Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Snapchat's 10-Second-Video Glasses Are Real And Cost $130 Bucks (techcrunch.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the I'll-be-seeing-you dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader bheerssen writes that Snapchat "announced a new product yesterday, Spectacles, which are sunglasses with a camera built into the frame." TechCrunch reports: Snapchat's long-rumored camera glasses are actually real. The startup's first foray into hardware will be a pair of glasses called "Spectacles" and will go on sale this fall for $129.99, according to the WSJ... To start recording you tap a button on the side of the glasses. Video capture will mimic Snapchat's app, meaning you can only capture 10 seconds of video at once. This video will sync wirelessly to your phone, presumably making it available to share as a snap.
The cameras will be using a circular 115-degree lens to mimic the human eye's natural field of vision, and in the Journal's article, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel remembers his first test of the product in 2015. "I could see my own memory, through my own eyes -- it was unbelievable... It was the closest I'd ever come to feeling like I was there again." The camera glasses will enter "limited distribution" sometime within the next three months, which TechCrunch believes "could end up being like Google Glass when it first launched -- officially on sale to the public but pretty hard to come by."

56 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. My goodness, those are fugly by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was picturing something more like Oakley's MP3 glasses, but with a super-flat little camera between your eyes. Instead it's a child's toy. They got the button on the device right (because it makes it obvious when you're recording) but they seem to have everything else wrong, including the price. That's too much for something that goofy.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re: My goodness, those are fugly by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I think they're brilliant. a fun toy with a phenominal compelling use and styled in a way so you know exactly what they are. nobody is going to be wearing these around all day and recording willy nilly. google glass was intended to record all day and you wear them everywhere. these you break out for fun.

      congrats to them. I laughed when they passed up $3b buyout offer from fb, but it's clear they have had big visions.

      Also, the dude dates miranda kerr. how awesome is that??

  2. Just like google glass by hawguy · · Score: 1

    "could end up being like Google Glass when it first launched -- officially on sale to the public but pretty hard to come by."

    Then will fade away as people realize they don't want to wear dorky glasses with cameras on them.

    1. Re:Just like google glass by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      Then will fade away as people realize they don't want to wear dorky glasses with cameras on them.

      Plenty of people wanted Google Glass, but they were threatened and bullied by the Luddites, so they stayed silent.

    2. Re:Just like google glass by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      Threatening to punch anyone they see wearing them in the face isn't bullying; is that what you are trying to say?

    3. Re:Just like google glass by chispito · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, even a lot of people who weren't threatening to punch others were still put off by them. Penny Arcade summarized the issue pretty well.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    4. Re:Just like google glass by hawguy · · Score: 1

      What will fade away is dinosaurs like you who fear technology. This tech will come to pass, make no mistake. What are you going to do when the cameras are so small that you can't tell them apart from any other pair of glasses?

      I wear contact lens because I don't *want* to wear glasses, not because I 'fear technology' and even if I did wear glasses, I don't want a 1cm in diameter camera lens bulging out of the glasses. But even if the camera was invisible, the glasses are not. While I could just put the glasses on when I want to video something, I could also just hold up my phone, which will have a lot better camera than some 1mm pinhole camera built invisibly into glasses.

      You can't sell bad technology by blaming people for being luddites when they recognize that bad technology is bad technology. I don't wear a "smart watch" for the same reason, not because I'm afraid to wear one.

      Perhaps some day ubiquitous cameras will come to pass, that day is not today - and they won't be built into glasses.

    5. Re:Just like google glass by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Threatening to punch anyone they see wearing them in the face isn't bullying; is that what you are trying to say?

      Your hyperbole is showing.

      That's not exactly hyperbole. Consider some of the comments in this thread alone

      Can they capture the full wind-up and followthrough of SnapChat glasses being slugged off someone's face?

      Does it come with a disclaimer that says.. "When you get punched in the face because of these glasses, and you will get punched in the face because of these glasses, you cannot hold SnapChat legally responsible because you are an asshat."

