Slashdot Mirror


How Google Glass Is Evolving As It Heads For Release To Developers

hypnosec writes "Babak Parviz, the founder and head of Project Glass at Google, has revealed that the feature set of Google Glass and state of apps is still in flux and that there is a lot of testing going on at the moment. In an interview with IEEE Spectrum, Parviz provided insights into Project Glass, the reasons behind having such a gadget and what's there for the project in near future. Parviz said that they are trying out new ideas and ways in which the platform can be used while also trying to make the platform more robust. There is no specific feature set that Google has been talking about and 'It is still in flux.'" My favorite question / answer pair: "IEEE Spectrum: What kind of business model is associated with Google Glass? Babak Parviz: This is still being worked on, but we are quite interested in providing the hardware."

140 comments

  1. Borg Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You will be assimilated.

    If you hated the idea of cameras everywhere, you won't be able to hide at all in a few years except if you are lost in the woods far away from civilization.

    1. Re:Borg Glass by binarylarry · · Score: 0

      I hate to break this to you but everyone's phone these days... IS A CAMERA!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Borg Glass by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      I hate to break this to you but everyone's phone these days... IS A CAMERA!

      Which can be easily covered over with a strip of tape, it also keeps the lens from being scratched up. Taping over the microphone hole may cause difficulty in other's hearing you during calls. This LG OptimusV of mine contains a second, internal microphone. Now I wonder why it 'needs' that...

    3. Re:Borg Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ambient noise cancellation? You think a for-profit corporation is going to waste money putting an unnecessary component in to a phone for the sake of service to their Illuminati masters?

    4. Re:Borg Glass by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      Ambient noise cancellation? You think a for-profit corporation is going to waste money putting an unnecessary component in to a phone for the sake of service to their Illuminati masters?

      It's like you read my mind, man!

      Thanks, always wondered why an extra mike was there. Makes sense, unless... Are you one of "them"??? :-)

  2. what's Project Glass? by corbettw · · Score: 5, Informative

    In case, like me, you had never heard of this project:

    Project Glass is a research and development program by Google to develop an augmented reality head-mounted display (HMD).[2] Project Glass products would display information in smartphone-like format[3] hands-free and could interact with the Internet via natural language voice commands.[4] The prototype's functionality and minimalist appearance (aluminium strip with 2 nose pads) has been compared to Steve Mann's EyeTap.[5][6]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Glass

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    1. Re:what's Project Glass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you've heard of Wikipedia?

    2. Re:what's Project Glass? by loufoque · · Score: 1, Troll

      You're on slashdot on the 1st of January but you don't know what Project Glass is?
      Have you been living in a cave?

    3. Re:what's Project Glass? by stokessd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Go easy on the guy. I'm no stranger to slashdot, but I had to run to google to verify that project glass was the VR glasses and not some other google project brewing in the labs. I had read about it at least twice, but find it so unappealing to me that I don't keep it in my mind for long.

      This strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.

    4. Re:what's Project Glass? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      I call it, "you think people running into things while paying attention to their phones is bad, wait until they are checking their twitter feeds in the left eye and facebook in the right...."

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    5. Re:what's Project Glass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.

      I once heard the iPad described as such.

  3. one business model: military by ofcourseyouare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    About business models: the only set of people I can think of who use something like Google Glass at the moment are military pilots, who have had head-up displays for decades and are getting helmet-mounted displays at the moment. Why do they find it useful? Because they need information instantly, don't have their hands free, have huge budgets available and don't care if they look like a cyborg. So there's a clue for a target market: the military. I imagine a squad on patrol would find it useful to have information on the area they're walking through sent to them in real time without having to take their hands off their weapons or look down; and their commanders would find it useful to be able to see what the troops are seeing in real time. They could afford a far higher budget than most civilians, and looking like a freakish cyborg from Hell could potentially be a bonus. Only issue: surely DARPA's on this already? But maybe Google could do it better...

    1. Re:one business model: military by Dr.+Zim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure law enforcement would be happy to have the same tech.

      --
      (name withheld by request)
    2. Re:one business model: military by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Landwarrior

      The army has been developing it since the mid 1990's

    3. Re:one business model: military by lineman60 · · Score: 1

      Military does have a use for it but so do doctors, Let me look up the patient info/x-ray/CAT Scan info with out moving my hands. Low key what about Drivers. I would love to see a HUD with all the cops/DWI checkpoints pinpointed. Wouldn't you?

    4. Re:one business model: military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Gamers.

    5. Re:one business model: military by houghi · · Score: 1

      I am sure advertisers want you to have it as well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:one business model: military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please repost this in two parts, so I can mod the first sentence "insightful" (if ungrammatical) and the third "troll".

      This will certainly be good news/bad news tech -- good news: it'll let the doctors do a better job trying to patch up the victims of the assholes who think getting shitfaced and going out for a joyride is some kind of fucking video game. Bad news: the doctors will probably try to patch up the assholes, too.

