb · 2006-01-03 02:02 · Score: 1

That's probably something you might see once they figure out how to do the projection well, but not a 1st gen device.

I'd consider something that gave me the equivilent quality of a 27" analog set @ 6 ft through both eyes. I figure that success will be defined initially through DVD quality for stationery (planes, trains, etc) viewing of video.

It's probably the killer application for portable computing and video.

Just wait.. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 11:44 · Score: 0

We are the borg, resistance is futile.

Sounds painful by Belseth · 2006-01-02 11:46 · Score: 1

The only problem is that the expected retail value of the EyeBud is around $600

I can see a bigger problem. Contacts are bad enough, an eyebud must hurt like hell. Also must be creepy to see a cord hanging out of some ones eye.

Old technology dressed as new by vik · 2006-01-02 11:47 · Score: 1

I've been wating for an improvement in this technology since the Private Eye HUD device patents were bought out and shut down. That device was great: Clear, crisp, easy to view and it had "Hercules" resolution - 720x384, not QVGA.

I have been waiting about 15 years, and I've reached the conclusion that we'll only get a decent HUD when sufficient technology is in the hands of Open Source developers. So I'm working on the Open Source RepRap fabricator http://reprap.org/ and we'll see who builds an affordable one first; geeks, or corporates.

Vik :v)

Deaf and blind by FrostySol · 2006-01-02 11:50 · Score: 1

Yay, so now we can go deaf with the ear buds and blind with the eye bud. Thank you apple

Re:Deaf and blind by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · 2006-01-02 12:38 · Score: 1

and go stupid by reading your comments too!

Apple didn't make this, Trolly McTrollalot.
Re:Deaf and blind by FrostySol · 2006-01-02 13:24 · Score: 1

not a troll here. I suppose it is a bit hard to convey sarcasm over the internet, but that was my intent. I love my iPod and this sounds like a cool (although expensive) accessory.
Re:Deaf and blind by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 15:57 · Score: 0

Apple is the next big Tobacco

iBud by sanman2 · 2006-01-02 11:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why didn't they call it the iBud? Doesn't that fit with the nomenclature more? Or did some marketing type not see what was plainly in front of their i's? Anyway, interfaces like this -- however good/bad this particular model is -- are the future way to go. iPiece? iLash? iPatch? Actually, an iPatch could look kinduv cool, in a Pirate sort of way. Pirates in the Slashdot crowd? Nah, perish the thought.

Re:iBud by Akdor+1154 · 2006-01-02 16:27 · Score: 1

Why didn't they call it the iBud? Better yet, what about the iEye?

Just what I want, a 105" 800x600 screen from 12' by Fallen+Kell · 2006-01-02 12:02 · Score: 4, Funny

I mean come on... A 105" screen from 12 feet away... For THX standards, a 4:3 screen of 105" (diagonal assumed due to way computer screen size is measured) should actually be viewed from 10' 9 1/4", not 12 feet.

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"

only SVGA? by speculatrix · 2006-01-02 12:06 · Score: 1

So far, all the HUDs I've seen that are less than several 1000 US$ are only VGA or SVGA.

For movies, SVGA is adequate, but if you really want to be able to access complex data, you'll find 800x600 SVGA display lo-res and just on the limit of useability.

the old glasstrons and eye-treks had even lower res, but again, we designed for movies and not for text.

I think when HUDs and various virtual displays give the same performance as a 12" 1024x768 laptop display at 20" from the eye, then they might catch on. I would certainly be interested in a PDA with a HUD under such circumstances.

Re:only SVGA? by sanman2 · 2006-01-02 12:35 · Score: 1

Actually, I didn't see anything mentioned in the article on what resolution this thing offers. What does it offer? SVGA? In today's age, we need something that supports HDTV. Is that totally out of the question on a wearable viewer like this?
Re:only SVGA? by agraupe · 2006-01-02 13:40 · Score: 1

Well, I'm guessing that, if intended for use with the video iPod specifically, it only supports up to whatever the iPod supports (480x480, I've heard) or maybe VGA... don't hold your breath for HD.