      If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree

      They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes. Sufficient measures thus taken, effective privacy is restored.

      Some people seem to have no trouble advocating physical violence against people merely for openly carrying a camera (which seems silly because if you want to surreptitiously record people there are plenty of ways to do it that are much less obvious). I hope this is just a case of people "being tough on the Internet", but even so, the ferocity of the response seems totally out of proportion.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    6. Re:Just like google glass by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Dude, I am the furthest thing from a Luddite you will ever meet and I am proud to have done more than my share online and IRL to keep Google glass from becoming a "thing." Glassholes weren't geeks (see how I am able to use the past tense verb there? I LOVE that!) they were self-absorbed hipster gadgeteers. Geeks value their privacy.

    7. Re:Just like google glass by Megane · · Score: 1

      Well at least they got the dorky part right this time!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    8. Re:Just like google glass by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Having at different times had fairly strong alkali (fortunately not strong enough to burn, just to hurt. A lot.) spray into my eyes in the darkroom, and picked metal shards out of the front surface of my sun glasses, I'm perfectly fine with dorky glasses for regular wear and Triplex safety glasses for when I'm actually working.

      You don't like dorky glasses? Well, they're you're eyes. Enjoy them while you've got them.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. 130 to get my ass kicked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Didn't we already go through this with Google Glass? People don't want to be recorded.

    1. Re:130 to get my ass kicked by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      google glass was always on recording. This is snap-button recording, like taking a photo.

    2. Re:130 to get my ass kicked by SolemnLord · · Score: 1

      People want to share, though. These things are going to be more successful than Glass because:

      1. They're cheaper than Glass ever was
      2. They're ugly, but ugly in a way that screams "bad fashion" instead of "I'm a cyber-creep"
      3. Snapchat is a massively-successful social network platform built around images and video. Google had... uh...

      I think we will see (and should see!) a lot of the same issues that were raised with Glass be raised with these. But with the Spectacles there's at least a clear-cut use case, rather than "why is that guy with the thing Garrus wears staring at me"? People are still gonna get punched, but I can see a lot of people more willing to let these slide, too.

  4. One other thing they got right by raymorris · · Score: 2

    >> they seem to have everything else wrong

    Well they did get *one* other thing right. TFS says:

      using a circular 115-degree lens

    Genius. I would have tried a triangle lens, or perhaps square.

    1. Re:One other thing they got right by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      http://www.directindustry.com/...

  5. Stupid gadget is stupid by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    This is the retarded, short-video version of Google Glass.

    Google Glass users were branded as "glassholes" and fittingly so, in my humble opinion.

    Also, 10 seconds seems way too short for almost any useful purpose except cranking out stupid Vine videos.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Stupid gadget is stupid by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      This is the retarded, short-video version of Google Glass.

      Google Glass could only record for a few seconds as well.

    2. Re:Stupid gadget is stupid by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      This is the retarded, short-video version of Google Glass.

      Google Glass could only record for a few seconds as well.

      I rest my case.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  6. Really? by JediJorgie · · Score: 1

    Does it come with a disclaimer that says.. "When you get punched in the face because of these glasses, and you will get punched in the face because of these glasses, you cannot hold SnapChat legally responsible because you are an asshat."

  7. a** by markdavis · · Score: 1

    So first we had "glasshole" (asshole),
    I guess now we can have "snaphat" (asshat)!

    1. Re:a** by markdavis · · Score: 1

      ?? You have some serious mental/social issues.

    2. Re:a** by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      perfectly cogent.

    3. Re:a** by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i've never heard of a grasshole.

    4. Re:a** by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Just ignore the typo.

    5. Re:a** by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I don't want to.

  8. Why do people care... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... whether or not somebody else records them in a public place? For fuck's sake, if they are within earshot, they are recording your audio and if they are in eyeshot, they are recording your video... the only difference is that the device that is doing the recording is their brain. When wetware becomes a thing, even that distinction to external devices such as cameras or microphones will be irrelevant. The *only* thing that really protects your privacy when you are in a public place is whether or not people are interested enough in paying attention to you.