    7. Re:one business model: military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throw in Google driverless vehicles (won't stop all joyrides though).

    8. Re:one business model: military by rocket+rancher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The military aren't the only ones that could really benefit from this technology. I ride motorcycles for fun and profit, and I can assure you having gear, engine, and lap data displayed in my visor is pretty awesome. Adding location/terrain data in real time would be nirvana. If google can do it as well as or better than the existing offerings, and I'm fairly certain they can, then I can look forward to becoming a faster, safer rider with more (read: economically viable) commercial options for my HUD. I'm working with a friend who is passionate about aerial photography to hack together a way to stream video data from a gopro mounted on a quadcopter right to my visor so I can "see" over hills and around blind turns when I'm taking a ride on my favorite winding mountain road. Streaming it to a Nexus 10 bungeed to my tank works pretty good right now, even with the 2 second video lag that plagues the preview mode on the gopro app, but I'd *love* to be able to see the same data without having to take my eye off the road to glance down. As it is, being able to see that sheriff's deputy lurking in hull-defilade beyond the next rise five seconds before his lidar can see me is *priceless.* If google can help make that happen, more power to them. I think every snowmobiler, skier, kayaker, and off-road enthusiast would be a very likely target for this technology.

    9. Re:one business model: military by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until the Army realized that putting a computer on every soldiers back only paints a target on them for any opposing force with even minimal ELINT capabilities with off the shelf gear these days.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    10. Re:one business model: military by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Motorcyclists, civilian pilots, race car drivers, Police, Firefighters, everyday drivers, mechanics, doctors....
      Really the list goes on and on. I know that when riding my motorcycle I would like to see my current speed without taking my eyes off the road. Put a computer controlled zoom macro lens on them for doctors or anyone needing to do close up work. IR imaging for Police and Firefighters,

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:one business model: military by ark1 · · Score: 1

      Add also Casino cheats. Won't be long before someone implements ball tracking which will enable you to beat the odds at Roulette.

    12. Re:one business model: military by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      People are still putting soldiers on the ground? That's UAV work right there!

      Front lines are so 20th century. The only warriors are going to be those on the airstrip fueling and refurbing UAVs and the pilots controlling them from the airbase near Vegas.

    13. Re:one business model: military by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Throw in threat recognition and location awareness, and a couple circling drones could feed down to the squad, in real time, locations and distances to all threats. Highlight them in glowing red with a crosshairs and distance, and you will decrease your losses and bystander casualty rates. Who cares if the commander can see in real time. That'd be more like Aliens where Hicks is more confused and paralyzed from all the information, rather than a real-time feedback where you have all your friendlies hilighted in green and the detected enemies highlighted in red, with locations available hundreds of meters away through 10 thick walls. Once this type of real-time threat awareness is available, the militaries will pay billions for it. Then they'll need to work out a real time IFF system for grunts so we don't end up with the Brits firing on US (or vice versa) in a confusing skirmish. Then they'd pay billions for robots that roll through active firefights identifying friends and foes, feeding them back to command and the grunts. With US military capability, it'd reduce casualties significantly. automatically call down air support when reds outnumber (or out maneuver) greens, and the A-10 will have the friendlies and foes lit up in real-time in his vision.

    14. Re:one business model: military by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      In my experience, if you don't instinctively know what gear you're in all the time, you probably shouldn't be racing and the lap data is most certainly going to be utterly disappointing.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    15. Re:one business model: military by scared+masked+man · · Score: 0

      Tradesmen would probably find them useful, at least in a next-generation with eyeball tracking so you can check drawings and specifications hands-free while up a ladder or whatever. (Also, it would allow them to get additional information about callers, like how many weeks ago they'd promised to finish the caller's job, before answering the phone on their hands-free kit.)

    16. Re:one business model: military by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How do you make a profit from riding motorcycles? And one of my favorite memories from my early biking years was humming along at 100mph or so in a 70 mph zone (not paying too much attention to the speedometer, just going a comfortable pace on a decent road with no traffic). A cop crested a hill in front of me, and I hit the brakes hard. It takes a few seconds for a cop to get radar/lidar to a usable state, and in that time I was already back to 70. I would love to have been sitting next to him in the seat when he saw about 2 seconds of heavy brake-dive and got a reading of 70. He couldn't give me a ticket for "looking fast", he'd need to have estimated my speed or gotten a reading, he couldn't get either.

      He turned around behind me, and two more cops joined him, and about 10 minutes later, the 3 cops behind me, after following me at 70 for a while, all turned around, probably at the end of their patrol area. Now I just bike to commute, in a place where lane splitting is legal, saving me tons of time and actually quite fun. People think of lane splitting as unsafe, but I've had many more close calls when riding like a car than riding between them.

    17. Re:one business model: military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about shooters, I'd love to have a closeup of my target when shooting iron sights so I could make sight picture corrections sooner.(post shot)

    18. Re:one business model: military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that all he has to do is _say_ that he estimated your speed, and pick a number. A judge isn't going to argue with his word, and since it's an administrative fine in most jurisdictions (not even a civil tort, really), the presumption of innocence doesn't apply because you're not being accused of a crime.

