Slashdot Mirror
'EyeBud' for the iPod Video
JonathanGCohen writes "The SeattlePI is reporting that eMagin, a company that makes video display products for military and industrial uses, has a new headset accessory for the iPod that projects video on to a screen smaller than a quarter that is mounted in front of one eye. Its makers say this creates the illusion of watching a 105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet." The only problem is that the expected retail value of the EyeBud is around $600, about $200 more than a 60 gigabyte iPod.
This would be great if they had a red laser on the other side of the screen.
Course, I'd worry about putting it on the wrong way round.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Oh great. And you thought driving with a cell phone was dangerous.
here
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Giving a whole new meaning to the term "road hazard."
Its makers say this creates the illusion of watching a 105 inch screen from a distance of 12 feet
I'd say it creats the illution of watching a 1 inch screen at a distance of 1 inch. Also it creats the illution that you are a smarter consumer then you really are.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
So you're supposed to wink for an hour straight when you watch an episode of Lost?
a) How well does it function? These things in the past have had dubious functionality, I'm not about to buy one now... coupled with
b) It costs a LOT - Lets face it, this better be one amazing product if it costs 600$. 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
Why would I want to look at a QVGA image on a 105" inch screen?
Or, a 16" monitor set to 800x600 when viewed from 2'.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...]
I think that the "newness" part of this is that it is specifically designed for an iPod.
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!
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.
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.
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."
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".
Speed 2 is dangerous to watch even if one is stationary.
... and then they built the supercollider.
... would you need a portable video display for a portable video display?
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.
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"
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
It's too bad that nobody will buy a $600 television to go with their $200 VCR/DVD player, either....
~Idarubicin
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.
This is the beginning of having hot virtual pr0n sex. W00t!
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
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.