    Obviously,. you could still prosecute people that distribute content that was recorded without permission of the subject, but I see no point to the outcries against people who might record for their own personal use, and in all honesty, are probably not actually *that* interested in you in the first place to notice you, specifically, among everything else they might be recording and actually *are* interested in.

    The only caveat to this I would suggest is that without clear signage to the effect that states that an area is being monitored or recorded, a person doing the monitoring or recording must be physically at the location the recording is occurring... I do not think it should necessarily be externally obvious that they are recording anything, however... any more than it should be required that if a person is simply observing people as they go by should be carrying sign saying that they are watching you.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Why do people care... by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... whether or not somebody else records them in a public place? For fuck's sake, if they are within earshot, they are recording your audio and if they are in eyeshot, they are recording your video... the only difference is that the device that is doing the recording is their brain. When wetware becomes a thing, even that distinction to external devices such as cameras or microphones will be irrelevant.

      Because currently a memory is only usable to the witness, and is often forgotten. It cannot be saved in perfect detail, duplicated (only described), or packaged and sold for monetary gain. When wetware comes to be, as you point out, these issues will need to be dealt with at an ethical and legal level, but the that's not coming as soon as you believe, I think.

    2. Re:Why do people care... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      No, people are not interested in 'you'. They are interested in that 0.5 seconds when you make the silly face when you miss the football thrown by your buddy.
      This, they will then make a meme out of.

      With no permanent record, that 0.5 sec would be totally unremarkable, not noticed, or long forgotten. With a potential continuous recording (even if only 10 secs at a time), they can review later, and extract those 2 frames where you look absolutely ridiculous.
      These glasses just move the recording from a camera that someone will notice, to sunglasses that will go unseen.

      Enjoy your meme fame.

    3. Re:Why do people care... by markdavis · · Score: 2

      +1

      I love how clueless these "if you have nothing to hide people" or "you are in a public place people" are. One day it will come back and bite them and they won't know what hit them.

      Just because one is a "public" place doesn't mean everyone should have everything they do and say documented for all time, to be shared with anyone at any time. Sitting at a table with someone at a restaurant, one should reasonably expect their conversations are not being recorded or have close-up video being stored, secretly. Same thing for in your car, or whatever.

    4. Re:Why do people care... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if wetware is not coming as soon as I supposedly think... I mention it to point out that if it were even hypothetically a thing, our existing objection to being recorded with devices should mean that it would be equally objectionable to simply have people *observing*... clearly this is absurd, even in an age where mind-machine interfaces are viable, and so by extension, it must be equally absurd to object to the idea of being recorded in the first place when you are in an area where someone might incidentally be observing you. Again, the fact that no such technology exists right now is irrelevant, since we would not object to simple observation even *IF* that observation were being permanently recorded, so there is no real reason to object to permanent recording in the first place.

      If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree that the only way that people will be able to infringe on that privacy is to violate laws allowing people to control who and what is on their own personal property.

      It's not that I think if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, either... everyone has things that they would rather be private, and I believe everyone is entitled to that... but people should deal with the things that they want to be private in environments that *ARE* private... not in places that are public, which is, you know... the very *opposite* of private. Your privacy when you aren't trying to be in a private place is ultimately dependent not on what you might believe or want, but solely on how much other people want to pay attention to you in the first place, and so worrying about it in such circumstances even at best represents what is probably an inflated opinion of oneself, believing oneself to be far more important to other people that they don't know than is realistically likely to be the case.

      So when the premise that might otherwise make one care about it is based on a falsehood (that other people are as interested in them as they are), there's no rational basis to be worried about it.

