Slashdot Mirror
More Details On Google Glass
Earlier today we discussed Google's I/O conference keynote presentation, which gave updates on Android 4.1, Google+, the Nexus 7 tablet, and the Nexus Q streaming device. We also got a rather dramatic demonstration of Google Glass, complete with skydiving, bike flips, and rappelling. They followed up with a press conference solely dedicated to Glass, and Timothy was there to cover it. Read on for details about Glass.
As we mentioned earlier, the developers at I/O have the option to buy the 'Explorer Edition' of Google Glass for $1,500. In addition to the (functional, but unfinished) device itself, they also get access to Google's engineers and to keep up with the devices development. Worry not: when the consumer version of the device is finalized, it will be cheaper, but of course they aren't ready to talk about actual prices yet. As for availability: "Less than a year after we get these Explorer Editions out."
Google wants to encourage creative hacking, even if they don't want the developers to immediately put the results in front of users. Sergey said, "Having used a lot of GoPros, what I really want to do is have 5 GoPros along with me — but also Glass, so you can easily capture the data hands-free, that you can see what you're capturing as you do it."
How do you click a web page? Sergey stumbles a bit -- "maybe you should switch to phone or try another device."
For tying into other Google services, and storing all that data, there is instant upload for pictures. Videos are larger, and they haven't finished how that interaction is going to work. The Google Map improvements with 3D views are perfect for viewing with the glasses.
Sergey also talked briefly about safety. Google has a lot of experience with this, particularly from the self-driving car. Speaking to actual experience: compared to driving, where you have distant view, plus dashboard instruments, etc., "This feels much safer." To objections that (say) even heads-up displays on cars are very limited, Sergey counters by pointing out that they only want to present a limited amount of data.
He went on to speak about the design of the glasses. There were two paths they had to choose from. Their initial instinct was to make these as much like glasses as possible; essentially a device disguised as glasses. Sergey said, "When we went through design options, decided, lets be bold .. a lot of people go through a fair amount of effort not to wear glasses; they wear contacts and things like that." So, they discarded glasses and made it an asymmetrical thing, very non-glasses like. He basically sidestepped a question about whether they've worked or are working with makers like Bausch & Lomb on products.
After fielding a few annoying questions about Larry's health, he went on to say Google Glass fits well with the charter of Google Apps, "to take bold risks and push the edges of technology. ... I think we're definitely pushing the limits." It's not all perfect, though. "There've definitely been situations where I felt that we got the software wrong. When you have something buggy and crashing there," he said, gesturing to the camera above his eye, "that's a real problem."
They're currently demonstrating the glasses. We'll have some video of that for you later.
Google wants to encourage creative hacking, even if they don't want the developers to immediately put the results in front of users. Sergey said, "Having used a lot of GoPros, what I really want to do is have 5 GoPros along with me — but also Glass, so you can easily capture the data hands-free, that you can see what you're capturing as you do it."
How do you click a web page? Sergey stumbles a bit -- "maybe you should switch to phone or try another device."
For tying into other Google services, and storing all that data, there is instant upload for pictures. Videos are larger, and they haven't finished how that interaction is going to work. The Google Map improvements with 3D views are perfect for viewing with the glasses.
Sergey also talked briefly about safety. Google has a lot of experience with this, particularly from the self-driving car. Speaking to actual experience: compared to driving, where you have distant view, plus dashboard instruments, etc., "This feels much safer." To objections that (say) even heads-up displays on cars are very limited, Sergey counters by pointing out that they only want to present a limited amount of data.
He went on to speak about the design of the glasses. There were two paths they had to choose from. Their initial instinct was to make these as much like glasses as possible; essentially a device disguised as glasses. Sergey said, "When we went through design options, decided, lets be bold .. a lot of people go through a fair amount of effort not to wear glasses; they wear contacts and things like that." So, they discarded glasses and made it an asymmetrical thing, very non-glasses like. He basically sidestepped a question about whether they've worked or are working with makers like Bausch & Lomb on products.
