Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Future of Wearables: Standalone, Unobtrusive, and Everywhere

Posted by samzenpus on from the computer-clothes dept.

jfruh writes Wearable tech has been a pretty niche product so far, and a widely derided one at that, but moves are in the works to help the category break into the mainstream. One of the biggest irritants is that most wearable devices must pair with a smartphone to actually connect to the Internet — but an AT&T exec says that his company will be selling a standalone wearable by the end of 2014. Google Glass has been a flashpoint of conflict not least because it's extremely obvious; its creator says that subtle, non intrusive versions are coming. And while everyone wonders what Apple's play in this space will be, it may be best to imagine what they're working on as a successor to their fading iPod line.

56 comments

  1. NOT ME !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let me begin this column with a disclaimer. Many of you will reflect on the fact that I also told Apple not to do the iPhone. But over time, I have come to realize that I was right about the iPhone and the smartphone in general. It has become a plague on humanity and a general annoyance.

    The iWatch will be worse. It will be even more annoying than the current annoyance title-holder, Google Glass.

    Of course none of this complaining is about Apple's ability to make scads of money or the distinct possibility that an Apple watch would actually be cool and perhaps astonishing (although I doubt it). It's about the idea, in general.

    I recall the days of the first electronic digital watchesâ"I actually own an original gold Fairchild LED watch (circa 1973 brand new $150; 2012 garage sale $5). All the electronics companies were looking into making watches with semiconductor innards and digital read-outs. The most prized was a huge clunker done by HP.

    So the idea of tech companies bringing out a slew of trendy wearables that everyone will want to have is not new. It appears to be right on track, part of a 40-year cycle.

    These watches from the 1970s have since been ridiculed because they were actually dumb, as I expect we will conclude again with the current offerings, once the madness dies off.

    The key to their success in the 1970s and their eventual demise was one in the same: trendiness. They began as trendy and cool. Then they were no longer trendy and cool. Done.

    Current observers looking back on the old watches say they were impractical because you needed to use both hands to tell the time. Yes, you had to hold the watch up, then with your other hand push a little button to light up the LED so you could see what time it was.

    People who look back on this flaw seriously miss the point. These watches were the prestige item of the moment. They cost over $1,000 in today's money. The idea was to make sure people knew you had one to show off.

    Thus you should have to go through a two-handed process. Not to get the time, but to alert those nearby that you were cool and probably rich. The process was a ritual.

    Ritualization history will repeat itself with overpriced watch usage once again. When will we finally exit this age of posturing and showing off between fellow true believers in tech junk? Probably never.

    With iWatch (and Android Wear watches) there will be more than a button push just to get the time. These new devices are equipped to do all sorts of useless things you can show off. "Oh look, my heart is racing." "Oh look, my blood pressure is up." "Oh look, I can eat a donut and my blood sugar is the same." "Oh look, yesterday I walked over a mile while inside the mall!" "Oh look, the atmospheric pressure just changed. Did you feel it?" And on and on and on.

    The only thing that will differentiate new smartwatches from the LED high-tech watches of the 1970s is that these things will never be used as a watch.

    The emergence of smartwatches also explains why the already too-small-to-handle GSM phone SIM card is shrinking into nothing. It needs to fit inside wearables that double as phones, probably through an earpiece.

    I have to assume that you will or should have some sort of earpiece in all the time as you can expect the future iWatch to be another outlet for Siri. I can see the demo on stage now with Tim Cook or some nameless functionary talking to their wrist like they are old pals.

    The iWatch will be something everyone will want and it will pack them in at the Apple store through Christmas. After that I'm not so sure. Once announced we'll see more news stories about people lining up outside the Apple Store to buy the watch, like they did for iPhone. And the cycle begins again, adding to the worst tech possible for mankind.

    Don't expect to see me buying one.

    NOT I !!

    1. Re:NOT ME !! by djupedal · · Score: 0

      Don't expect me to call 911 on my iPhone when you have a heart attack and fall at my feet...