The iStrain by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 12:13 · Score: 0

I can't wait for this device to enable my 50% blindness

Re:The iStrain by anubi · 2006-01-02 15:43 · Score: 1

Or, the glass could be half full!
I am contemplating someone with eye damage, where their imaging and focusing mechanisms are impaired, yet they may still be able to receive crude fixed-focus images.
This device ( with appropriate lensing ) could do exactly that.
An IPOD-like device could then act as a camera, allowing its wearer to see again.
Combine this with bluetooth, and we could enable those of us who don't have all the biological resources most of us take for granted to receive a nice gift.

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Re:The iStrain by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 17:14 · Score: 0

I only really take 50% of my vision to take for granted, which of course probably isn't that wise :/

same ac as above, btw

"binocculars" / "telescope"
I'm sure you can see (hoho) exactly where I'm going with this one, mount various optics on the side of your head (for example those fluid filled lenses) have receptors that work in visible light/infrared whatever (and why stop at these wavelengths, lets go sensor crazy!), couple with various wifi stuff, augmented reality processing environmental data with either on board wearables or some kind of connected processing, and of course the obvious "seeing stuff that is very far away".

Plus more esoteric things, like providing babelfish style subtitles of what the foreign speaker infront of you is saying and all that, local environmental info, like maps, temperature of that pyroclastic flow you are standing precariously near to etc all overlaid on your field of vision. after all, it's a 100" or whatever screen, maybe we can get a few animated adverts on there too :)

couple this with that feedback fabric that got posted about in here a short while ago with a no doubt "patent pending" ui. hmm iUI? hmm, guess we'll let the marketers think of a really stupid name that people have to pay good cash to use.

Guess it'll be one of the many specced out ideas for the full body combat exoskeleton, heh, guess that means we'll have the "HEALTH 100%" and "ARMOR 100%" in our field of vision, no doubt with a list of scrolling messages saying "omg! camper" "l0lz! pwned" and running with a fov of 360 and so on after all, there's no reason why we can't literally have eyes in the back of our head with this setup.

convergence is such a magic thing isn't it? :)

But to the prior point, practical(?) benefits certainly, ideas can be made of utilisation for various kinds of use beyond making a pirate eye patch iPod, but it really does seem that severe migraines go with sticking a screen on top of your eyes, after all head mounted vr hasn't exactly been a stellar success and the best 3d visualisation seems to be stereo projection with high Hz switched lcd filters worn like glasses. Not exactly portable.

There's always pointing lasers directly into peoples eyes aswell.

oh, and as for half empty/half full, the pedant in me says "it's completely full unless in a perfect vacuum" but as an ac I think I'm supposed to see the worst :)

driving with a cell phone is dangerous by commodoresloat · 2006-01-02 12:13 · Score: 1

I'm serious folks; never drive with a cell phone. With one hand on your cell phone and the other on the steering wheel, how the hell are you supposed to hold your beer?

Re:driving with a cell phone is dangerous by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 19:53 · Score: 0

And with this, you also have only one hand on the wheel. That is, if you watch the same vids I do.

Found another problem... by detlev409 · 2006-01-02 12:37 · Score: 1

It looks retarded.

--
Howdy.

Or walking... by jmp_nyc · 2006-01-02 12:42 · Score: 3, Funny

This may very well be the last straw, forcing pedestrian-oriented places like New York City to require pedestrian licenses. It's already a major hassle to get around during tourist season...
-JMP

Re:Or walking... by Gorbag · 2006-01-03 03:29 · Score: 1

Wouldn't pedestrian licenses improve NYC for residents? I mean it's not like the tourists will have stood in line at the DPM (Department of Pedestrian Movement) for the 6 months needed to get the license. Or have been willing to fork over the $2500. for the yearly fee, plus the $20./day for hotdogs of questionable ancestry or toxicity while waiting.

--
-- I speak only for myself
Re:Or walking... by jmp_nyc · 2006-01-03 14:45 · Score: 1

I always thought I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and have certain areas (such as the major shopping areas, Rockefeller Center, Times Square) where there's a fence down the middle of the sidewalk. Only people with permits will be allowed on one side, as long as they walk at a speed of at least 3mph without sudden stops. The other side of the fence would be for tourists.