After fielding a few annoying questions about Larry's health, he went on to say Google Glass fits well with the charter of Google Apps, "to take bold risks and push the edges of technology. ... I think we're definitely pushing the limits." It's not all perfect, though. "There've definitely been situations where I felt that we got the software wrong. When you have something buggy and crashing there," he said, gesturing to the camera above his eye, "that's a real problem."
They're currently demonstrating the glasses. We'll have some video of that for you later.
Just think, future generations will have a nice high-res recording of your dying moments! Ever wondered exactly what your great great grandparent saw and heard as they died? These glasses, should they catch on, will also produce a whole new wave of sex and practical joke creepiness...
I have two major concerns about this, neither of which are safety-related.
First, as I mentioned above, it would have to be absolutely clear that I alone control the data on it. If I'm involved in an automobile accident, for example, I don't want to be arrested for obstruction of justice if I decide to delete the video. However, if I need to use it in court, I would get to choose to keep it as evidence.
Second, what about privacy concerns? I mean, right now, if I see a hot girl, I have my memories. Not any more, now I have video of her that I can upload to Facebook! Will people take these things off in restrooms out of respect? I doubt it. Will I never be able to tell off-color jokes to my friends who have these again because it might come up at an inconvenient time when I'm interviewing for a job at some point?
As a lesser but still valid concern, what about copyright? I'm sure that movie theaters would have a cow if you wore them in. What if I'm just lounging around the house and happen to have the television on or a song playing on the Nexus Q, am I going to be sued by Sony or making illegal copies of copyrighted material? Are they going to build in a kill switch for Google Glass controlled by your content-protected television? Etc.
This is a fascinating technology, but not without some challenges. I can't wait to see what happens as these things are worked out.
Honestly what sort of person wants to push their whole life into google's data centres in such detail? Given all the tourists in this area I'm used being filmed and being in pictures more than I care to but I don't mind it at all. However if I were sitting somewhere and trying to relax with some idiot filming every little thing on his ugly glasses then yes I think I would have an issue with that.
Between this and the sort of tracking that appears to be happening on their new tablet, for your "convenience" leaves me wondering how much further Google wants to pry into our lives and perhaps something should be done about it. At least give people 100% ownership and control over their own data.
I think I'd also be more concerned it's a US company and therefore the US government has access to all this too which is actually more scary than Google having it.
I just wasted 10 minutes trying to find the link. Where are these supposedly hotter-than-hot models?
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
Most don't, just like most people don't want to give their money or personal information to the companies selling other products or providing other services that rely on access to personal information. Most people would prefer to keep their money and information.
What people do want is the the benefits they get from using the devices and services. The cost -- in money or information that has to be handed over to get those benefits -- is something that people may be willing to accept as a cost, not something that they "want".
Assuming you are referring to the "Google now" feature, that doesn't seem to do any more tracking than Google already has been for a long time, it just leverages the ability to data mine the data Google has stored for the user's direct benefit more.
Which may make more obvious how much tracking was already going on, and what people can learn by data mining, but it doesn't actually seem to be more tracking.
He went on to speak about the design of the glasses. There were two paths they had to choose from. Their initial instinct was to make these as much like glasses as possible; essentially a device disguised as glasses. Sergey said, "When we went through design options, decided, lets be bold .. a lot of people go through a fair amount of effort not to wear glasses; they wear contacts and things like that." So, they discarded glasses and made it an asymmetrical thing, very non-glasses like.
Yet, many trendy people willing to spend $$$-$$$$ on functionally useless accessories wear frames with non-prescription clear lenses. But I guess such a person is probably not the target market for a pricey, vanity-centric device like Google Glass. . .
Then there is the fact that eyeglasses are the culmination of generations of research on how to mount something over the human eye in a way that is comfortable during everyday activity. But hey, why not reinvent that wheel?
you have the internet. do you really need links to find hot women?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There are other legit source of content for the kindle besides amazon.
I really like my kindle.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
ou're argumen kind of falls apart when applied to Apple.
For the record, I can't wait to buy the Asus Infinity TF700.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And the ipod had less space than a nomad and was lame too. The future isnt made for most practical innovations, but the ones that capture global culture attention. This tried to make the same impact that did the iphone and ipad presentation (don't remember a lot about the ipod one now), and it did. But time is a bitch. Something that could have a developer version by next year almost fit in the vaporware definition, and so much time could give others the opportunity of steal the show with cheaper, dumber and less useful alternatives.