    2. Re:NOT ME !! by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Siri, How do I get icky dying person off my shoes?"

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:NOT ME !! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      The only thing that will differentiate new smartwatches from the LED high-tech watches of the 1970s is that these things will never be used as a watch.

      We put so much into it, there was no room for the clock! Of course, sometimes it's good to know the time.

    4. Re:NOT ME !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm

      AnonymousCoward says:
      "Many of you will reflect on the fact that I also told Apple not to do the iPhone."

      Will we? Who are you? I don't remember you saying anything of the sort.

    5. Re:NOT ME !! by Zanadou · · Score: 2

      These watches from the 1970s have since been ridiculed because they were actually dumb, as I expect we will conclude again with the current offerings, once the madness dies off.

      I believe this is actually the origin of Douglas Adams' point of referring to Earth as "an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea." --remember, he wrote that in the 1970s.

    6. Re:NOT ME !! by Desler · · Score: 2

      He's just copypastaing another one of Dvorak's shitty articles.

    7. Re:NOT ME !! by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine how fast you must type to have entered that whole rant and still got the first post :-)

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    8. Re:NOT ME !! by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      Now, of course the question is whether or not this was pasted in because AC likes Dvorak, or he's making fun of the blowtard.

  2. Reminds me of an old joke: by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bill Gates, Andy Grove, and Jerry Sanders (Heads of MicroSoft, Intel, and AMD, Advanced Micro Devices) were in a high-powered business meeting. During the serious, tense discussion, a beeping noise suddenly is emitted from where Jerry is sitting. Jerry says, "Oh, that's my beeper. Gentlemen, excuse me, I need to take this call." Jerry lifts his wristwatch to his ear and begins talking into the end of his tie. After completing this call, he notices the others are staring at him. Jerry explains, "Oh, this is my new personal communication system. I have an earpiece built into my watch and a microphone sewn into the end of my tie. That way I can take a call anywhere."

    The others nod, and the meeting continues.

    Five minutes later, the discussion is again interrupted when Andy starts beeping. He states, "Excuse me gentlemen, this must be an important call." Andy taps his earlobe and begins talking into thin air. When he completes his call, he notices the others staring at him and explains, "I also have a personal communication system. My earpiece is actually implanted in my earlobe, and the microphone is actually embedded in this fake tooth."

    The others nod, and the meeting continues.

    Five minutes later, the discussion is again interrupted when Bill emits a thunderous fart. He looks up at the others staring at him and says, "Somebody quickly get me a piece of paper... I'm receiving a fax!"

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  3. Where Is the Law? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    We have all read of situations where Google Glasses have been snatched off a wearer's head. At the very least it is assault and battery and probably grand theft as well. In some states those charges might get they key sort of thrown away as even with a plea bargain a five year sentence on a first offense would be easily justified. My state has special laws that protect people over 65 and such an event might really cause a 20 year sentence to be applied or in a three strike state it might mean life without hope of parole. So why is it we are not hearing of people with huge legal problems after assaulting a Google Glass wearer? Even a grab and run theft of a smart phone can be seen as strong armed robbery which carries a 15 year sentence. Where are our courts on this?

  4. As plain as the googgles on your face by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    As intrusive as the Google Glass has proven to be, it will only be worse when observation recording tech is more difficult to detect.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've been wearing hidden cameras in my clothing, hats, glasses, my car, my house and everywhere else I get a chance. Nobody every complains because I keep it secret. I have been doing this for over 10 years now. I am sure many more have too. Glad to see you are catching on here in the year 2014.

    2. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes.... and make no mistake, it is coming. Full time HD video in unnoticeable form factors is just around the corner. It's being worked on right now.

    3. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      As intrusive as the Google Glass has proven to be, it will only be worse when observation recording tech is more difficult to detect.