This thought came to me after a single week during the Christmas tourist season when I had business meetings at both 30 Rockefeller Plaza (the RCA building, right behind the big tree) and 1515 Broadway during TRL. In both cases, walking the last 100 feet to get to building security took 15 minutes...
-JMP

So...? by Idarubicin · 2006-01-02 12:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

The only problem is that the expected retail value of the EyeBud is around $600, about $200 more than a 60 gigabyte iPod.

It's too bad that nobody will buy a $600 television to go with their $200 VCR/DVD player, either....

--
~Idarubicin

Re:So...? by KylePflug · 2006-01-02 14:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I could get a $200 DVD player with a screen twice the size of a $600 TV, and save on style in the meantime, I don't think I'd buy the TV too.

105 inch screen? by Aokubidaikon · 2006-01-02 12:50 · Score: 1, Funny

If you blow up the low-res iPod videos to that size it'll be more like you're watching Lego instead of Lost.

Re:And *some* genius will be using it while drivin by timeOday · 2006-01-02 12:52 · Score: 1

And *some* genius will be using it while driving

Whoopdie-doo. You could say the same about absolutely anything small enough to hold or mount in a car. "Ban books!!! They could be read while driving!"

low res blues by hkb · 2006-01-02 12:59 · Score: 1

Wouldnt another problem be the 320x200 (or whatever) resolution of the movies? 320 x 200 at 105" would look like crap.

--
/* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */

Re:low res blues by Lehk228 · 2006-01-02 16:28 · Score: 1

NTSC television is 525 lines interlaced so while 320 x 200 progessive isn't great it isn't some crime against nature either.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:low res blues by hkb · 2006-01-03 06:20 · Score: 1

Yes, but its virtually 525 lines. A lot different than 200. Watch a video of the most supreme quality at 320x200 and then scale it to TV sized displays. Not good.

--
/* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
Re:low res blues by Lehk228 · 2006-01-03 15:30 · Score: 1

it looks that bad because it is being scaled up, if you display at 320x200 with giant, blurry TV pixels it will look much better than blown up to 1024x768 or 1280x1024 computer monitor pixels

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

I still don't get it by michaelmalak · 2006-01-02 13:21 · Score: 1

People are all concerned about what kind of watch is on their wrist, spending $10k or more to make a fashion statement. People get all hung up about glasses, and spend way more on contacts or even lasik. People used to even be concerned that the Palm Pilot was too big to be worn on a belt clip -- thus the shrunken Treo and Pocket PCs. But they're willing to accommodate a facial modification -- not unlike glasses and certainly of much more concern than a wrist or belt?

Has the time come where geek really is cool now?

Re:I still don't get it by Lord_Dweomer · 2006-01-02 13:35 · Score: 1

Not only has it come, but it has been ushered in in part due to society's increasing necessity to have access to their technology at all times. Hence bluetooth for drivers. This is just another step forward in that trend. Eventually we will have implants, mark my words. Why? Because there will always be someone who wants to take that extra step and there will always be a company ready to cash in on that demand.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:Not to worry by symbolic · 2006-01-02 13:33 · Score: 1

If eyebud users start experiencing vision loss like earbud users are experiencing hearing loss, they may not be driving for long.

Not just any 2000" screen by chihowa · 2006-01-02 13:37 · Score: 1

It's Frank's

--
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.

Actual link by Animats · 2006-01-02 14:33 · Score: 1

Once we get past the blogdreck, the vendor site and the product site are more informative. The original article should have been titled "3DVisor head-mounted display now comes in low end model for Apple iPod." This is really a virtual reality display, originally with gyros for head movement sensing, that's been dumbed down for TV viewing.

