Details of Google's Project Glass Revealed In FCC Report

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Details of Google's Project Glass Revealed In FCC Report

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday February 2, 2013 @07:45AM from the attaches-to-head-using-eyeball-clamps dept.

Flozzin writes with news that documents published to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's website have provided new details about Project Glass, Google's augmented-reality headset. "A test report describes video playing on the device alongside audio running to a 'vibrating element.' The description tallies with a patent filing suggesting it plays sound via 'bone-conduction' tech rather than earbuds. Developers are due to receive a test edition of the headset later this year. ... [The FCC's papers] describe data being sent to the small screen display via wi-fi and Bluetooth using a radio unit manufactured by Broadcom. The equipment is also said to be able to store video files internally and can be recharged by plugging a power connector into the computing unit on the right-hand arm of the glasses' frame. However, the most arresting detail is the suggestion that audio is provided without the user needing to wear headphones which might disturb how they hear ambient sounds. Last week Google filed a patent application entitled Wearable Computing Device with Indirect Bone-Conduction Speaker."

39 of 76 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Need for padded poles. by LikwidCirkel · 2013-02-02 08:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude. Sure, it overlays in your field of vision, so it's not like looking down at a phone, but we're just not meant to multitask with our senses the way this kind of device demands.

I don't even want to think about how many idiots will drive while using such devices.
1. Re:Need for padded poles. by DavidClarkeHR · 2013-02-02 08:15 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude. Sure, it overlays in your field of vision, so it's not like looking down at a phone, but we're just not meant to multitask with our senses the way this kind of device demands. I don't even want to think about how many idiots will drive while using such devices.
  ... and BOOKS, don't even get me started on those. I mean, people used to have to KNOW things, and now they can just look them up? And they're in ENGLISH? Seriously. It loses so much meaning when it's not in the traditional latin.
  
  --
  - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
2. Re:Need for padded poles. by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-02-02 08:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Driving with these glasses showing you where to go should be safer than having to glance to the side at a satnav screen from time to time. And a pedestrian or cyclist reading an incoming message on a HUD is actually less likely to crash into a pole than the person who takes his cellphone out of his pocket and looks down at it while continuing to walk/pedal.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
3. Re:Need for padded poles. by russotto · 2013-02-02 09:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude.
  You forgot about Google's self-driving car.
4. Re:Need for padded poles. by robmv · 2013-02-02 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  people with better genes for multitasking will survive, natural selection at work
5. Re:Need for padded poles. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  If it is really a stupid choice, evolution will do the rest. No need for name calling, ape.
6. Re:Need for padded poles. by icebike · 2013-02-02 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  These glasses never block your vision or require you to take your eyes off the road, so at least you will see things you are approaching. They also have a camera embedded so they could probably be programmed to know when you are driving, and limit the display of data to just navigation info.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:Need for padded poles. by icebike · 2013-02-02 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Who says its a stupid choice? Do you have a shred of evidence to say it might not enhance safety?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
8. Re:Need for padded poles. by SomePgmr · 2013-02-02 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  If it is really a stupid choice, evolution will do the rest. No need for name calling, ape.
  I've never driven a car with such a device on so I don't have an opinion on whether or not it's safe.
  But when people do unsafe things while driving, people that are being safe are often on the receiving end of that stupidity. So maybe let's not get fast and loose with the 'evolution will do the rest' line.
9. Re:Need for padded poles. by boundary · 2013-02-02 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Google self-parodied when they released their video of the obscure French-named band-loving, ukulele-playing hipster asshole.
10. Re:Need for padded poles. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 10:26 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't want a car that's going to take a close to optimal route just so it can drive me by a few more advertisements.
  That's a ludicrous interpretation of Google's approach to business. The ads will be displayed in the car or else on its windows. Whether you see them won't depend on what route is taken - where would be the sense in that?
11. Re:Need for padded poles. by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-02 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  You won't have to look at a HUD, it will just read out messages or speak directions for you.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
12. Re:Need for padded poles. by nospam007 · 2013-02-02 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  "In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude."
  Think of it as evolution in action.
  It will weed out the non-multitask people in a few dozen generations.
13. Re:Need for padded poles. by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-02-02 15:03 · Score: 2
  
  They say using a mobile phone while driving causes accidents, and nobody disagreed so they banned it in many places. Yet when they did so, even though people used their mobiles less while driving, accidents didn't go down.
  Just because you *think* it is a stupid choice, doesn't necessarily make it so. Without actually putting the method of interaction into field use, you don't know how exactly it will effect users, or how they'll adopt it. For the longest time people believed that the UI seen in minority report would be an awesome thing to have, only now that touch devices are widespread, we're seeing just how bad touchscreens are ergonomically and how little demand there is for large touchscreen displays.
  This could end up going either way, it depends on whether or not the HUD ends up being a distraction or help you stay focused better. So far though, HUD's have been very helpful, enough to the point that almost all military navigation systems include them.
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
14. Re:Need for padded poles. by martin-boundary · 2013-02-02 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure the primary use will be getting directions when driving not watching porn.
  