      When I want privacy, I go somewhere private. I step outside, however... and it's fair game.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    5. Re:Why do people care... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Just because one is a "public" place doesn't mean everyone should have everything they do and say documented for all time

      The people who take exception to this should note that they,. like most other people around them, are not likely to be interesting enough for other people to even *want* to document everything they do or say in a public place for all time in the first place.

      The brain is a recording device too... the fact that we happen to consider it fallible is immaterial... you can record something using a device with lossy compression too.

      Reasonably, the objection to being recorded in a public place logically reduces to objecting to other people paying attention to them when they don't want to be. Trying to govern it with laws is trying to control what people are even allowed to *THINK*, and that is something I consider infinitely more morally objectionable than somebody eavesdropping on a conversation that was none of their business or even if they were recording it (as long as it was for their own personal use, just as whatever they have remembered in their own head would be).

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    6. Re:Why do people care... by lgw · · Score: 1

      If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree

      They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes. Sufficient measures thus taken, effective privacy is restored.

      )there's no rational basis to be worried about it

      Says you. Most people see it differently.

      When I want privacy, I go somewhere private. I step outside, however... and it's fair game.

      Says you. Most people see it differently.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Why do people care... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree

      They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes

      This is assault, and illegal. Your so-called "right to privacy" does not extend to the right to beat up anybody who you think may be infringing upon it. If someone is breaking the law to infringe on your privacy, your course of action should be to report the crime, not to beat the person up.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    8. Re:Why do people care... by lgw · · Score: 1

      You'll find that, throughout most societies, throughout most of history, blatantly breaking core social expectations will get your ass kicked. Complaining about it to the police after the fact (who likely won't care or act) won't change that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Why do people care... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      It is illegal to assault you and I'm not even sure I have a right to privacy. But I will first threaten you, and then follow through on the threat, if you are a glasshole and in the same room as me. I will also pull a cigarette out of the mouth of someone smoking near a pregnant woman who is asked to extinguish it and refuses, even though that is "assault" as well. I do both these things in the name of common decency, a notion usually lost on the insistent close-quarter smokers and glassholes. And both these paragons of Law and Order are welcome to call the cops. Unless we're sitting in college pubs in Brooklyn or Portland, I'm not too concerned about how things will pan out...

    10. Re:Why do people care... by mark-t · · Score: 2
      It's ironic that you'd claim to be acting in the name of common decency while invoking indecent violent behavior.

      Let us invoke a hypothetical situation, however, to briefly consider why recording you in a public place should not be a problem. imagine that wetware is a real thing, and it is possible to transfer memories to a computer with full and vibrant video and audio... Lossy digital recording is possible today, so any imperfections in human memory are immaterial. In such a socieity, if you didn't want yourself to be recorded, would you get just as offended at anyone who was simply looking at you? If not, when in such a situation they could be using their memory as a recording medium, then why would you get offended today at someone who was using a visible device that might be used to record what is going on when that person probably wasn't even that interested in you in the first place until you got into their face and threatened them?

      And of course, if you *do* try to beat the crap out of the so-called "glasshole", bear in mind that they would have a legitimate right to respond to such an attack in self-defense, and you could wind up getting yourself seriously injured instead.

      If the device was actually recording at the time, the fact that you chose to instigate the confrontation would be irrefutable proof that this so-called glasshole was merely physically defending himself from your attack, and although what he was doing provoked the attack from you, it would be clear from the recording that he did not deliberately do it to antagonize you personally... you just happened to be someone who got offended enough by it to try and beat the guy up in response.

      And failed. So.... you'd get beaten up *AND* still end up facing possible prison.

      Think it's worth the risk? If you want privacy, go somewhere private.... if you go out of your way to do something to make yourself more interesting to somebody who isn't actually interested in you in the first place, then you are the one who is inviting the problems that may ensue, not the person recording their surroundings.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    11. Re:Why do people care... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Beating someone else up just because they offended you is breaking a pretty core social expectation too.