Re:Actual link by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 14:45 · Score: 0

Here's one of their mil sim uses

http://www.quantum3d.com/products/Expedition/Exped itionDI.html

ExpeditionDI employs an eMagin® binocular OLED head mounted display (HMD) technology as the primary viewing device. The HMD features a 40 degree diagonal FOV, 24-bit color SVGA microdisplays, a 200:1 contrast ratio, patented OLED-on-silicon technology to enhance refresh rates, and on-chip signal processing and data buffering to provide bright, crisp, and flicker-free mono or stereo vision capability. An observer's clone view of the HMD is available using ExpeditionDI's secondary display connector. Alternately, a stealth view is available with select software options.

Next: Suit made of $100 bills by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 14:38 · Score: 0

to complete that "Hey! Rob me!" look.

If Apple made it... by FusionDragon2099 · 2006-01-02 15:24 · Score: 1

It would be called the iBud.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:If Apple made it... by cspring007 · 2006-01-02 16:54 · Score: 1

..., it would look a lot cooler and since it was "Designed in California and mass produced by really cheap labor in china" it would only cost 300 bucks instead of 500.

This guy did it first by CokeBear · 2006-01-02 15:27 · Score: 1

http://www.jefraskin.com/

--
Reality has a liberal bias

what is mobile? by recharged95 · 2006-01-02 15:46 · Score: 1

The only reason why mobile products are successful is that you can still experience "the world" through your 5 senses and integrate some (not all) conveniences of "home" (i.e. not giving you the conveniences of home). iPods and cell phone offer just that--you have communication or content on-demand, but not demanding constant attention. Otherwise, it more efficient if you just stayed home and used a terminal (a la desktop) or boob-tube for a better experience--we're all not slashdotting 'on the move' BTW.

Hence, this product, being in your face [physically] all the time, will basically fail.

Yes, with DVD, LCDs, 5.1 surround, iPods, phones, captain's chairs, xboxes and now this... in a car? Charlie Brown, please swipe that blanket away from Linus...

Well, I for one by guruevi · 2006-01-02 16:11 · Score: 1

welcome our Eyebud wearing overlords.

FTFA: this creates the illusion of watching a 105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet
I don't really want to pay $600 to watch an illusion.

And it wouldn't be great to watch a 105 inch screen at 640x480 anyway (I don't think you could fit more on a 1-inch-screen (look at your digital camera, it's 3 inch and has merely a resolution of 320x240.

And wouldn't it be tiring to look constantly at a screen with one eye, 1 inch away while your other eye is looking between 1-50ft further.

From the manual: if you experience problems with this device do not look into the screen with remaining eye.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com

virtual pr0n? by I_heart_chunli · 2006-01-02 16:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is the beginning of having hot virtual pr0n sex. W00t!

What a bunch of whiners... by univgeek · 2006-01-02 16:33 · Score: 1

Same guys that said the Ipod would fail I suppose. Why do you care if it makes you look like the Borg if it is truly useful?

Why does the discussion move from the possible to the merely fashionable? I guess the guys who see the potential to make this an extension of say a Nintendo handheld, or the PSP would actually go out and do it, and not be whining on /. Make it for both eyes, plug in to a PSP, play a game of Burnout:Revenge, or perhaps even a FPS? Instant immersion nearly anywhere (don't try this while driving).

And some of these guys think that they are nerds... When it comes to judging products on fashionability vs utility, you're just as bad as any one else...

--
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!

Heads Up by cspring007 · 2006-01-02 16:38 · Score: 1

What i really want is a HeadsUp jetfighter-style television for the winsheild of my car.
Also, it needs to be indetectable from outside the car so i won't get in trouble for watching tv while driving
and if it came with one of those computers that can drive my car to my work at 5:30 Am across the causeway bridge each morning fighting off sleep because i stayed up too late to make silly posts on slashdot.
Finally, sell it to me at best buy for 50 bucks so i can unload this gift card i got for christmas on something cool.
Also, i thought this was 2006, not 1986, because the product looks like it belongs on a sharper image shelf next to one of those phone lie detectors they used to sell.

This is old tech... by farrellj · 2006-01-02 16:40 · Score: 1

Stuff like this has been around for a while...I remember the iGlasses, then Sony, and the snazzy monicle used by 0Cool in the movie Hackers...