  4. Google decides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    How many ads per hour will be displayed. You thought there wouldn't be ads? haha

    1. Re:Google decides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that Google owns a hardware manufacturing company now. They could very easily do this as a pure-hardware play and make lots of money.

    2. Re:Google decides by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 4, Informative

      Google owns a hardware manufacturing company now. They could very easily do this as a pure-hardware play and make lots of money.

      Google owns a hardware company that makes negative lots of money.

    3. Re:Google decides by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Google owns a "stack" of various software, services and soon various hardware too. This particular product is an information goldmine for both Google (and clients using their data), and consumers. If Google does not integrate this into their stack (locking out others) or use it to break into other stacks (Apple), the shareholders will rush in and defenestrate Google's board.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:Google decides by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Just because it doesn't directly profit doesn't mean it doesn't provide a strategic advantage.

      Not all business is sell X, make Y from that. Delta airlines bought a refinery, not to make money from selling Jet-A, but to hedge against price increases (i.e insurance).

    5. Re:Google decides by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      So manufacturing a new shiny widget that makes money might be a step in the right direction, no?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    6. Re:Google decides by rat7307 · · Score: 1

      As many as get pushed to my Android phone thru the google apps.... basically none.

      Jackass..

      --
      Burma?
    7. Re:Google decides by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      So manufacturing a new shiny widget that makes money might be a step in the right direction, no?

      By definition.

  5. Google Glass DOA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, what dick is going to wear this? Its almost as bad as those twats with the bluetooth headsets. At least the headsets have a practical role in a car.

  6. Re:Go ahead by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    say wha?

    Where does government spying even come into play at the moment? I'm genuinely confused. Regardless, enabling easier spying goes both ways - it becomes easier to spy on the government too.

  7. Re:Go ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Help governments everywhere spy on their citizens.

    Idiots.

    Yes. Screw progress. Let's get rid of all technology while we're at it -- governments will never be able to get us then.

  8. security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wonder , when will the first app will show, for the google glass, when you see another user, it will focuse on there eyes , and try to "shoulder surf" there data out.

    that would be interesting.

  9. cloudbased it is doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As pair of glasses who wil be able to be used as a phone with vdo and pictures I can't wait to buy it. But it is doomed to fail with concerns to the cloud based system. It will be hacked in 24 hours and people will not be able to pay all the rights the media wants us to pay with cloudbased servers.
    BTW would your girlfriend strip in front of you when you still have your glasses on with a camera conected to the internet? It is not you she should be afraid of but the people with access to it and who could this be?

  10. Re:Go ahead by darkHanzz · · Score: 1

    Not really, since the government can (and does) order wiretaps, the google glass now allows the wiretapper to see what the target sees. Wiretapping is strictly for governments (well, and criminals).

  11. Does not bode well by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This does not bode well. You cannot just have a new computing form factor and throw stuff at it to see what sticks. I figured this far in development google would have a very clear direction for the platform. I hate to constantly make comparisons to apple, but if you look at their successful products, you'll see they had a clear focus and vision for it from the software standpoint. One of the main reasons the iPhone was a success (besides the capacitive touch breakthrough) was the software. That's how apple beat Microsoft's Windows Mobile, which even after a decade, never managed to provide a proper 100% touch only (aka no stylus) experience.

    It looks to me like Google is treating google glass like a hardware web browser, for which they will have a bunch of "beta" projects and see what works and what doesn't. They'd better be careful, or software-wise a competitor will come along with a focused, unified, well rounded software experience and blow them out of the water.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Does not bode well by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd rather have a pure hardware platform that can do anything, try it at a series of things and see what it's most useful for. That's how actual creativity and innovation happens. A 'targetted' product is a more limited product. I'd like to see things run as open platforms, not appliances.

    2. Re:Does not bode well by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You cannot just have a new computing form factor and throw stuff at it to see what sticks.

      I don't think there is any other way to do it. Hardware and software advance in lockstep (or maybe a 3 legged race?)

      I hate to constantly make comparisons to apple, but if you look at their successful products, you'll see they had a clear focus and vision for it from the software standpoint.

      Apple's App Store didn't exist for the first year after the iPhone was released. The iTunes store wasn't opened until a year and a half after the iPod launched.

    3. Re:Does not bode well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus the iPhone began an an iPad until they realized the power usage made it impossible for screen sizes and batteries of the time. It was a major design change halfway through the process.

    4. Re:Does not bode well by thenendo · · Score: 1

      They'd better be careful, or software-wise a competitor will come along with a focused, unified, well rounded software experience and blow them out of the water.

      But fortunately all the hardware and software patents involved make this impossible!

    5. Re:Does not bode well by alen · · Score: 0

      I still can't figure out which problem it solves

      Mobile phones give you computing power on the go
      You can do the same on a laptop but sometimes you want a computer there with you when you're out of the house and about

      What does google glass do other than bombard me with data when I'm outside taking a walk to relax?