      It is actually the intrusiveness that bothers people. Most people don't really care if they are recorded, as long as it isn't obvious and in their face. Not many people are bothered by store security cameras, etc.

    4. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by exomondo · · Score: 2

      I agree, I think the objection is to how intrusive and obvious it is. If somebody surreptitiously records you on their smartphone it's probably not that much of an issue even if you do happen to notice, but if somebody is recording you by holding their phone up in your face it's much worse.

    5. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

      It's been around for years. Fake car key fobs, watches, glasses, clocks, lovable stuffed bears, smoke detectors

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    6. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is actually the intrusiveness that bothers people. Most people don't really care if they are recorded, as long as it isn't obvious and in their face. Not many people are bothered by store security cameras, etc.

      The difference is that we know what a store security camera is going to do with the recording: record over it in XY days.
      We don't know what [random glasshole] is going to do with the recording they make of us.

      So it really doesn't matter what the recorder's unspoken intent is, what causes discomfort is the recordee's uncertainty.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the idea that Glass is constantly recording is unsubstantiated hysteria and has no basis in reality.

    8. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people don't really care if they are recorded, as long as it isn't obvious and in their face. Not many people are bothered by store security cameras, etc.

      True, but security cameras are not generally publically accessible. In a store if I accidentally knock a display stand over it is not going to show up on Youtube in five minutes as "LOL look at the clumsy old guy".

    9. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The difference is that we know what a store security camera is going to do with the recording: record over it in XY days.
      We don't know what [random glasshole] is going to do with the recording they make of us.
      So it really doesn't matter what the recorder's unspoken intent is, what causes discomfort is the recordee's uncertainty.

      Except the idea that Glass is constantly recording is unsubstantiated hysteria and has no basis in reality.

      Straw man. As any idiot can clearly see, that point was not even raised. The point is that Glass is always pointed at something interesting, and you don't know when it's recording. You don't know if it's been altered so that the LED doesn't activate. If you have a valid argument to make, then make it. But we know you don't. That's because anonymous cowards are less capable than any idiot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      To imagine that Glass is always pointed at something interesting is pretty narcissistic, don't you think?

    11. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      To imagine that Glass is always pointed at something interesting is pretty narcissistic, don't you think?

      Only if you fail to understand that it's always pointed at something interesting to the wearer. I know this is complicated, but please do try to keep up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:As plain as the googgles on your face by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      As intrusive as the Google Glass has proven to be, it will only be worse when observation recording tech is more difficult to detect.

      I disagree. The exact opposite: when people stop noticing, they will stop caring. It won't be perceived as intrusive anymore, and people will be less annoyed by it.

      It's the conspicuousness of the camera in Google Glass, the constant reminder that you might be recorded, that makes most people feel creeped out. For the previous decade leading up to that product, nobody cared about small+cheap camera tech itself. And people walk/drive by fixed-position cameras all the time, and don't give a fuck there either. Peoples's behavior shows that "intrusiveness" happens when a cameras looks like a camera, and I suspect it also has something to do with being face-level, literally "in your face" and you're making eye contact with it, unlike the case with less conspicuous cameras. It was never about privacy; it's some aspect of self-consciousness kind of related to privacy, but a different thing.

      You might say "maybe you, but I sure care. Hell yes it's about privacy." Of course you say that. I'm talking about how people behave and the emotions they display. Not their innermost secret thoughts that they are always terrified to express in voting booths or policy decisions, yet are happy to speak of on the Internet.

      You know, the Internet, where they don't have a camera in their face making them all self-conscious! The Internet, where instead of a terrifying 1x1 pixel image that makes you think "WTF is that? That's weird! Are you watching me?" you now instead see a bunch of "like buttons" which are obviously for liking things, not getting your browser to send a request to an unrelated tracking server.