You would think that they would have gotten the price down in a decade or more...

ttyl
Farrell

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h

I really hope this flys! by von_blapp · 2006-01-02 17:02 · Score: 1

I am serious. I should hope this technology sells.
Rampant consumerism has brought down the price of many good pieces of hardware that I own. Who doesn't want to own a pair of eyephones from a Gibson novel? Once I get my hands on one* I am going to modify a laptop so that it doesnt have a monitor (ono sendai anyone?).
*One being a good pair of inexpensive high-resolution goggles that dont make me look like a spinal injury patient.

Re:I really hope this flys! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 18:29 · Score: 0

I am going to modify a laptop so that it doesnt have a monitor Erm...

Nostalgia has hit me! by GhaleonStrife · 2006-01-02 17:20 · Score: 0

Doesn't anyone remember those old tiger handhelds that had the "iBud" attached to a controller, put out images that looked like they were made on a cheap calculator that you get from your bank, and cost about $60? The only difference, I believe, is that this one has color, while the handheld did not.

two of them by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 17:42 · Score: 0

it should have two viewers for clarity and comfort, really, I'm serious, as a screen replacement, and that would also allow you to lie back on the bed staring straight up and still watch a vid. No more of that ridiculous and strenuous "sitting up" nonsense...ok that part is sorta silly..but still practical if ya think on it some

Re:two of them by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 18:30 · Score: 0

so mount your plasma on the ceiling. problem solved.

No, it's not the same by p3d0 · 2006-01-02 17:51 · Score: 1

The virtual screen image is at some definite distance -- presumably 12 feet in this example. The difference is where your eye focuses. If you had to focus on a 16" screen 2 feet away, you'd get fatigued pretty quickly.

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

Re:And *some* genius will be using it while drivin by osu-neko · 2006-01-02 18:13 · Score: 1

"Ban books!!! They could be read while driving!"

Been there, done that. ;)

What seriously scares me is the number of people who think driving while talking on the cell phone is a bad idea. Seriously, if you're that bad at paying attention to the road while carrying on a conversation, you can't be a very good driver even under the best of circumstances. It's too dangerous for you to be driving, even without a cellphone (much less anything even more distracting, like an actual passenger in the car with you). Turn in your license now so that you don't run into any of us drivers who are actually competent enough to talk and drive at the same time.

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

Glasses... by mofomojo · 2006-01-02 18:20 · Score: 1

If you can get this to project on a level of transparency on tinted glasses, then they'll sell like hotcakes.

People wear glasses all the time, therefore, it won't look weird, and also, just like volume, you can adjust the transparency to decide how much of reality you want to let in.

Amirite, or whut?

sony glasstron by pintomp3 · 2006-01-02 19:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

how different is this from the sony glasstron from a few year's ago? seems worse, only one eye. i guess as long as you plug it into an ipod, it's cool again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasstron

In the rear view by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 19:22 · Score: 0

The gadget might just get a label saying "Objects may appear farther away than they really are"

2 of them. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 19:26 · Score: 0

Would not be a bewolf cluster, but if one could get playback synced, some filmmaker could make nice 3d films.

Question by zorblek · 2006-01-02 19:46 · Score: 1

Does anyone know if this will be compatible with iPod Linux?

--
This is a postmodern sig.

Uhh, correction is in order... by macwise77 · 2006-01-02 19:59 · Score: 1

when you focus on the 'percieved' image

I think you are referring to a 'virtual' image. The difference is noteworthy, as you'll be lucky to have that much left after you're seen in public with one of these things strapped to your cranium.

--
Don't you hate people who always repeat themselves and are long-winded and overly redundant and talk too much?

*BAD* moderation by iamacat · 2006-01-02 20:00 · Score: 1

What the hell, I am an Apple user and I will gladly spend a few hundred bucks on a product I find well designed and useful. I might buy this one if I have enough occasions to watch video. I don't see anything offensive about the parent comment, someone needs to get a life.

acuvue. by bronney · 2006-01-02 20:45 · Score: 1

Just wait till your prescription glasses bills hit the sky. These dumb basses are killing me.