      But might does not make right. There are those who believe that it does, but I'd argue that is symptomatic only of a failure in those people to use higher reasoning to draw their conclusions, and not founded on any actually morally justified grounds.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    12. Re:Why do people care... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I prefer not to be carried away, thinking "but I was right" as I lose consciousness. Better to just not be a titanic asshole in the first place.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Why do people care... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'd think it's better to not be resorting to violence to resolve a violation of social protocol.

      A person with smelly armpits might make you uncomfortable to be around too... would you beat him up if he didn't just go away when you asked him to?

      Somebody recording their surroundings of which you just happen to be a part does not in any way suggest that the person was ever interested in anything you were doing or saying, and it is undesired *eavesdropping* that is the violation of social protocol, not indifferent observation. The fact that it is being recorded is entirely superfluous because again, people record with their memories too. Faulty memory issues are superfluous to making them an exception because lossy digital recordings can be made already. And if we *were* in a society where wetware were a thing and information *could* be transferred from the mind to the computer, there would be just as much reason to be upset with someone who was just simply within eyeshot of you for recording you as there would be if he were carrying a physical recording device. Except we wouldn't get upset about that.. Now why do you suppose that is?

      The *only* reason to be upset with someone recording you is the same reason you'd have to be upset with someone who is overtly eavesdropping on a conversation you are having.... they are paying undue attention to matters that do not concern them. You'd tell them to get lost or whatnot...but if they didn't appear to be paying attention to you in the first place, you wouldn't care. Presence of a recording device is only an indication that the person is interested in recording their environment of which you are just a small part, and is not by itself present any reasoned basis to presume that the person is paying attention to any one specific person unless the visibly do something that indicates they are.... just as you would presume about a person who was not carrying any visible recording device.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    14. Re:Why do people care... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'd think it's better to not be resorting to violence to resolve a violation of social protocol.

      You seem to be missing the entire point here. It's not about what you think. It's about what the guys at that bar you walk into wearing a camera think. And they're not reading Slashdot.

      But they do act predictably. If you go out in a storm with no rain gear, you're going to get soaked. Don't do that. If you insist on bringing a camera around people who don't think that's reasonable, it's not going to end well. Don't do that.

      How you feel about that is about as important as how you feel about the weather.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Why do people care... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If you insist on bringing a camera around people who don't think that's reasonable, it's not going to end well.

      Only because people believe themselves to be more important to other people than they actually are... the hypothetical wetware situation illustrates that perfectly, where it is clear that even it were possible to upload everything that person sees with their own eyes into a computer, people would not immediately take offense to other people being around them... the problem isn't really recording, the problem is when other people are paying attention to matters that are none of their business. There is no reason to presume that a person who is simply recording their surroundings is paying attention to anyone in particular that might get offended by being recorded unless the person has done something else to indicate that they are so interested.

      So the only reason to get upset about happening to be in a recording that someone else is making is believing yourself to be more important to that person than you probably are.

      Which is, of course, not a remotely rational reason for doing something.

      Of course, people aren't reknown for always being particularly rational, but that's no excuse to not even strive to behave like the rational creatures we are capable of being. We are, presumably, more evolved intellectually than that, and people who are incapable of showing self-control in such conditions are only showing themselves to be not that far removed from creatures that we would ordinarily put in cages.... in zoos. What, may I ask, is the point of so-called human rights if a person is incapable of acting like, you know, a human?

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  9. Socialmedia is a third-person camera thing by grumbel5969 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One thing with social media is that people seem to post a lot more pictures of themselves (third person camera) than they post about experiences they were having (first person camera). Meaning video glasses point essentially in the wrong direction, as they show what the user sees, but not the user itself. Selfiesticks seem to be more in tune to how people actually use social media.

    Either way, the 10sec restriction makes those glasses a rather limited gadget without much use outside of Snapchat.

    1. Re:Socialmedia is a third-person camera thing by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I thought the main function of images in social media was showing everyone a picture of your lunch.