      In addition, there's a certain inevitability about it all. The cameras have been there a long time, there are more today, and there will be even more tomorrow. You can't do anything about it, except stay at home. So you'll either accept or you'll go insane and get selected out. You'll handle it. (Contrast that to Google Glass, the one small camera out of the hundreds out there, that you actually recognize and is also rare enough that there's little social cost to shunning. With GG you can refuse to accept and also stay within social norms, so GG is different.)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  5. google glass by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Google Glass has been a flashpoint of conflict not least because it's extremely obvious...

    Let me fix that typo for you...

    Google Glass has been a flashpoint of conflict not least because it's extremely obnoxious.

  6. Battery life by ensignyu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, the biggest irritants are battery life and price. Putting a standalone cell radio in a watch will make the battery life even worse than the 24-48 hours that the latest crop of Android-based watches get with real usage. And the cell radio costs more and will probably have lousy antennas.

    I can see why AT&T would want a cell-connected watch: so they can charge you an extra $5-$10 a month to add another device to your plan.

    1. Re:Battery life by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      you have been able to buy cellphone watches for years now. Search ebay for "GSM watch"

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Battery life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I recently spent 2 weeks overseas.

      Put my home-simcard in my smart watch (I'm not going to advertise for it even though I am AC). I turned mobile data off (avoid roaming charges), but left it on the phone network (emergency phone + send/receive SMS to my normal phone number).

      I made no calls, and sent/received very few SMSes and the battery would go down approximately 12% per day. I would preriodically check the time [like a real watch!!], which involved pushing one button [activates the screen] and pushing that button again to turn off the screen.

      If I actually sit there are use the device; 1% battery life per ~2 minutes? is average. This is WiFi browsing; regularly loading pages that kind of thing. [which is horrendous I know! but the watch is fun and was actually cheaper than the recent samsung watch].

      It is an Android smart watch released in the last 6 months, with a 1ghz dual-core processor 1gb of ram and android 4.2.2, 4gb built in storage and microSD slot (to give you an idea of how new/old it is). (screen res is 240x240 pixels).

      It supports GSM and 3G (mine is a 2100mhz "EU" network version, but there was a USA 3G version available).

      I don't really like the watch (it has a camera in entirely the wrong spot that takes great photos of the back of your hand).
      It has an (apparently) "insecure" Android release.
      The screen is obviously too small etc.
      Basically I don't think smart watches are "there" as must haves yet - though moto 360 is interesting to me, but I want to make sure you don't underestimate where they are at. If they just stuck your dumbphone innards into a watch formfactor with todays battery technology you'd easily have week+ standby times.

    3. Re:Battery life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my omate true smart watch phone lasts almost two days, but i don't use it that much, maybe 2 phone calls and a couple of sms/email a day. battery tech is comming up fast though we will have over double capacity shortly.

    4. Re:Battery life by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0

      i agree that battery life is the #1 issue. if it cant even go a week without needing a charge, it's not really worth using.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:Battery life by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      And the cell radio costs more and will probably have lousy antennas.

      You can easily integrate a lambda over 4 antenna into the wristband it would only have to be 4" long for the lower cell frequencies

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  7. We are so bad at predicting the future but still by m00sh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We are so bad at predicting the future but we still do it over and over again. We are mostly wrong and we always forget how wrong we were

    Here are some of the future wearable and apple stories on slashdot from the past:

    We have said some pretty crazy things and we have been saying the age of wearable for almost five years.

  8. Fading iPod line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it's too bad they didn't basically kill it themselves with their massively more profitable iPhone and iPad lines.

  9. What is unobtrusive really though? by mfh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unobtrusive to me means that the technology does only what I want it to but we all know that technology today serves its master, which is NOT the end user. This is an invasion.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  10. Without a phone? by antdude · · Score: 1

    "Wearables won't break through until they can work without a phone, partnership chief Glenn Lurie said" -- Yes, I want to replace my old school Casio Data Bank 150 calculator watch ASAP! I do not want to use a mobile phone with the watch. I still want basic features like long battery life, scheduler, phone directory, calculator, alarms, etc.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Without a phone? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it's doable, depending on what you want it to do. Considering you example of the Casio Data Bank 150, about the only thing that needs Internet access would be the scheduler for keeping your calendar in-sync. Personally, I'd drop the phone directory because I have that on my phone. Calculator, stop watch, alarm, etc. are all doable without the Internet.