I for one... by el_womble · 2006-01-02 21:04 · Score: 1

...want others to buy this. I don't believe for a second that this is actually a useful product, but if a few thousand, more-money-than-sense iPod owners can bring the the price of wearable screens down I'm happy.

I hate sitting at a 20" CRT at work, and to be honest I'm not a huge fan of sitting at a 20" LCD at home. I've tried dual and triple heading my system, and to be honest, it still doesn't feel natural. What I need is a wearable, virtual display, that reacts to me tilting my head. If I'm not working on a document, I want to drag it onto my actual desktop by looking down and placing it out of sight. If I'm reading something, whilst I'm working on something else I want to have to turn my head so that I can read it. I don't really care that it only has 800x600 resolution. I'd prefer more, but if I can increase my desktop real estate just by moving my head I'm sure I can wait for the second or third generation device that have a decent resolution and more reasonable price.

If at all possible I'd like it to be transparent and not to be back lit, so that I'm encourage to sit in a room with natural light as opposed to closing the curtains and working at night to avoid glare. LCDs arn't very good at reflecting light, but they really not that bad at transmitting - thats the whole point, so having to lug around a battery to backlight a screen when there is an abundance of natural light seams ridiculous.

$600 is not an unreasonable price for early adopters (I know these sorts of displays have been around for years, but this is the first consumer product I've seen that actually looks viable), and for the neigh sayers that are pointing out that this is more than the actual iPod, well, at current prices - an Apple Cinema display is 3 times the price of mac mini - different people have different needs.

Would I ever wear on in public? Hell no, but then I only wear my bluetooth headset in the car, where it actually serves a purpose.
Would I wear one in an office if it genuinely meant that not only would my privacy increase, but so would my desktop space? Hell yes.

Now all I need is a keyboard replacement that fits in my pocket. I'm thinking gloves/rings, which mimic a keyboard, pinch to click/drag. Just a thought.

--
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!

Smaller than a quarter of what? by evilandi · 2006-01-02 22:27 · Score: 1

smaller than a quarter

A quarter of what? A quarter of a hectare - not very impressive? A quarter of a square centimetre - amazing?

I suspect this is an Americanism, possibly a coin? What is a quarter in this context and how big, in ISO recognised measurements, is it?

--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com

Same effect by skingers6894 · 2006-01-02 22:28 · Score: 1

Wouldn't the Video iPod + a roll of masking tape give the same effect?

Admittedly you might want to poke a hole in the tape over the other eye.

all you need is... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 22:59 · Score: 0

EarBud, EyeBud and ButBud... or is it still called ButPlug?

451 F...

Or for $150.00... by Jeffus · 2006-01-02 23:11 · Score: 0

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=GVD300-N&c at=CON

Yawn! by Goth+Biker+Babe · 2006-01-02 23:50 · Score: 1

The actual ipod itself isn't that great. No radio, no recording capability, built-in DRM. People who care and know what they're buying can do better for themselves elsewhere.

Typical anti-Apple tirade!

I develop consumer media devices for a living. I just bought myself a black 5G 60Gb iPod. Why? I needed a small portable harddrive to cart data around (which may include video files and so USB memory sticks are not sufficient). I wanted a media player which would work with all my machines (Apple, Linux, Windows). I wanted something that sounded pretty good. I wanted something that was reasonably well made. I wanted something that looked quite nice.

I bought an iPod because the DRM is only an issue which music purchased online. I still purchase most of my music in CD form and because of the type of music I like most is independent European labels. I can purchase a CD online and have it arrive a couple of days later. The contacts and calendar functionality is quite useful. The video is a bit of a gimmick but I can see myself using it when I use the train. I 'initialised' the iPod on my PC to get it in to Windows format. I use iTunes on my Mac to manage my music library but use open source software on my Linux development box at work to transfer music off of the iPod.

In fact there's nothing I can't do with it that I want to do, and there's nothing restrictive in its operation that affects me.

Re:Yawn! by theLOUDroom · 2006-01-03 17:50 · Score: 1

Typical anti-Apple tirade!