    6. Re:Does not bode well by alen · · Score: 1

      iTunes was selling apps in the days of the hard drive iPod classics. Simple games

      iPhone didn't have a sdk for the first year probably because it wasn't ready

      From all the stories I've read it took apple a lot of work just to ship the original product on time and barely stable. There is no way they started on the sdk from scratch and had it ready a year later. It was probably in development but couldn't ship on time and Steve jobs just lied like he always does to throw the competition off

    7. Re:Does not bode well by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      " You cannot just have a new computing form factor and throw stuff at it to see what sticks."
      No, you're wrong. That is exactly what happened with PC or as we called them back in the day home computers. The same is true with mobile phones and even tablets. The first iPhone didn't even have an app store while Windows Phone, Nokia, and Palm all offered apps of different kinds. Heck even my Samsung a900 had apps like navigation, the Opera browser, and games.
      Your remembrance of the iPhone is way off. The original vision was to provide a really good web browser and for people to write web apps.
      Google Glass is a new platform and it may or may not work. For the longest time the tablets were flops except for small PDA like tablets. Even when Apple launched the iPad the tech press panned it. "Why would you want a big iPod Touch". Smart phones where something only business people spent money on. People bought the first home computers to put recipes on, make shopping lists, and and balance their checkbook.... Which we now do with our tablets and phones.
      Yep throw it out there and see what sticks. It may "fail" in that it does not sell tens of million devices but it will be interesting to see what people do.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Does not bode well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think the App Store and iTunes weren't under development years before their release? Citations requested please.

    9. Re:Does not bode well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the internet. Go look it up yourself.

    10. Re:Does not bode well by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      So you think the App Store and iTunes weren't under development years before their release?

      At initial launch, Apple's message to both developers and consumers was that, with the iPhone, everything should be done via the web. The switch to native apps was a response to how the web-only approach was received.

    11. Re:Does not bode well by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      So we've been 'TOLD'. You missed the point of the original post. What you're told isn't always the truth. Its unrealistic to think there wasn't an internal SDK and its rather likely they had at least considered releasing a native SDK all along, or that they had the plan from day one but hadn't finished working it out and wanted to throw everyone else off the scent while they finished it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    12. Re:Does not bode well by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You cannot just have a new computing form factor and throw stuff at it to see what sticks.

      That's what the iPad did, and it worked fine. Let the marketplace invent the demand, let the developers sell it for you. I can see a few drive-cam applications being killer apps for these, or a navigation with lane-feedback(since the glasses can tell which lane you are in better than GPS) to let you know which lanes to be in for exits, traffic, and turns. Hopefully not too much drive-porn. Maybe a driver-safety app that measures eye movement per second and eye flick speed to alert when the driver appears impaired (tired, drunk, or on drugs). Though the people that need that app most would never get it voluntarily.

    13. Re:Does not bode well by strikethree · · Score: 2

      This does not bode well. You cannot just have a new computing form factor and throw stuff at it to see what sticks.

      I vehemently but respectfully disagree. When you are in utterly "new" space, you can not imagine what could be available until the realities of the space you are in impinge upon your consciousness.

      It looks to me like Google is treating google glass like a hardware web browser, for which they will have a bunch of "beta" projects and see what works and what doesn't.

      I am of the opinion that your view of reality is too restricted to be valuable in undiscovered country. That is not an insult, just an observation. The world needs all types.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    14. Re:Does not bode well by korgitser · · Score: 1

      Google supposedly never had a vision. More at 11: https://plus.google.com/112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesvaVX

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
  12. There was a sci fi book ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read it as a teenager and can not remember the title or author's name, but there was a book where everyone wore glasses with a camera built in. The result was a society heavy on surveillance. There was no need for the government to setup a lot of cameras. Ordinary citizens were constantly submitting their videos to the police or relevant authorities.

    1. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by Zemran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The really surreal part is that under the current legal system, transmitting./supplying child porn across the internet is a more serious crime than actually having sex with a child. The point is that seeing something, wearing these, can be more of a crime than doing it and you are going to provide the evidence against yourself...

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    2. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      I think the (broken) logic is one "causes" many others to commit crime x, while the other is one instance of committing crime x. Like the difference with inciting a riot and being a single rioter.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    3. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you include the post-pubescent sexual acts, where it might be a few years difference in age.

      But actual children being sexually abused by adults? Very severe penalties. The only reason transmission/supplying looks worse is because of prosecutors making volumes out of it, not because the law is harsher.

      Besides, the law has a concept called mens rea, there is a reason why people don't get arrested for transmitting child porn to authorities.

    4. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is a reason why people don't get arrested for transmitting child porn to authorities.

      Complete bullshit. People go to jail all the time for exactly this.

    5. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Probably not what you meant - but David Brin's "Earth" is describing something like it. Not a completely bad book, but overall a bit whackadoodle, to be honest.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    6. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by gnomff · · Score: 1

      You might be thinking of Earth

    7. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by earls · · Score: 1

      1984 touched on it as well. Granted, the screen/camera setup was in the wall.