      If the watch is something you glance at ("Whoops! Time for my 2:00 meeting!") or use momentarily ("What is 17% of $7392?"), I don't think there'll be a problem with battery life. But if the theory is that my smart watch will replace my smart phone, I don't think so.

  11. Standalone? by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

    I thought we didn't have the battery technology to really make this idea fly yet... I thought the reason why the leading smart watch (Pebble) is so successful is because it is *not* standalone, and as such as excellent integration with your phone and very good battery life.
    What do I know, I guess I'm just not in a sufficiently mindless consumer mindset. I'll never understand this idiocy.

    1. Re:Standalone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      About 0.000000003% of the world's population actually uses it.

      That's only about a quarter of a person. If you hadn't traded your trusty calculator watch for a Pebble, you wouldn't have made that mistake.

    2. Re:Standalone? by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      i've got a standalone smart watch phone (omate true smart). i get almost 2 days of use, but i'm not a heavy user (i would get 3-4 out of smart phone). Works fine as a phone, although i have it upside down so i can easily put it to me ear. typing can be a little tricky sometimes, but the flesky keyboard helps out a lot. i enjoy not having to remember my phone or have it jumping around in my pocket.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    3. Re:Standalone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 0.000000003% of the world's population actually uses it.

      That's only about a quarter of a person.

      He only wears it on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

    4. Re:Standalone? by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

      So it does neither watch nor phone well. Great. Where can I buy one?

    5. Re:Standalone? by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      nice work completely missing the point, then making up your own to support your own notions. You would make a good politition. The phone works just as well the phone on my old smartphone (maybe even easier as i can l link my hands behind my head to take a call) wearing it upside down is no issue because it just as easy to use, and its saphire screen dosn't scratch. It tells me the time much better than my smartphone did (and its better than a bunch of watches, because its readable in any light, even if i do have to press a button). Sure it might not suit you if you are writing 50 plus messages, want to play all the apps, and watch movies, but i have many devices that do all of that stuff, much better than a smart phone will. Its hard for me because i'm so far ahead of the curve; and by that i don't mean i bought the first iphone, i mean i bought a smartphone 8 years before the iphone came out (which is possibly why i'm bored with them now), the same time you lot were all saying "my nokia 5110 is the greatest because it lasts all week and can play snake". So i don't think i will convice you now, but in 5 years time when you look down at your standalone smart watch phone please think of me (and keep an open mind when i'm having my optic nerve hacked).

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
  12. Contradictory by jxander · · Score: 2

    Those last two are actually contradictory.

    The more "everywhere" this tech gets, the less unobtrusive it becomes (or rather, the more obtrusive)

    --
    This signature is false.
  13. Why the fuck is that modded "troll"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell, Slashdot mods?! Here we have a comment that's very detailed and makes some very good points, yet somebody in their infinite stupidity decided to mark it as a "troll".

    I hope that somebody else who isn't a fucking moron comes along and fixes that display of idiocy. That should be a +5, Insightful comment.

    This place is getting more and more like Reddit or Hacker News every day. Utterly stupid shit ends up getting modded up, while the best content consistently gets modded down.

  14. Re:We are so bad at predicting the future but stil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its only the time line that is off.

  15. Pip-Boy by wasteoid · · Score: 1

    Probably the most useful configuration, mounting a small tablet to the back of one's forearm. Easy to use, no need to occupy a hand, mostly out of the way when not needed. Kind of like a smartwatch, only more useful due to the larger size. Head-mounted configurations seem prone to issues, especially regarding distractions in the visual area while performing activities requiring full attention.