Typical Apple zealot response to a post that actually wasn't "anti-Apple".
It's not that I don't like Apple, it's just that they don't always have the best product on the market (or the best price). Saying this doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple. It means I researched my purchase.

I just bought myself a black 5G 60Gb iPod. Why?...

Sure it meets those criteria, but it's not the only device that does. So that's not really much of a reason. It's like saying "I bought Pirelli's because I needed tires for my car."
The only thing that you might argue that you can't get elsewhere is looks, but I submit that it wasn't looks but FASHION you were looking for.
It's like buying an $80 pair of jeans. Is it really the look you're after or is it the tag?

I bought an iPod because the DRM is only an issue which music purchased online.

Unlike you, I have a problem with DRM. So I bought an MP3 player with significantly better features than an ipod, sans drm. It's also worth pointing out that DRM is an issue on ANY file you get that happens to have it.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

Been there, done that. by thelonestranger · 2006-01-03 00:56 · Score: 1

This is old tech. Olympus produced something that was not too much bigger than this years ago called the Eye-trek http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/news/2001b/image/nr011 010fmd220e_03.jpg These came with two screens that claimed a screen size of 52" viewed at 6ft and could be bought in a range of flavours capable of various resolutions up to 800x600 SVGA. They were powered by camcorder batteries and it was also possible to get an RF connector for them. They came with warnings about the fact that they would mess up your hand-eye coordination and balance if used for extended periods of time and as such should not be used by anyone under the age of 16 unless they wanted to go blind in the longterm. After being used for 2 hours or more they switched themseveles off forcing you to take a break. And yes I was one of the 5 people in the world who forked out £300 for a pair. Olympus dont make them anymore but they can still be found on ebay. I'd be willing to sell mine but I've gone blind and cant find them.

--
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.

Re:Been there, done that. by engagebot · 2006-01-03 05:16 · Score: 1

yep. the sony glasstron had the same warnings about 16yr olds using it and going blind and whatnot. I actually bought a glasstron on ebay in 2000. I lived in a college dorm at the time, and thought it would be great for my computer and movies, but it did in fact give you a headache after a short amount of time. you know how it feels to wear someone else's glasses for a minute? yeah. like that. I put them back on ebay the same week and made $20 off the deal.

--
Han shot first.

Next Xmas you can have a better gadget for ~100$ by grounded_roamer · 2006-01-03 01:23 · Score: 0

See http://www.mirageinnovations.com/.

...gee whiz industrial design ... by the.o.ster.66 · 2006-01-03 01:32 · Score: 1

I also disagree with your statement that Apple hardware is all about fickle and impressionable folks being wooed by gee whiz industrial design and ergonomics. People happen to like Apple hardware and software solution because it offers a well integrated solution that minimizes finger pointing.

you obviously don't live in williamsburg

Re:...gee whiz industrial design ... by mjpaci · 2006-01-03 02:18 · Score: 1

you obviously don't live in williamsburg

as in Colonial? I spent 4 years there...pre-Internet...i don't understand your comment...help...me...please...

(i'm serious, i don't get it.)
Re:...gee whiz industrial design ... by the.o.ster.66 · 2006-01-03 02:31 · Score: 1

no, no. williamsburg, brooklyn.
the center of the universe (the hipster universe)

starship troopers by hachete · 2006-01-03 03:48 · Score: 1

all i need now is me exoskeleton..

--
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious

105" at 12' is not marketing, it is optics by bigpat · 2006-01-03 04:05 · Score: 2, Informative

I liked that description, actually. I thought if you're going to claim it creates the "illusion" of having a huge TV, why not take it to the limit? "Its makers say this creates the illusion of watching a 46,200 inch screen from a distance of 1 mile!"

Who wouldn't want the illusion of a 46 thousand inch screen? Seriously I should go into marketing.

It is because of the optics that the image appears as if it was at 11 or 12 feet. It is about how your eyes focus. Think about it. If you wear glasses are your eyes focusing on the surface of the lens or the image? That would be pretty uncomfortable if your eyes were straining to focus on the glasses less than an inch away. No, your eyes are focusing on the image that appears as if it is some distance in front of you. Same with binoculars or any other lens. Each lens is designed with a particular focus. The one eMagin uses happens to be 12'.