  I highly doubt that. People don't _need_ directions very often. Quick: do you remember how to drive to work every day? Do you even look at the signs while driving to work? Do you regularly make a left turn when it should be a right turn, and arrive at work 30 minutes late because of it? No? Then you don't need directions.
  What you _will_ need from the HUD regularly is entertainment. Because let's face it, driving to and from work is boring, that's why people keep the radio on. Driving to the shopping mall is boring, too. With a HUD, you can watch TV without actually taking your eyes off the road. Possibly porn, but more probably some stupid morning shows and TV series.
  It will happen.
15. Re:Need for padded poles. by Sarius64 · 2013-02-02 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  IDK what you'll be doing but I'll get that extra half hour nap on the way to work in my Google car!
16. Re:Need for padded poles. by Omestes · 2013-02-02 19:20 · Score: 2
  
  I highly doubt that. People don't _need_ directions very often.
  I live in a very large, sprawling (17,000 sq. mi according to Wikipedia.), city. I know less than 20% well enough to know exactly where I am going without looking it up. We like to go new places, and eat at new restaurants, so I generally have my phone's GPS sitting around when we go places. Even when I know roughly where something is, by cross streets, I often use GPS for the exact location. So, around twice a week, we do use GPS. A couple of times a year, we also travel, and we use GPS almost 100% of the time when doing so.
  People use GPS more than you think.
  I'm not saying that your wrong, people will use it for idiotic reasons. Hell, my mind is still boggled that people are allowed to have TVs in the front of their cars. People do all sorts of idiotic things while driving. I've almost been killed by several women doing their make up, a guy reading the paper, and god knows how many people texting or reading on their phones. A HUD won't really be any worse than what we have.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
17. Re:Need for padded poles. by f()rK()_Bomb · 2013-02-02 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  For the longest time people believed that the UI seen in minority report would be an awesome thing to have, only now that touch devices are widespread, we're seeing just how bad touchscreens are ergonomically and how little demand there is for large touchscreen displays.
  We have known UI's like that suck since the 80's.
  http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/gorilla-arm.html
  
  --
  "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
Addiction by CRCulver · 2013-02-02 08:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

It'll be interesting to see how addictive this technology becomes, especially as many people already can't be separated from their smartphones. One of the more thought-provoking things in Vinge's novel Marooned in Realtime (about the pace of technology accelerating towards a singularity) is that human beings from later in the 21st century feel disoriented and sluggish when disconnected from wearable technology that provides them 24/7 with sources of information.
Love It! by Kotoku · 2013-02-02 08:15 · Score: 1

I would buy a pair in an instant. Most of what I do on my phone is read things, so what better than having it in front of your eyes? Also, completely private personal movie viewing. Four people could with in a room and watch four different movies without any external devices if they wanted.

--
AnimePapers.org: Anime Wallpapers Handled With Care
1. Re:Love It! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  They're had these types of devices for over a decade. I bought an EyeTop over 5 years ago. Most people can't handle it. The displays give them migraines. You also start turning your head in the direction of the display as you're subconsciously trying to get both eyes looking at it. For some people that means they start turning towards the direction their head is pointed as well. I've seen more than one person walk into walls and stumble over chairs while focused on the display.
  I don't see anything about Glass that makes them different. Everyone caught up in the hype will buy them, no one else will.
  Bone-conduction sound with wearable displays isn't new. I really wish people would do their history research on products.
2. Re:Love It! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe wait until the damn thing actually comes out before judging how good it is or not. This is nowhere near the final form so you just make yourself look like a jackass dissing it.
Re:Let me be the first to say by icebike · 2013-02-02 09:19 · Score: 1

Google: Shut up and take my money!

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Where do I sign up for the Beta test? by sehlat · 2013-02-02 09:27 · Score: 1

I use a hearing aid, and it massively irritates the one working ear I have. But a non-surgical bone conduction hearing aid? One that might give me some semblance of binaural hearing without turning my ear canal into a mass of pain?
Where do I sign up and what percentage of my soul do they want?
Re:Bone Fone by icebike · 2013-02-02 09:36 · Score: 2

Being Built into a wearable display device makes it a whole separate idea than simply a poor quality headphone.
Remember that patents don't mean that ANY prior use of a technology makes any other use obvious, and thus non-patentable.
All you need to do is combine them in a new non-obvious way in an application not seen before.
Bone conduction isn't necessary for these glasses to do their job. They could use standard ear buds.
It just makes it easier to put them on and take them off.
You might find prior art, but nothing posted above comes close.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Not augmented reality by icebike · 2013-02-02 09:45 · Score: 1

Google Glass is no more augmenting reality than a TV set is.
If it were rendering also the view behind it so there was no loss of vision, then it would be augmented reality. As it is it's the same as if you strapped your cell phone on an arm attached to your head a foot out or so.
But that is exactly what it does.
Its a HUD, projecting a mostly transparent overlay on what you see behind it. Further, it only covers one eye. So it could show navigation arrows without occluding your vision of the road.
Meets my definition of augmented reality.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Not augmented reality by Gaygirlie · 2013-02-02 09:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Google Glass is no more augmenting reality than a TV set is.
If it were rendering also the view behind it so there was no loss of vision, then it would be augmented reality. As it is it's the same as if you strapped your cell phone on an arm attached to your head a foot out or so.
This may come as a surprise to you....but it's transparent.
Re:Not augmented reality by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 10:16 · Score: 1

Look, let me paint a use case for you:
Google adapts the code used by google maps cars to be used by your glasses (Just as they've already done for android phones). It gives you simple instructions on how to move and rotate and while you have the camera on, Google glass creates a 3D image based map of your location. Now, all of this is overlapped with the position of you on the planet, the direction you are looking and the tilt of your head. Only, every person who has google glass has the capability to do this. Now there are 3d tours of:
-- Museums
-- Gardens
-- Zoos
-- Natural Parks
-- Live Performances
-- Parades
-- Work Places
This is geocaching^3.
Because now that you have these 3D maps which are tied to positions on earth you can leave messages for other people where you've been. Or, just take notes in virtual space. You'll be able to paint a picture on your wall for someone else to see, or leave a secret message. Or better yet, rate a restaurant right on its front window.
But I get your point: I can do all these things with my TV, I just don't feel like dragging it around me.
Prescription glasses by pmontra · 2013-02-02 10:43 · Score: 1

Does anybody know if the google glasses can be worn over a pair of prescription glasses? Myopia and presbyopia are common and not everybody can wear contact lenses.
1. Re:Prescription glasses by Albanach · 2013-02-02 13:16 · Score: 2
  
  There are images of Sergey Brin wearing them outdoors while attached to sunglasses. Looking at the design I don't think you'd wear them over prescription glasses, but rather would get prescription lenses for the existing frame.
2. Re:Prescription glasses by Albanach · 2013-02-02 13:20 · Score: 2
  
  A bit more searching brings up this article which has an image of them incorporated into more 'normal' looking glasses. So it might be possible to use them in conjunction with your regular eyewear.
Re:Not augmented reality by R3d+M3rcury · 2013-02-02 11:54 · Score: 1

Google Glass is no more augmenting reality than a TV set is.
You're saying "The Goggles Do Nothing!"?
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Re:Not augmented reality by Nerdfest · 2013-02-02 12:02 · Score: 1

It may however, cause issues with the reality distortion field.
Re:another corporation disturbing people by oakgrove · 2013-02-02 12:13 · Score: 1

Wearable display meets actual practicality? Assuming they can pull it off, get to disturbing, Google!

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Privacy? by tlhIngan · 2013-02-02 18:11 · Score: 3

So, assuming these things get popular, anyone sort of concerned that now everyone has a camera recording their every move 24/7? Or worse yet, it's going to be indexed an searched and tracked by Google?
Sure, crime will go down - after all, would anyone want to rob anyone where a yell would bring dozens of cameras recording someone get mugged/raped/etc on the street? Or have dozens of cameras recording every face, so you can tell when that sex offender may be breaking their conditions (in other words, a boon for law enforcement when they have dozens of cameras and angles that can pinpoint anyone at any location).
Then there's the somewhat more ... private side, given there'll be dozens of cameras watching you coming out of that ... adult entertainment establishment.
I'm not quite sure society is ready yet for a technology that really puts everyone in the spotlight - where there's a camera on you every moment you step outside your house. Compile the results of dozens of cameras and people would have a pretty good track of your movements even if you only appear for a few frames in every glasses. Between law enforcement, Google ad tracking, insurance companies, they'd be really interested in your whereabouts, your activities, and even what you eat and do...
1. Re:Privacy? by RivenAleem · 2013-02-04 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  Signal to noise will likely be too high. In the words of one of modern day's great philosophers, "Aint nobody got time for that".
  Is you insurance agency going to have the time and money (and access) to examine petabytes of data from so many sources, just to put a few more cents onto your premium?
  These cameras may be the worst possible thing for insurance agencies. When everyone has one, there's a good likelihood that people will stop buying full comp insurance, and just settle for 3rd party (mandatory) in the belief that they will always have video evidence that they didn't cause the accident. Good drivers will simply not bother with anything but the basic 3rd party, fire & theft insurance.
You can always wear a mask by Su27K · 2013-02-02 22:34 · Score: 1

Or paint your face...
I want to be an early adoptar by Insipid+Trunculance · 2013-02-03 00:54 · Score: 1

The ability to read a book or watch tv without disturbing the other half will be worth the premium! Now if anyone can point where i can register my interest.

--
Wanted : A Signature.
Boner conduction by coinreturn · 2013-02-04 02:35 · Score: 1

Typo in the summary - it's boner conduction they're using.