    8. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Possession of child porn is considered a crime of strict liability. No matter you end up with it, you've broken the law. Even if somebody launched it at you with a catapult. Child porn is effectively a weapon that can ruin somebody's life by attacking them with a placement of it.

    9. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps something by Robert J. Sawyer. Part of the Neanderthal Parallax. Maybe Hominids (2002)?

      "In Hominids, Robert J. Sawyer imagines the citizen of the future sporting a body-implanted "companion" computer that transmits information about his or her location, as well as three-dimensional images of exactly what he or she is doing, to an "alibi archive." The archive protects against false accusations." -- http://sfwriter.com/labels/Hominids.html

      " ... The situation is exacerbated by the surveillance functions of the Neanderthal Companion: the Companion creates a video record of everyone’s life, all the time, which is sent to a secure facility and can only be opened by the person in question." -- http://www.challengingdestiny.com/reviews/hominids.htm

    10. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Brin wrote it. The title was "Earth." You might also want to read his "The Transparent Society."

    11. Re:There was a sci fi book ... by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Check out what you are talking about. Transmitting pictures of child sex is not covered by mens rea, just like drug possession and several other offences. In the world up to now it was hard to imagine a situation where someone did that by accident but with these you can commit such an offence, and have no legal defence, without meaning to.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  13. Good one. by AltGrendel · · Score: 2

    My favorite question / answer pair: "IEEE Spectrum: What kind of business model is associated with Google Glass? Babak Parviz: This is still being worked on, but we are quite interested in providing the hardware."

    Probably my favorite non-answer answer of 2012.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Good one. by TrekkieGod · · Score: 2

      My favorite question / answer pair: "IEEE Spectrum: What kind of business model is associated with Google Glass? Babak Parviz: This is still being worked on, but we are quite interested in providing the hardware." Probably my favorite non-answer answer of 2012.

      I don't get it. It's a perfectly good answer. He's saying they intend to make money on selling the hardware, but that this is also probably not the only way in which they'll monetize glass. Not ambiguous at all, and considering the development stage at the moment, about where I'd expect them to be.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    2. Re:Good one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen that too many time. That's a sign that pet projects get canceled if the guy in charge doesn't like the project personally as on its own it has no profits for the beans counter.

    3. Re:Good one. by swillden · · Score: 1

      Probably my favorite non-answer answer of 2012.

      I don't think it's a non-answer. I think it's the truth.

      I work for Google, and the attitude expressed in that quote is pretty typical of the way people at Google think. The primary goal is to do something cool and world-changing, and the assumption is that if you do something sufficiently cool and world-changing there will be some way to make money off of it. If you think about it, that's pretty much what happened with Google's first product -- it got widely-used, got funded, moved off of Stanford and started spooling up as a real company before it really focused on figuring out how to generate revenue. And there were a number of false starts before they hit on the whole real-time auction for unobtrusive text ads idea.

      People look at projects like Glass and self-driving cars and whatnot and ask "How do you plan to make money off of it?", and when the answer is "We haven't figured that out yet" people think that Google must be lying -- because clearly NO corporation would ever create any product without a clear plan of exactly how it will be monetized. Well, as far as I can tell, "We don't know yet" is both truthful and complete. There are probably a dozen vague ideas kicking around, but it's likely that's all they are.

      Of course, everyone recognizes that eventually there has to be a way to make money, or the product will die, but Google is just fine with investing large amounts of money on R&D for ideas they don't yet know how to monetize. When a product moves beyond R&D to rolling out on a large scale, then it has to be pretty clear how the product will pay its way, but up until then "It's really cool and there ought to be some way to make money" is good enough.

      Also, I think it should be pointed out that the "obvious" answer -- advertising -- isn't all that obvious. Google makes the vast majority of its revenues from advertising, but it is not, fundamentally, an advertising company. Google is a technology company that focuses on building (or acquiring and scaling) new technologies, and then looks for a way to make them generate revenues. If it turns out (as it often does for web-based products) that advertising is the way to make them pay, fine. And given Google's advertising infrastructure, advertising is the "go-to" option for how to monetize a new product. But it's not the only option, and it's not really even the preferred option.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  14. Re:Go ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go ahead.

    Post irrational Google hate and get paid by Microsoft.

    Dumbass.

  15. Inputs. by Rational · · Score: 2

    As an output device, a pair of glasses makes a lot of sense â" the problem is inputs. Voice is very suboptimal (if you feel stupid talking to your phone, imagine talking to your glasses). A touch screen on a watch is pretty poor too. The only way I can see this succeeding is as a purely AI-driven, input-less device, which â"based on location and heuristicsâ" would basically know what to do in any given situation. In other wordsâ"this is a much harder problem than simply making a screen wearable enough.