I've used eMagin's z800 and if the eyebud uses the same lens, which it sounds like it does, then the screen does actually appear as if it is on a screen about 12' away.

SVGA by bigpat · 2006-01-03 04:13 · Score: 1

The lowest resolution display that emagin makes is SVGA (800x600) I believe that is what the eyebud "800" stands for.

Shaking head here... by cr0sh · 2006-01-03 06:00 · Score: 1

$600.00 for this, a "virtual" 105 inch screen at 12 feet. This is crap, people. Marketing crap. More than 10 years gone by on head mounted display design, and all we can still get for anything under $1000.00 - more crap!!! I am sick of it!

First off, don't waste your money on this, unless you want to be disappointed. Not much information was given in the article, but assumming the dimmensions are correct, and the 105 inch virtual size screen they are discussing is the diagonal measurement, and assumming a 4:3 screen ratio (likely), a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (which I admit I could be wrong in, but I don't think so) shows that the view frustum from the eyeball (at 12 feet) results in 32 degree horizontal field-of-view (FOV), and the 20 degree vertical FOV. With a 640x480 VGA LCD (I assume this is what they are using - someone mentioned it, and it seems reasonable), that is 20 pixels per degree visual acuity! Even if they were using an 800x600 SVGA LCD (doubtful), it would still be 25 pixels per degree. I am not going to do the calculations for it (check this PDF here if you want to try), but I know from past experience and reading that this is way worse than "legally blind".

The image this thing displays is probably watchable, if you like viewing through a "toilet paper tube", but it probably won't work well for any textual output (unless the letters are really big), nor will it work for any form of immersion (not a large enough FOV, by far). Augmented reality is mostly out, too, due to both of these issues. Of course, none of these uses are what it is designed for, but every time something like this comes up, I always expect more...

I don't know why - I guess I just expect that since prices have come down on everything else, and quality up, that HMDs and similar devices should somehow follow suit. The parts and design haven't changed much in the past 10+ years. For over $500.00, but under $1000.00 - I expect to be able to get at least 800x600 SVGA at 45 degree horizontal FOV (in a full-size HMD). The VictorMaxx CyberMaxx (NOT the StuntMaster) HMD in the mid-1990's had 640x480 resolution at 51 degrees horizontal FOV, and was priced around $800.00.

I guess I am just expecting way too much. I had hoped that by today we would be much further along than we seem to be in the whole virtual environment playground. I started playing around with this stuff back in 1993 with a hacked StuntMaster and PowerGlove hooked up to my Amiga 1200. Later, I moved to a PC and Rend386. It seemed like everyone was on the verge of virtual reality and the like being "the next big thing", then commercial internet usage came along and seemingly blew it out of the water. Films like Lawnmower Man, while fun to watch, didn't help, because the public's expectations were made higher than what the technology could deliver. Today, we have the rendering engines on everyone's desks (and consoles) to deliver the content needed at desired framerates - any current FPS is proof of that. What we don't have are the I/O devices to immerse the player. Sadly, only a very small minority of players even seem to want full immersion. I have no idea why this is so. I can only speculate that the people who could afford it today remember the poor results of yesterday, and don't adopt it. That, or it is a chicken and egg problem, whereby they don't realize how fun it is to actually be in the game versus watching the game as it progresses. The thing I really don't understand, despite the fact that there are plenty of case-modders, hardware hackers, and an entire internet, is that there doesn't seem to be anybody out there homebrewing their own HMDs from COTS parts. Why is this? Is can't be because the knowleddge has nearly disappeared from the homebrew scene (PCVR Magazine, sadly, is no more) - it certainly hasn't stopped the number of people homebrewing their own video projectors. So, why?

Am I

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon

City of Lost Children by Scroatzilla · 2006-01-03 09:31 · Score: 1

City of Lost Children. All it needs is a mini camera. Then we can completely shut out our natural senses of sight and hearing.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0112682/

231 comments