  16. I'd love to have one. But on my terms by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    What I want is a wearable computer that belongs to me. Not a device that I basically rent and that works for its maker more than me.

    In other words, it's not bloody likely that I'll ever get one. Unless parts get cheap enough that building your own becomes an option.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re:We are so bad at predicting the future but stil by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows that the year of wearable computing is the year after the year of Linux on the desktop.....

    The only problem with that is I have now had Linux on my desktop for TWENTY-ONE YEARS.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
  18. Personal Hub by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Probably the future of wearables is the personal hub.

    The problem with wearables is that a radio capable of sustaining a connection to the outside world - be it 4g or wifi - needs a fair bit of power and consequently quite a lot of battery. So devices have to be fairly chunky, or else have to be recharged more often than you'd like. But your bluetooth mouse probably goes months on one charge - mine certainly does. So the solutions is to have a device mounted discreetly on your belt or in your handbag, or carried in a pocket, which just acts as a personal hub/firewall, doing backhaul for your wearables. It doesn't need a screen. It doesn't need apps. But once it's paired with your wearables, you can use a device which has no backhaul capability to make phone calls or to access any service on the Internet.

    This is an extension of how Google Glass or your Pebble watch already uses your smartphone. The smartphone acts as a personal hub. But if the display you actually use is the one on your Glass or the one on your Pebble, you don't need the big, fragile, power-hungry screen on your smartphone any more; so the personal hub can be cheaper and much more durable than any smartphone.

    Once you've got that concept, there are other services that a personal hub can supply to your wearables, for example storage.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    1. Re:Personal Hub by peragrin · · Score: 2

      while not a bad concept, just remember android wearables have at best a 36 hour battery life.

      It is the screen and battery size that are killing these things.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Personal Hub by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Probably the future of wearables is the personal hub.

      The problem with wearables is that a radio capable of sustaining a connection to the outside world - be it 4g or wifi - needs a fair bit of power and consequently quite a lot of battery. So devices have to be fairly chunky, or else have to be recharged more often than you'd like. But your bluetooth mouse probably goes months on one charge - mine certainly does. So the solutions is to have a device mounted discreetly on your belt or in your handbag, or carried in a pocket, which just acts as a personal hub/firewall, doing backhaul for your wearables. It doesn't need a screen. It doesn't need apps. But once it's paired with your wearables, you can use a device which has no backhaul capability to make phone calls or to access any service on the Internet.

      This is an extension of how Google Glass or your Pebble watch already uses your smartphone. The smartphone acts as a personal hub. But if the display you actually use is the one on your Glass or the one on your Pebble, you don't need the big, fragile, power-hungry screen on your smartphone any more; so the personal hub can be cheaper and much more durable than any smartphone.

      Once you've got that concept, there are other services that a personal hub can supply to your wearables, for example storage.

      I suggest we use a switch instead of a hub and we call it a 'fabric'...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  19. Re:We are so bad at predicting the future but stil by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    We are so bad at predicting the future but we still do it over and over again. ... Flexible Phones 'Out By 2013' [slashdot.org]

    I read that one. Then a couple of months ago I was in a cellphone carrier's store, and saw one of those new curved phones. I immediately thought, "Cool! Those new flexible phones Slashdot was talking about are out now!". So of course I immediately picked it up and tried to bend it...

    The store clerks were not pleased.

  20. Why the fuck is that modded by Jmstuckman · · Score: 2

    The entire comment was apparently plagiarized from an article on another site. Given this, I'm wondering how it got all the way up to +4.

  21. Corporations Plot against humankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even the fearmongering threat of 'everywhere wearables' is a disasterous design to scorch humans' privacy where once a photographer or videographer needed written permission to shoot in public where a recognizeable face was discerned, now these corporations are intending to blow that courtesy/privacy LAW out of the water. I will do everything I can to thwart their attack against me and mine.