... Philip Glass' less musically-talented younger brother.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
um, no. apple has content upsell also in the form of the entire itunes / appstore ecosystem. and at every turn you hear people talking that iOS users spend more on content than android. apple get a cut of all that.
it's well known that the kindle fire is the only tablet that's made any sort of dent in the ipad's dominance (it's a pretty small dent). then you have all the other vendors fighting over the remaning few precent of the market that isn't consumed by the ipad and the fire. when you split 5% across five vendors, you don't end up profitable.
considering the kindle's crippled android and lackluster hardware, you'd have to say the reason it's had some success is the price ... as it came in hundreds of dollars less than other android tablets (discounting the chinese knockoffs). it was reported that the kindle actually cost over $200 to build, so amazon's angle on this deal is obvious.
oh, and for the record, i own (or i should say, my work owns) an asus TF-201 transformer. it performs pretty poorly overall, and if anything, it's slower than my galaxy tab 10.1 from last year. there's also a lot of animosity right now because asus released a shoddy product in the TF-201 then very shortly abandoned it and announced the TF-700. the TF-201 owners feel cheated.
but better luck to you gambling your $600 on the infinity.
Someone will come out non functioning look a like. Cheap hipster will wear them.
My library lets me digitally check out books to read on my kindle. Yours probably does too. Free books + e-reader = ultimate geek win.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
"Posted by timothy ..."
"... and Timothy was there to cover it."
Shouldn't these be called Google Googles ?
Not to mention other sources of less-than-legit content.
I've the original Transformer, and I'm very happy with it. Performs decently, good battery life, reliable. My one complaint is that it installed some unwanted bundled crapware with a firmware update, and made it impossible to remove. I had to root the tablet to get rid of it.
If ever you destroy evidence, be sure to destroy the evidence that you destroyed the evidence. Then destroy the evidence that you destroyed the evidence that you destroyed the evidence.
You could also destroy the evidence that you destroyed the evidence that you destroyed the evidence that you destroyed the evidence, but some say that's a little paranoid.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Do we really see a future where people are going to walk around with some kind of headset and HUD?
I think this is a cool concept, but with a very limited appeal and market. I think society will quickly lash out against all the techno-yuppies donning their Bluetooth and HUD glasses trying to seem more important then they are and believing they need ubiquitous connectivity.
I just don't see a need for constant visual feedback of the world I am looking at, I think I will continue to use my brain for that reason.
I would imagine that the pending class action lawsuit of people injuring themselves while using these devices will render them as a quick footnote in the history of technology fads. You just know that when someone's visual attention is momentarily distracted by some Google Ad because the device detected you are near a McDonalds will cause people to walk into oncoming traffic or drive off the road (either to escape from or be drawn in to the Big-M).
Google is forgetting the fact that people are fundamentally stupid. Rich hipsters even more so. A device to replace thought and rationality is not a good idea, period.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Google Glass is a nice concept but it will never take off--in its current form. For starters, most don't want to wear glasses unless they are sunglasses, they realize this. Second, at least with a mobile you somewhat know when someone is recording or taking pics. The public pressure will be against these for general use, just as they would be if many started wearing GoPro cams everywhere they went, which is what these currently are since they have not shown any HUD functionality as of yet.
They should have waited till further along in development before showcasing it anyway. Developers wont get one until next year and then it will be much more time before the general public can. Without that functionality and some type of smartphone interface to make it more useful, the (non-geek) public has already passed judgement. Sure they might have a place, but it's likely right alongside BT earpieces.
If I buy a record, lose it, and then download it, is that stealing too?
if you buy a shirt, lose it, then take another from the store without paying, is that stealing?
same thing, when you bought the shirt, and when you bought the record, there was no expectation or right granted that allowed you free copies of the product if the original was lost. i'm pretty sure you knew that when you bought the record.
and please, don't push the tired "i'm making a backup copy" argument. no one is going after you legally for making a backup copy of the music you purchased. it doesn't happen.