    --
    "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    1. Re:Inputs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eye-tracking and blinks, I imagine. There's a lot of work still to be done, but you'd be amazed what the patterns of a person's gaze give away.

      This certainly is not lost on an advertising company.

    2. Re:Inputs. by sandytaru · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Kinect has shown that gestures are a completely useful and acceptable means of input. If they have any technology similar, then we'll be making sign language - esque gestures to interact with the glasses.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    3. Re:Inputs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way I can see this succeeding is as a purely AI-driven, input-less device, which based on location and heuristics would basically know what to do in any given situation.

      Well that's basically Google Now, innit?

      You also may or may not find waving your hands around in mid-air to be less awkward than voice control.

    4. Re:Inputs. by Rational · · Score: 1

      Having been involved with some Kinect development, I came to the complete opposite conclusion, but that's neither here nor thereâ"it's possible that more advanced devices like the Leap will show that gesture input doesn't necessarily involve jumping around and windmilling like an imbecile. Still, even if we agreed about Kinect, I think that gesturing in front of your face would make people talking to their glasses seem relatively sane in comparison.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    5. Re:Inputs. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Not just Kinect:

      https://flutterapp.com/

    6. Re:Inputs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap, mine would always be feeding me adds for hot asian asses.

  16. 'Last thirty seconds' by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think for me, the killer application would be having such a device record everything I see into a circular buffer, and then if some cockhead does something obnoxious or criminal in the street, it can be kept to either hand timestamped footage to police, or to shame said people on the Internet.

    The doomsayers may call it a totalitarian hell, but I think it could yet be a renaissance for the polite and law-abiding majority.

    1. Re:'Last thirty seconds' by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think for me, the killer application would be having such a device record everything I see into a circular buffer, and then if some cockhead does something obnoxious or criminal in the street, it can be kept to either hand timestamped footage to police, or to shame said people on the Internet.

      I'm going to go right ahead and call this a totalitarian hell. Millions of Mrs. Grundys with always-on recording. Having to justify after-the-fact every action I took that someone in the area took offense to would be a full time job.

      The doomsayers may call it a totalitarian hell, but I think it could yet be a renaissance for the polite and law-abiding majority.

      There is no polite and law-abiding majority. There are too many laws and too many rules (many conflicting) associated with "polite".

    2. Re:'Last thirty seconds' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever watch Charlie Brooker's 'Dark Mirror' series? The third episode is exactly what you're talking about and its great TV, has a guy go to a job interview and end up playing it back to himself repeatedly to see if he said something wrong. And they hint at a black market in rich Japanese guys buying stolen recordings of young women's lives.

    3. Re:'Last thirty seconds' by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Having to justify after-the-fact every action I took that someone in the area took offense to would be a full time job.

      There is nothing quite as pathetic as an asshole full of excuses.

    4. Re:'Last thirty seconds' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only can I not buy that show in any form in America, the official page has a video applet that says "the video you are trying to watch cannot be viewed from your current country or location".

      I'm going to enjoy torrenting the fuck out of that.

  17. More informant reports than gov't spying? by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    say wha?

    Where does government spying even come into play at the moment? I'm genuinely confused. Regardless, enabling easier spying goes both ways - it becomes easier to spy on the government too.

    Where does government spying even come into play at the moment? I'm genuinely confused.

    It may not be gov't spying as much as you are constantly surrounded by "informants". In the sci fi book I mentioned in a different post I recall adults, the older the more likely, constantly recording young people to deter vandalism, robberies, muggings, etc. Things devolved to the point where the smallest infraction of a rule led to a video being submitted to the police.

    No more yelling "get off my lawn". Instead a video titled "Johnny trespassing on my property" gets emailed to the police.

    1. Re:More informant reports than gov't spying? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the sci fi book I mentioned in a different post I recall adults, the older the more likely, constantly recording young people to deter vandalism, robberies, muggings, etc. Things devolved to the point where the smallest infraction of a rule led to a video being submitted to the police.

      That's not sci fi, that's Japan.

    2. Re:More informant reports than gov't spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds lovely.

      Instead of dealing with my asshole neighbors I can just submit videos? That'd be brilliant.

    3. Re:More informant reports than gov't spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe this one?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_%28novel%29

  18. Re:Go ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not really, since the government can (and does) order wiretaps, the google glass now allows the wiretapper
    to see what the target sees.

    Wiretapping is strictly for governments (well, and criminals).

    I think I'd notice the sudden appearance of a pair of glasses on my face, seeing as how I don't wear them.

  19. And ordinary driver would find it useful ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A person driving a car would find it useful for the same reason that military pilots find it useful. A heads up display would keep the drivers eyes on the road. No more looking down at instruments, the screen with maps or rear view camera image; or looking at road signs for hazard warnings and other alerts.

    And of course since it is google there will probably be ads from the businesses that you are driving past. :-)

    1. Re:And ordinary driver would find it useful ... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Self-driving cars don't need drivers.

    2. Re:And ordinary driver would find it useful ... by tooyoung · · Score: 1

      Would it keep the driver's eyes on the road, or would their attention be split between the road and whatever the glasses are displaying?

    3. Re:And ordinary driver would find it useful ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Would it keep the driver's eyes on the road, or would their attention be split between the road and whatever the glasses are displaying?

      Even when "looking at" a display on the glasses you still have situational awareness regarding what is happening outside the vehicle. Its still an improvement over looking down into the dashboard at gauges.

      There are some folks who have relevant experience. Fighter pilots with the helmet based heads up display (HUD) seem to prefer them over the windscreen/gunsight based HUD and over looking down into the cockpit at an instrument panel.

  20. Re:Go ahead by Meyaht · · Score: 1

    Works for the Amish I suppose.

    --
    I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
  21. One-Eyed folks? by ricosalomar · · Score: 1

    I've never tried Google Glass, but I peeked through a few early AR headsets at the VR lab in school. I wonder if anyone's working on a solution for those of us with monocular vision? It would suck to be cheated out of 3d movies AND "The Next Big Thing"

    1. Re:One-Eyed folks? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Today officially marks the future! Grab your robot eyes today!

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:One-Eyed folks? by stokessd · · Score: 1

      It would suck to be cheated out of 3d movies...

      As someone with binocular vision, I would also like to be cheated out of 3D movies. Please please never let me see that gimmicky crap ever again.

      And the glasses can go suck it too...

      Sheldon

    3. Re:One-Eyed folks? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The medical term is non-binocular, not monocular, unless you mean you have one eye.

      I have two eyes and non-binocular vision, meaning depth perception is a bitch.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:One-Eyed folks? by giostickninja · · Score: 1

      In its current form, Google Glass is not binocular, and not AR. It's a simple HUD screen for one eye, and should work equally well for one eyed people, assuming the screen is on the correct side.

    5. Re:One-Eyed folks? by ricosalomar · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I guess I have non-binocular vision, too; amblyopia. If I could just get that damned third-eye working...

    6. Re:One-Eyed folks? by ricosalomar · · Score: 1

      It's nice to have a built-in excuse!

    7. Re:One-Eyed folks? by ricosalomar · · Score: 1

      OK, well I guess I was wondering if the HUD display would obscure my ability to see at all, since I only use one eye.

  22. Re:Go ahead by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Anti-Google comments automatically need to be pro-Microsoft. Only on Slashdot.

  23. Re:Go ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Works for the Amish I suppose.

    No it doesn't. The Amish have their own government, The Church. And believe, the same shit goes on in the Amish communities, neighbors running to the church to tell on their neighbors all the time. "I saw old man Joseph playing with his tally-whacker!! Sinner!", and then the church comes and whips his mule or something for punishment.

    No technology, but still a "Government" watching you. People are big time afraid of the church officials in the Amish communities.

  24. Still Waiting For Some Skydiving Goggles by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm still waiting for some skydiving goggles with a heads up display. Looking at my altimeter fucks up my airflow while I'm tracking. It'd also be really helpful to know my fall speed as I'm falling, so I can work on falling more slowly. I fall like a bat out of hell -- normal human terminal velocity is around 120 mph, but this is largely weight dependent. I know Galileo fans just had an aneurysm but you know what, fuck that guy! If you want to fall faster in skydiving, you add weight! Look it up! Anyway, I fall around 140 mph. Body position can also affect this, and I can fall much more slowly, but not consistently. Having some way to practice this other than exiting linked with someone and trying to maintain my speed relative to them would be really nice.

    Recon instruments has some heads up display ski googles and are releasing a modified set for skydiving, I'll give these a try, but it'd be neat if there were more options.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Still Waiting For Some Skydiving Goggles by swillden · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you've seen this, but for anyone who hasn't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxmbbtuRszA

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Still Waiting For Some Skydiving Goggles by Seahawk · · Score: 1

      What about making a simple variometer that gives of a tone depending on the rate of descent?

      I guess something crude can be made with a simple atmospheric pressure sensor, and an AVR.

    3. Re:Still Waiting For Some Skydiving Goggles by renoX · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right that it would be nice.

      I used a sonar altimeter, but had to use a helmet otherwise I was never sure that I would hear it, other add a chest-mounted altimeter: cheap and easy to see while tracking, both solutions are not as good as a HUD of course..

    4. Re:Still Waiting For Some Skydiving Goggles by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Hmm. It's not uncommon to use a vario in hang gliding, to tell when you've hit a pocket of lift. I'll have to look at some of the commercial ones and see if they support that sort of functionality, if Recon's goggles don't pan out. For tracking, I could always just put an audible altitude alarm in my helmet and set it for turn-back altitude (Around 7K) and wave-off altitude (Around 4K) for tracking. In the spring I might have a jump buddy who'd be willing to work on fall rate with me. I'm also planning to put some tunnel time in for it, but it's pretty easy to tell how fast you're "falling" in the tunnel. None of the above directly helps me in hitting a target in the sky either, other than the better I am at slowing down, the less likely I am to blow by someone at 140 mph. I'll just have to practice giving someone a second or two head start and then catching them for that. I have to say I don't mind doing that at all, sky tag is fun!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  25. Accountability. by earls · · Score: 1

    Sucks.

  26. "There is no polite and law-abiding majority." by earls · · Score: 2

    There quickly will be. Laws and rules and all the other hypocritical bullshit that plagues our society today will be erased. Justice, finally. Until they make you take the device off to enter a Government building.

    1. Re:"There is no polite and law-abiding majority." by russotto · · Score: 1

      Hah hah, yes, right, a surveillance society really erases law and rules and hypocritical bullshit. Tell me again how East Germany disposed of all its laws and rules.

    2. Re:"There is no polite and law-abiding majority." by scared+masked+man · · Score: 0

      The difference between what GP suggested and the Stasi was that in the GP's idea the surveillance would be symmetric - if prosecutors decline to act against their buddies, copies of videos along with the registered post receipt can be sent to the press and their opponents. Also, in a reasonably democratic society, people can vote in favour of legalising their own activities, which becomes worthwhile if they can't rely on getting away with petty violations.

    3. Re:"There is no polite and law-abiding majority." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or I could just run around with my face covered and beat the fuck outta everyone of you pussies that is trying to record me doing illegal activities...

  27. Amen. by earls · · Score: 1

    If Google doesn't deliver it, someone will. Maybe it's better that Google doesn't - you know they'll be targeted directly for "invading privacy!"

  28. The real one business model by skandalfo · · Score: 1

    Pr0n! Anywhere! Anytime!

  29. Still stupid by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure why someone would want to buy a product that will allow google to track your every move (and therefore the government) and you look like a complete penis.

    1. Re:Still stupid by godrik · · Score: 1

      beside the penis thing, I do not see much difference with your average phone.

    2. Re:Still stupid by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      True, a phone is close but it's not strapped to my head with a camera always showing what I'm looking at and more importantly it's not always on me.

      Maybe I'm different but I don't feel the need to always have it on me. But I do primarily use it for the internet so I need it to occupy my time on my commute or while taking a dump at work but elsewhere it's not that necessary.

  30. Re:Go ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey! What'd his mule do?!

  31. It is called Android OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need to wait. Android already has the all the spyware built in.

  32. The reality is opposite by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Having to justify after-the-fact every action I took that someone in the area took offense to would be a full time job.

    If there's video then you shouldn't have to justify anything, right? Because it records the whole interaction.

    The whole people who sweat bullets about recordings everywhere are people who cannot control being an asshole in public.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The reality is opposite by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Having to justify after-the-fact every action I took that someone in the area took offense to would be a full time job.

      If there's video then you shouldn't have to justify anything, right? Because it records the whole interaction.

      The whole people who sweat bullets about recordings everywhere are people who cannot control being an asshole in public.

      Raeally? You , sir, have clearly never heard of "video editing". (nor have you ever watched the movie "Sneakers").

      Security! Come here and immediately revoke (with extreme prejudice) his Slashdot login.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    2. Re:The reality is opposite by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Raeally? You , sir, have clearly never heard of "video editing".

      And you would edit your OWN video to make yourself look bad? Because obviously in such a world we are ALL recording video.

      Read EARTH and do not return until having done so.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:The reality is opposite by russotto · · Score: 1

      If there's video then you shouldn't have to justify anything, right? Because it records the whole interaction.

      The proposal was a circular buffer, so by the time I found out a complaint had been made, my own video would be gone and only the accuser's would exist. But even if my video is available as well, it doesn't necessarily exonerate me. Something could have happened that was not visible in either video (either by chance or design). Even grade-school bullies can figure out how to blindside someone and then get them in trouble for reacting; it's literally child's play.

  33. No he is not saying that. by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    He's saying they intend to make money on selling the hardware

    He totally did NOT say that. As stated, it was a non-answer. There is no way you can get from "we are quite interested in providing the hardware." to "we intend to make money on the hardware". Totally on the table are still things like advertising, carrier subsidy, branding, etc. Basically anything you could imagine a way to make money on with these glasses is possible with the answer Google gave us, selling the hardware at a profit is only one of them.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  34. The million dollar question by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

    When will it come to the market ?

    --
    Wanted : A Signature.
  35. Google is working to answer This Latin Question by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  36. You mean like a phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you take the battery out?

  37. Just Imagine by TuxWithoutPants · · Score: 1

    'Live' feed from all the blog wh**es out there, all their stalkers have to do is open their blogs in their own Google Glass. Wonder if SEO would still matter or just how little you wear when you look into the mirror.

  38. Re:Go ahead by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

    I think I'd notice the sudden appearance of a pair of glasses on my face, seeing as how I don't wear them.

    Until they are implanted.
    It's for your own good. Really.

  39. Re:Go ahead by fard69 · · Score: 1

    --Wiretapping is strictly for governments and other criminals.
    FTFY