'Wearable Computing Will Be the Norm,' Says Google Glass Team

An anonymous reader writes "In an interview with Wired, Google's Steve Lee and Babak Parviz spoke about how they've come to use Project Glass in their lives, and where they expect the mobile computing industry to go in the near future. 'We've long thought the camera's important, but since we've started using this in public and with our family and friends and in real situations, not just hidden in the Google lab, we've truly seen the power of being hands-free. ... It's my expectation that in three to five years it will actually look unusual and awkward when we view someone holding an object in their hand and looking down at it. Wearable computing will become the norm.'"

Comments

Some things I want first

[houghi]

Self adjusting clothing, self closing shoes and a hoverboard.

It used to be that...

[bmo]

... when you saw someone standing alone and talking, sometimes even getting animated and agitated, you thought they were crazy.

Now you look and hope they're wearing a bluetooth headset before making a judgement.

Soon, with the further miniaturisation of wearable computing, you won't be able to tell the difference between a gesticulating drunken bum, and a drunken, gesticulating businessman.

--
BMO

Nokia was first with this idea

[xynopsis]

I once saw this concept videovideo at Nokia Research Centre in Helsinki more than 3 years ago. Too bad Nokia failed to capitalise it on time and now they are failing big time.

Don't forget about the end purpose of all that

[tftp]

Wearable computing will continue, since modern smartphones are pretty close to the desired ideal.

However many proponents of wearable computing are explicitly associating it to wearing headsets, Borg-like heads-up displays, cameras, GPS, implanted compasses, and whatnot. These, IMO, will not be popular just because there is no need for them. Even the heads-up display is a distraction for most people. A cell phone form factor is with us since the days of ancient clay tablets. It is something that we are well equipped to operate - we can take it, give it, leave it, look at it, and work with it. I can imagine a communicator from ST:TNG as well. But even those communicators, as shown, are pretty limited. They had no video, for example - and many an away team would benefit from that. They would be better off with a modern smartphone, actually, as long as it can communicate with the orbit.

At most I can imagine a heads-up display that is wirelessly linked to the smartphone in your pocket. That would have some use. Beyond that I don't see anything obvious; perhaps future developments give us other hardware that is worth wearing.

Also in all these cases we must remember that the battery technology is still not good enough. Replacing batteries in all these wearable gizmos is a hassle - and a visible expense.

Re:Don't forget about the end purpose of all that

[wild_quinine]

At most I can imagine a heads-up display that is wirelessly linked to the smartphone in your pocket. That would have some use. Beyond that I don't see anything obvious; perhaps future developments give us other hardware that is worth wearing.

Every year or two somebody comes up with something that "could replace the mouse". It never does. I'm not saying never will, but I don't see anything coming. Why? Because the mouse is pretty close to perfect. It allows for fine manipulation from the wrist and/or fingertips without fatigue - in fact the arm is almost at rest. Only the nipple, trackball, and touchpad have ever really come close, and I'd argue that most people consider them to be acceptable compromises.

Kinaesthetic peripherals such as the Kinect, the Wiimote, the Move, Gyroscopic mice, heck, even the Gloves of Love from Minority Report - none of them are never going to become ubiquitious input devices like the mouse, because none of them are better than the mouse for general purpose input, in these really fundamental ways. If you want fine motor movement, you generally don't want to get the whole arm involved.

All novel ways to interact with the world are up against similar issues. They can't all be directly compared to the mouse, but for genuinely novel ways of interacting with the world, consider these three questions: 'is it a hassle to use?', 'can you forget it is there?*', and eventually, 'do you look for it, when it is not there?'.

A lot of wearable computing devices won't even pass the first test - you're right about the batteries being a likely issue. Keeping five or six items charged is going to be a pain. But also consider fatigue, fineness of control, etc.

* under 'can you forget it is there?', consider also 'are you always looking for the thing you know exists, which would be simpler to use'... such as a mouse, or sometimes a keyboard. :)

Re:Don't forget about the end purpose of all that

[Lumpy]

Oddly, I wear a dead heads up display panel all day long every day, they are called GLASSES. it's just the projector display section is defective, but the image enhancement section still works.

I'm looking ahead to...

[Lisias]

... see the implications on the professional life.

I want to see a manager blatantly lying to me when wearing one of those. :-)

Agree and Disagree

[whisper_jeff]

It's my expectation that in three to five years...

I agree with their view and disagree with it. I agree that wearable computers are the future but I disagree with their timeline - I believe "three to five years" is an enormously, overly aggressive timeframe.

First of all, project Glass is coming to market next year at a price of $1400 (iirc) and is only available for developers (currently - which I would imagine means the price is as low as possible to help get developers involved rather than to generate profits). This is already one year of their three-to-five timeframe eaten up. While I realize that price will come down as the tech gets better and once it's made available to the general public economies of scale will also help drive the price down, I believe there's still far too big a difference between "price the tech has to be sold at to make it a viable business" and "price most consumers are willing to pay". So, first of all, I believe the price is a significant barrier and it will take longer than three to five years to get the price into a realm where the average consumer feels comfortable paying for the tech.

Second, and more importantly, people have zero experience with the interface. Smartphones were set to explode because people a) understood phones and b) understood computers so the marriage of the two as a technology as easy to understand and required minimal learning to use. It was easy for the mass market to pick up and go. For something like project Glass, I cannot see the average person easily figuring out how to use it. Now, understand, this is absolutely independent of how easy it actually is to use - it might be the easiest, most intuitive thing in the world to use but people won't feel that it's easy to use because they've never used anything like it which will serve as a barrier to adoption. People intuitively knew how to use a phone and knew how to use a computer so selling them a phone that was a computer was easy. Selling them a set of glasses that is also a computer will not be an easy sell. Thus, there needs to be a significant amount of effort spent making that usage scenario _feel_ easy and intuitive to the average consumer before they will actually pick up the device and that will only happen over time. It will happen, eventually, but it will take time.

All in all, I agree that wearable computer devices will become the norm but I think that "three to five years" is an enormously optimistic timeframe. There will be early adopters and the like but it will take at least a decade, probably a bit longer, before it solidly penetrates the mass market and becomes "normal".

Advertising will kill it

[petes_PoV]

We know that any piece of personal technology that CAN support advertising WILL be used for that purpose - whether we want it to, or not. Imagine how intrusive it would be to be using the Google Glass technology to look at something and suddenly an ad. pops up trying to sell us something that looks like what we're looking at.

What's even worse will be the privacy issues. Not only will advertisers be able to track the users as they can now, with 3G, Wifi and BT triangulation, but they'll be able to infiltrate our state of mind by interpreting what or who we're looking at.

Because I really need more tracking

[antifoidulus]

I was just thinking to myself the other day, you know Google doesn't have QUITE enough information about me in their databases, wouldn't it be wonderful if they could track my every motion and everything I see too? Then my life would be complete.

Just needs better input tech, like this...

[wisebabo]

If you haven't seen the Leap motion (and no I'm not in any way shape or form connected to the company, although I wish I were!) you should check it out.

It's a super-accurate (I think sub-millimeter), low latency 3D tracker with the ability to follow up to 10 fingers (or other objects like pencils) at once. All in a very small box (USB powered?) box that's expected to sell for $70 (this year). I don't know the volume in which it can track the objects but on the demos it appears to be pretty large, large enough that a belt mounted (or necklace version) would be sufficient.

Voice recognition is good and getting better but there are many time when a point and click(?) interface is still much more efficient. Like when you want to access one link out of many on a web page. Or control a complex virtual device that has many degrees of freedom. Humans have evolved to have hands of extraordinary flexibility and control; just look at the amount of our brain dedicated to them. So let's use them! (The reasons why this Leap device is so good as opposed to say "finger detection" using the Google glasses video-camera is because the resolution is much higher, it tracks in 3D and there might not be a problem with occlusion.)

Of course the Google glasses should be updated to have a stereo display (I think currently it's only in the right eye). That would allow truly interacting with items in 3D. (Of course, the above comments about people gesticulating in space would come to pass! I'm wondering if "I'm sorry your honor but I didn't mean to touch the young lady like that, I was turning the knobs on my virtual stereo receiver" would be a valid defense.)

This is the way that Google should be fighting Apple. Not by making incremental changes to Apple's tech (or so it appears to most people* and, apparently some judges) but by revolutionizing the field. If they're right, then in three to five years Apple may only control the remains of a vast but dying industry. Sounds like Microsoft before or IBM before it.

*look, prior to the iPhone, smartphones looked one way and then suddenly they (the successful ones that is) completely changed their basic appearance and interface (touchscreens using fingers not stylii, icons, slide to access, pinch zoom). Coincidence? Coming from companies with decades of experience in making hundreds of cellphone models? That's how most lay-persons (and at least some legal experts) might view it.

Re:already the norm

[Lumpy]

I find it convenient. If you buy a non crappy BT headset you don't even notice you are wearing it. I also find it convieient that I dont need the headset in the car and the car is a large speakerphone so everyone can join in on the call. Finally, my BT helmet completes the trifecta while I am on the motorcycle.

What is inconvenient, is that Car makers and helmet makers are too lazy to make a proper HUD system to show information in my line of sight.

Having a camera/webcam strapped to my head is not highly important in any way. I already have that in my secondary BT headset, a LooxCie camera/BT headset. It's actually quite worthless having a camera on my head all day long, unless I want to live cast boring as hell things... Which is what people do with these.

The biggest convenience is I can easily unplug by removing the headset and upgrades to newer tech at a whim. Silly people that want surgery to have their interface will always be using way out of date hardware.

Anyone using implants will be using tech that is at least 5 years out of date, the FDA approval of devices for implant will take at least that long. Let alone that the $199 premium headset will cost $999 plus $12,500 for insertion by a surgeon.

Re:Heh.

[Lumpy]

And two in his home.....

Dammit, I let the secret out, Oh well.

Will you please put some clothes on when you walk around in the living room. Us at the Cable company are grossed out.

And please move the bedroom cable box to the left a little and put the bottle of hand cream elsewhere, it has been blocking our view and we have been using it as a kind of torture device for the new employees.

Re:already the norm

[stg]

I am aware of 3 or 4 car models already with HUDs, including the Camaro. Honda Civic's in the last few years have a big digital speed display above the steering wheel. It is much easier to read and I am always bothered when driving another car with a regular speedometer...

I have also seen speed HUDs for skiers before with special glasses, aren't there any already for bikes?