    2. Re:Socialmedia is a third-person camera thing by SolemnLord · · Score: 1

      Either way, the 10sec restriction makes those glasses a rather limited gadget without much use outside of Snapchat.

      Since they're entirely built with Snapchat as the exclusive use case, that's not really a design flaw.

      You've got an interesting point with the 3rd-person versus 1st-person experience, but it's not impossible to make engaging 1st-person content, assuming you're doing things a person would want to watch in the first place. Google Glass was an abomination, but some of the fashion-shoot footage that came out of the early demos was still pretty fun to watch. If you're out at a party with friends (who I might also be following on Snapchat), that's something. Ditto climbing mountains or hitting up beaches or even more benign things like boarding flights. Social, personal, vicarious living.

    3. Re:Socialmedia is a third-person camera thing by twokay · · Score: 1

      If you watch the advert linked in TFA it's entirely parents filming their kids. The only people i know using snapchat are teens and adults that still behave like teens and have no interest in kids or a family. I guess asking teens to drop $100+ on toy glasses is a bit much, so they needed another angle.

      --
      Wannabe nerd.
  10. Is 10 seconds long enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can they capture the full wind-up and followthrough of SnapChat glasses being slugged off someone's face?

  11. How could this go wrong by epl692 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because strapping a camera to the head of American youth could not go wrong in any way. I say 2 months after wide availability before the first lawsuit. Maybe less.

  12. Re:Pervert glasses! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Maybe a 555 on the trigger button?

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  13. Re:Pervert glasses! by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    it won't be covert because they look flippin rediculous.

  14. From Glassholes to snapholes by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Um... didn't we learn something from the abhorrence of google glass. I'd tolerate being in the room with someone wearing these as long as I knew ti was painful for the wearer to use them and put them in visible agony when they were activated. I'm thinking something like glass shard ear pieces and a 50Kv electro shock to the brain when turned on for ten seconds.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:From Glassholes to snapholes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Um... didn't we learn something from the abhorrence of google glass.

      Yes. We did. We learned that people want to know when they are being recorded. You have to touch your glasses every ten seconds to record continuously, assuming that's even possible. I think this addresses that problem fairly brilliantly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. opportunity by swell · · Score: 1

    Before we were born there was a fascinating industry around stereoscopy. Stereographers would travel the earth snapping 3D images of interesting sights that could be viewed back home in a simple device similar to Google Cardboard. Stereo projections of still images are fun, but moving images in stereo can be breathtaking.

    This Spectacles device should have two cameras for stereo. This is a public announcement of the idea, so don't try to patent it subsequently.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  16. Why? by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Why is that guy in the photo wearing women's glasses?

  17. Gargoyle by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    Something new in gargoyle fashion, coming our way.

  18. Keeps the annoying part, loses the useful parts! by billstewart · · Score: 1

    As far as I could tell, the main reason people were annoyed about Google Glass (besides the ostentatious bragging of wearing $1500 glasses) was that somebody wearing them could be taking your picture at any time, without obviously holding up a camera or a phone or wearing a lapel-pin camera or having a pen-sized camera in their shirt pocket or something clipped to their backpack straps or whatever else. These glasses still do that, just not as well as a cheap camera or phone.

    But the display inside the glasses, which made Google Glass more useful than a camera thing, isn't in these, and it's also missing the potential Google functionality of doing face recognition and telling you the name of the person you're looking at, which you forgot. Sure, somebody wearing Google Glasses could look like they're looking at you but really be watching cat videos or talking to somebody else, but cellphone headsets had given us those a decade earlier, and now there's Pokemon Go or whatever follows it.

    Also, social views of always-connected cameras are changing, as a result of Black Lives Matter and other episodes of people recording cops behaving badly and the near-ubiquity of cellphone video. Yes, there are privacy tradeoffs we need to figure out (e.g. secure recording for your pictures doesn't have to also mean that Google or Apple iCloud has access to your data.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks