Google Glass Is the Future — and the Future Has Awful Battery Life

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Glass Is the Future — and the Future Has Awful Battery Life

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday May 1, 2013 @05:24AM from the shorten-length-of-day dept.

zacharye writes "The concept of wearable tech is really buzzing right now as pundits tout smart eyewear, watches and other connected devices as the future of tech. It makes sense, of course — smartphone growth is slowing and people need something to hold on to — but the early 'Explorer' version of Google's highly anticipated Google Glass headset has major problem that could be a big barrier for widespread adoption: Awful battery life." Also, a review of the hardware. The current Glass hardware heads south in less than five hours, which doesn't seem too short relative to similarly powerful devices, but since it is meant to be worn all the time you'd think it would have a large enough battery to make it at least 8 or 10 hours.

31 of 473 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Rev. 1 hardware, people by Enry · 2013-05-01 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life
1. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Luthair · 2013-05-01 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In truth this isn't even rev-1, its not even intended for consumers.
2. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by jeffmeden · 2013-05-01 05:44 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life
  You have half of it right. Rev 1 has bad battery life because it was a prototype. Think outside the box about the need for better batteries, though; Rev 2 will simply plug into neural probes and power itself from your brain. What battery life problem?
3. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by RoknrolZombie · 2013-05-01 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I will hit anyone wearing Google Glass. You are stealing privacy from all of us. Get ready to get kicked and your Google Glasses destroyed.
  I hope this becomes a trend, just like what happened to that guy who weared AR glasses in France. Break them and punch in the face.
  So passionate about this, yet you're constantly being filmed wherever you go and have no problem with it? Is the difference between this and a guy with a smartphone that you can tell the guy with the smartphone is recording you from his awkward hold of the phone? What if a "recording" indicator were placed on them (like a red light)? Would you still be so angry about this?
  And, just so you know, it's not recording all the time, only when you tell it to record. Not all that much different than an underpowered smartphone with voice commands, strapped to your head.
  The parent is full of shit anyway - posting as AC? And you expect us to believe that your balls will be big enough to walk up to a random stranger in a public place and punch them? Because of what they're wearing? Right. You'll do what the rest of us do: Mutter under our breath and turn our backs to them.
4. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by hedwards · 2013-05-01 06:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's completely different. The vast majority of the time that I'm on video it's surveillance footage that never gets viewed by anybody at all, unless something happens. Comparing that with footage that's easily leaked online is disingenuous at best.
  Don't get me wrong, I don't care to be filmed in general, but trying to suggest that the two are equivalent is just laughable.
5. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Lord+Grey · 2013-05-01 06:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  ... Rev 2 will simply plug into neural probes and power itself from your brain. What battery life problem?
  There are some managers where I work who would experience severe battery life problems, then.
  
  --
  // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
6. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by unrtst · 2013-05-01 06:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life
  Not only this, but the article is simply flamebait:
  
  But for all the hype surrounding another category of wearable devices — connected eyewear — early tests with Google Glass suggest battery performance may be absolutely awful.
  I would hardly call 5 hours of continuous use "absolutely awful". Personally, I'd put that in the "could be better" category. If I'm sitting at my computer, I'm probably going to take them off; If I'm playing frisbee or basketball etc, I'm taking them off; if I'm just sitting around the house, I'm taking them off; etc etc. I think 5 hours a day is more than I'd use them anyway... but all those times when you take them off, they could also be charging.
  The article gets much worse though:
  
  If the user captures longer videos and uses Glass a bit more regularly, Stevens believes the headset will only last “a couple of hours” before the battery dies.
  A device that only lasts two hours between charges is not the future of tech.
  That wasn't a test. That was what he thought would happen, and he didn't try it. I doubt that claim is accurate. The screen and communications channels are running the whole time anyway, and that's probably sucking the majority of the power. Recording while doing so probably won't make much of a difference... but I'm just postulating too. Maybe he should have actually tested it, since he has one!
  And then they follow it up with a statement, as if that was actually fact. That's rotten.
  I've looked at battery powered pico projectors over the years (never got one though), and most claimed around 2 hours life. That's *nearly* enough, but I want to be sure I'll be able to finish a movie on one. This, IMO, is similar. If it gets 2.5 hours or more, I think that's pretty good for constant recording or playing (besides, where are you storing 2.5+ hours of HD video?), and this isn't meant to replace video cameras. I don't know what they're thinking.
  A complaint about batterly life from someone that probably wouldn't wear this in public for more than 10 minutes... yeah, I don't care what he has to say. (I'm not saying I'd wear it all that much either... but I'm not going to berate the battery life of something I wouldn't use anyway)
7. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by hedwards · 2013-05-01 06:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I used to work in security and I'm well aware of where the cameras are located, and I'm definitely not being recorded every step of my trip to Starbucks. What's more, any cameras that I am caught on are unlikely to be looked at by anybody ever. They're recording in case something happens. And rarely if ever do businesses around here pool those tapes or otherwise share them. In most cases the footage is deleted within a month, provided they aren't specifically retaining a section, because storing footage with no value for years is expensive.
  What's more, they don't generally change their position, they're where they are, and what they see is relatively fixed. Whereas with Google glass and such, the cameras are constantly moving and unpredictable. What's more once the footage is uploaded, it's much more likely that it will be seen by people at large.
  Just because you don't get the situation, doesn't mean my views are paranoid, it just means that I'm well aware of the situation and have done actually thinking about it.
8. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 07:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Right. This isn't even to the level of a product prototype. It's a prototype of a *class* of product, an entirely new thing. To use an obligatory car analogy, this isn't a Model T, or even something like an early Benz automobile, it's more along the lines of an early steam powered "road locomotive". Yeah, it's got a few rough edges.
  Google is feeling their way, trying to figure out how this technology might be applied. It has a long ways to go before mass adoption, if it even gets there. It's very interesting technology, so it's getting a lot of attention. Thus, "OMG!! Battery life SUX!!!!"
9. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by chowdahhead · 2013-05-01 08:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They're using an OMAP SOC for the explorer editions. TI stopped development and is phasing out manufacturing of mobile chips. For Google to deliver the millions of Glass devices that they anticipate, they must find another hardware solution. That's a pretty good indication that the current hardware isn't final. The 4430 is overkill anyway, and a more purpose-designed SOC should be more cost-effective and yield improved battery life.
10. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by VortexCortex · 2013-05-01 09:09 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nah, I just bring my mother-in-law along. Yeah, it's mostly horrible, but her face emits an anti-photographic EM field.
11. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by thetoadwarrior · 2013-05-01 09:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's a lousy excuse to allow a company to shift a poor product. They're charging for it and besides the point for something meant to be worn all day battery life should have been at the top of the list of things to sort out. Otherwise it just shows poor planning.
12. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by gagol · 2013-05-01 13:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  probably running some version of eyeOS!
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Great. That's where the camera is. I'll have some wonderful footage to provide the cops when assault charges are filed.
See you in court jackass.
Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

I swear that if anyone approaches me wearing those things I'm going to punch him in the face.
Awww. *pinches cheeks* Remember when you said that about people using cell phones in public? That was just as cute.
Re:Google glasses by zlives · 2013-05-01 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

great just proves my point that I was being recorded without my permission?
Re:Doesn't Matter by HornWumpus · 2013-05-01 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Give it a few generations to shrink and it will hide in glasses frames.
For now the dorks that will buy it will want you to notice.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Google glasses by 0100010001010011 · 2013-05-01 05:33 · Score: 4, Informative

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
Re:Poor Battery Life? by pigiron · 2013-05-01 05:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

So why not a version with a Ray Charles type sunglasses frame. Plenty of room for extra battery size in the arms and the oversize dark lenses could completely camouflage the fact that there is a camera and display behind the lenses.
Battery life is directly proportional to dorkiness by Control-Z · 2013-05-01 05:35 · Score: 5, Funny

You could probably have a 48-hour battery life if you wanted to wrap the sides and back of your head with batteries. Go for it.
Re:Google glasses by NecroPuppy · 2013-05-01 05:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes and no.
Depending on the location (nation, state, municipality, etc) there are laws about deliberately filming someone. ~Sometimes~ there are legal differences between casual recording (you walking past in the background) and deliberate recording, but sometimes not.
Sure, you're not going to be (normally) busted for filming your friends at the beach and getting some random people in the background, but it's still possible. (IIRC, there was an Australian case very recently about this.)

--
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
External battery pack. by Maxo-Texas · 2013-05-01 05:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

Would look like stereo headphone cords. Could have an arbitrarily large battery in your pocket or purse. They sell them now for cell phones-- basically double the life.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Who's Ready for.... by PortHaven · 2013-05-01 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Blink Blink Revolution...
***
Blink Right Eye
Now Left,
Right again,
Left twice....
You did it!!!!
Re: Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 05:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Laws regarding filming children (usually more restrictive, sometimes very much so) add to the stickiness of this situation.
Stickiness? Children? Really?
Re: Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 05:51 · Score: 5, Funny

You're supposed to think of the children -- but not like that.
Re:Google glasses by SuperKendall · 2013-05-01 05:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Great. That's where the camera is. I'll have some wonderful footage... ...or you would have if your battery had not run out about an hour ago.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:but its so awesome by RoknrolZombie · 2013-05-01 05:57 · Score: 3, Funny

Now if only we had decent media outlets reporting real news...
Glasshole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 05:58 · Score: 5, Funny

There may not be an "expectation" of privacy in public, but being "in your face" photographed and/or recorded in public by someone wearing this device makes the wearer a "Glasshole".
Re:Google glasses by CanHasDIY · 2013-05-01 06:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Until I ask you to stop
Fuck asking, I'm getting t-shirts printed up:
By recording this person, you consent to him kicking the holy living shit out of you.
Hey, it works for EULAs...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Google glasses by ArcadeMan · 2013-05-01 06:37 · Score: 4, Funny

If you're in a crowded theater, the best way is shouting "Fire!".

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Propeller head by sinij · 2013-05-01 06:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Or you could go for renewable energy source with a propeller hat.