Google Glass sales halted(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Google Glass sales halted
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30831128
273 comments
But it wasn't HUD/AR, it was a small screen you had to look over at, wasn't it? Yes it's semi-transparent but it can't overlay the actual focus of your vision.
Edit: Well I guess some people think I'm mistaken. Then I request images/video showing the full field of view of someone wearing glass. (Not the simulation marketing videos.)
Edit: Well I guess some people think I'm mistaken. Then I request images/video showing the full field of view of someone wearing glass. (Not the simulation marketing videos.)
This is exactly right, it's not AR. What it has done though for AR is show people the idea of overlaying information on your environment which is a core tenet of AR.
That has been hugely helpful in making the understanding of how AR works accessible to a much wider range of people.
That has been hugely helpful in making the understanding of how AR works accessible to a much wider range of people.
> What it has done though for AR is show people the idea of overlaying information on your environment which is a core tenet of AR.
There are plenty of applications for mobile phones that do a much better job of that.
Examples: the Layar offering and automatic translation of text by moving the phone over the text and reading 'through' the phone.
There are plenty of applications for mobile phones that do a much better job of that.
Examples: the Layar offering and automatic translation of text by moving the phone over the text and reading 'through' the phone.
True, I think worldlens is the best for that.
The AR mode of Flightradar24 is brilliant - hold your phone up and it overlays the details of a flight on the camera view.
I tried out google glass last fall and this matches my experience of it. It really doesn't overlay info as part of your normal view, which for me removes the AR designation. It does place information in a place that doesn't require you to move your head or look down, which is I guess where the "heads up" description comes in...but it still requires you to divert your attention, like looking at a rear-view mirror in a car. Sure, you can still see things in front of you in your peripheral vision, but that still seems less integrated than I would associate with the term HUD.
Having used Google Glass in a racecar, I can say that it has no place in a race cockpit. The display is too far out of the line of sight and it is less ideal than the gauges already in the car.
It was able to capture neat videos, but I think a gopro stuck to the helmet would do a better job.
It was able to capture neat videos, but I think a gopro stuck to the helmet would do a better job.
Agreed. I got Google glass for the hangout feature. A few months after I got it, they removed the feature entirely. That feature was one way it was different than a Go-pro - and they took out! The explanation was crazy - "not many users use it". Seriously? I've been burned so many times on Google hardware, I'm not going to fall for it again.
I can see it now: "Our self driving cars no longer travel to Toledo because not many users go there."
Actually, your statement is not too far off.
Google's self driving is far less dynamic as they would have you believe. Areas are extremely heavily analysed with a massive array of sensors, analysis and even human input/sanity checking before cars are allowed to drive in a specific area.
No doubt this preparation is expensive and the resources to do it are finite. I could easily see some very accessible normal place be unavailable to a self driving car.
Source: 2 of my coworkers worked at the start-up that originally developed the core self-driving platform that was acquired by Google(No, Google did not develop the origin technology). The both worked for some time at Google working on the project.
Google's self driving is far less dynamic as they would have you believe. Areas are extremely heavily analysed with a massive array of sensors, analysis and even human input/sanity checking before cars are allowed to drive in a specific area.
No doubt this preparation is expensive and the resources to do it are finite. I could easily see some very accessible normal place be unavailable to a self driving car.
Source: 2 of my coworkers worked at the start-up that originally developed the core self-driving platform that was acquired by Google(No, Google did not develop the origin technology). The both worked for some time at Google working on the project.
Huh. Funny - you can probably come up with a few scenarios where that would happen, like if their large-scale deployment software for self-driving cars is heavily dependent on the wisdom of crowds, for instance.
The reason it was removed was because it was extremely hard to set up and use properly. Glass is seen as a similar device as Chromecast in that it is supposed to be completely plug and play where even the most basic users will be able to figure it out with minor instruction from a Guide. Since Hangouts was unable to work with this experience, it was not seen as adding value to the device.
> AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work, ordering dinner at a restaurant, taking a walk around the block, or even most forms of labor (manual or otherwise).
I think AR could have a very significant impact in all situations where it's hard to succinctly convey the entirety of what's going on and people tend to say, "you need to be here to see it."
If one could localize a dozen Google Glass like devices within a 3D model of a locale of interest, like a construction site or the site of a large public news event, then the various POV of the cameras could be represented within the 3D space. This would allow viewers to place the various POV in context. Zooming around the space then into the POV of a reporter onsite would really make such locations concrete for viewers in the way beyond what a shot with buildings in the background and a crowd in the foreground could not.
I also think that AR could be used to allow a team of human experts and assistants to augment an agent, negotiator, or executive at an event or meeting, much as one sees lawyers whispering into the ears of executives and politicians. This would have the advantage of not having the whispering expert be visible. It would allow executives and politicians to project a more competent image. (The current Google Glass could not suffice for this, as it is still too obtrusive.) The same 3D virtual space could also be used to aggregate and contextualize the situation for the remote experts. It's also easy to see how aggregating various POV from security guards and bodyguards would give a much clearer picture of the security situation around a VIP.
tl;dr - I agree that devices like Google Glass have the most value integrated into teams of people who are dealing with the integration of disparate information in complex situations.
I think AR could have a very significant impact in all situations where it's hard to succinctly convey the entirety of what's going on and people tend to say, "you need to be here to see it."
If one could localize a dozen Google Glass like devices within a 3D model of a locale of interest, like a construction site or the site of a large public news event, then the various POV of the cameras could be represented within the 3D space. This would allow viewers to place the various POV in context. Zooming around the space then into the POV of a reporter onsite would really make such locations concrete for viewers in the way beyond what a shot with buildings in the background and a crowd in the foreground could not.
I also think that AR could be used to allow a team of human experts and assistants to augment an agent, negotiator, or executive at an event or meeting, much as one sees lawyers whispering into the ears of executives and politicians. This would have the advantage of not having the whispering expert be visible. It would allow executives and politicians to project a more competent image. (The current Google Glass could not suffice for this, as it is still too obtrusive.) The same 3D virtual space could also be used to aggregate and contextualize the situation for the remote experts. It's also easy to see how aggregating various POV from security guards and bodyguards would give a much clearer picture of the security situation around a VIP.
tl;dr - I agree that devices like Google Glass have the most value integrated into teams of people who are dealing with the integration of disparate information in complex situations.
> This would have the advantage of not having the whispering expert be visible.
Why not just use a good old-fashioned earpiece?
Why not just use a good old-fashioned earpiece?
> Why not just use a good old-fashioned earpiece?
You can do a lot with that, but you could do a lot more with the AR/VR setup I've described. The assistants could see the body language of participants and take that information into account when formulating advice. (In fact, assistants could flip between multiple POV and gauge the body language of a sampling of the crowd or all of the key players.) If an assistant has a piece of side knowledge, like they happen to know on sight that someone's brooch was made by a famous craftsman, they could provide that as a conversation starter and help the executive score points. If an important person is walking up from behind, the executive could be alerted to end the conversation and so she can present her argument first.
As often noted around here, one can do more with more data. The AR/VR combination I've described would provide that additional data.
You can do a lot with that, but you could do a lot more with the AR/VR setup I've described. The assistants could see the body language of participants and take that information into account when formulating advice. (In fact, assistants could flip between multiple POV and gauge the body language of a sampling of the crowd or all of the key players.) If an assistant has a piece of side knowledge, like they happen to know on sight that someone's brooch was made by a famous craftsman, they could provide that as a conversation starter and help the executive score points. If an important person is walking up from behind, the executive could be alerted to end the conversation and so she can present her argument first.
As often noted around here, one can do more with more data. The AR/VR combination I've described would provide that additional data.
This discussion is about what Google actually delivered, not about what they implicitly over-promised it would be like in their blue-sky feel-good demo videos, by referring to unrealistic sci-fi special effects from blockbuster Hollywood movies that everyone has seen.
> This discussion is about what Google actually delivered
So you say. I was taking the conversation in a related direction. Somehow the idea that we can't talk about technological potential seems a bit out of place, even irrational for HN.
So you say. I was taking the conversation in a related direction. Somehow the idea that we can't talk about technological potential seems a bit out of place, even irrational for HN.
>"It would allow executives and politicians to project a more competent image."
By now, everyone is far too aware it's all about PROJECTING and IMAGE (and not into the user's eye about their environment, but into the audience's mind about the user), and at this point it's widely agreed that the image it projects is that of a Narcissistic Douchebag Glasshole.
By now, everyone is far too aware it's all about PROJECTING and IMAGE (and not into the user's eye about their environment, but into the audience's mind about the user), and at this point it's widely agreed that the image it projects is that of a Narcissistic Douchebag Glasshole.
> at this point it's widely agreed that the image it projects is that of a Narcissistic Douchebag Glasshole.
If you read the comments carefully, you will realize that I explicitly stated that the current devices would be too obtrusive for this purpose. It is possible that there would be a negative backlash over the use of such a device, but it would not be caused by the appearance of the device, if properly executed.
If you read the comments carefully, you will realize that I explicitly stated that the current devices would be too obtrusive for this purpose. It is possible that there would be a negative backlash over the use of such a device, but it would not be caused by the appearance of the device, if properly executed.
One of the neat things I hope research is able to push more is support for those that are deaf.
One issue deaf people have, not knowing a spoken tongue, is that language is confusing--seriously. Vocabulary doesn't have as much exposure when written as when spoken.
I found out about this when I talked with a professor before graduating. [1]
The hope is that we can eventually build enough of a visual library that can represent a word when a deaf individual confronts an unfamiliar word, then they can learn about it independently and consistently.
To the dreamers, the ideal situation would be where the individual spots a word, performs some 'hey, pay attention' action and they highlight or circle the word with their fingers on the written text. OCR magic, perhaps additional context gathering around the instance of the word, and then some form of conveying the meaning visually.
I foresee augmented reality being more beneficial to those that are in some form disabled, before we have practical or convenient features like 'where are my friends in this cafeteria?' HUD pointers.
[1]: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/15005/20140527/si...
One issue deaf people have, not knowing a spoken tongue, is that language is confusing--seriously. Vocabulary doesn't have as much exposure when written as when spoken.
I found out about this when I talked with a professor before graduating. [1]
The hope is that we can eventually build enough of a visual library that can represent a word when a deaf individual confronts an unfamiliar word, then they can learn about it independently and consistently.
To the dreamers, the ideal situation would be where the individual spots a word, performs some 'hey, pay attention' action and they highlight or circle the word with their fingers on the written text. OCR magic, perhaps additional context gathering around the instance of the word, and then some form of conveying the meaning visually.
I foresee augmented reality being more beneficial to those that are in some form disabled, before we have practical or convenient features like 'where are my friends in this cafeteria?' HUD pointers.
[1]: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/15005/20140527/si...
> To the dreamers, the ideal situation
As a deaf/hearing-impaired person, the ideal situation is near-instant subtitles for speech/sounds.
For Deaf persons, I imagine the ASL (or JSL or what have you) equivalent of subtitles would be a godsend if they were more comfortable with that than reading.
As a deaf/hearing-impaired person, the ideal situation is near-instant subtitles for speech/sounds.
For Deaf persons, I imagine the ASL (or JSL or what have you) equivalent of subtitles would be a godsend if they were more comfortable with that than reading.
As someone who isn't hearing impaired, having subtitles for speech & sounds in real life sounds awesome. Especially if I'm using my ears for other things, like listening to music.
Have a look at https://plus.google.com/+ThadStarner/posts/HQfRCMALr2V , especially the comments. "Upton['s] '67 hack" is evidently http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/timeline.html#1967b .
> augment human knowledge, intelligence, and sensory in real time
I argue that is primary feature for all the time. Every time I reach for phone (to look something up, check weather, directions, status of things, name that song, take picture, check calander, etc. etc.) I would much rather have that in a HUD, voice controlled or not.
In future (and guess I'm in minority) I would LOVE full mediated reality. Sound suppression/augmentation, ad blocking, alerts of people I know, tags and notes from (geolocated, item/face recognition). So much more. I sort of doubt the tech for this will arrive mainstream in my lifetime. mostly due to low demand and individual impowerment making it anti-commercial.
I argue that is primary feature for all the time. Every time I reach for phone (to look something up, check weather, directions, status of things, name that song, take picture, check calander, etc. etc.) I would much rather have that in a HUD, voice controlled or not.
In future (and guess I'm in minority) I would LOVE full mediated reality. Sound suppression/augmentation, ad blocking, alerts of people I know, tags and notes from (geolocated, item/face recognition). So much more. I sort of doubt the tech for this will arrive mainstream in my lifetime. mostly due to low demand and individual impowerment making it anti-commercial.
> ad blocking,
:))) i somehow suspect that the "full mediated reality" would be an exact opposite - a new ad medium where you'd have very hard time avoiding the ads. I mean compare placing an ad on real Golden Gate Bridge vs. placing it on the Bridge in your AR.
:))) i somehow suspect that the "full mediated reality" would be an exact opposite - a new ad medium where you'd have very hard time avoiding the ads. I mean compare placing an ad on real Golden Gate Bridge vs. placing it on the Bridge in your AR.
I ad block the internet, I would not use service/tech (such as cable TV or pos Hulu) that does not let me (mostly) avoid ads.
But mostly when people reach for their phone they are just looking for a distraction. When you are walking down the street you don't need to read status updates because you don't need to be distracted (most of the time). And if you want some entertainment music or audibooks are much more fun than status updates and weather information. People rarely navigate on foot and are probably not actively researching their location when they do. I agree that this kind of information is useful but the form factor is just to cumbersome for everyday use.
> When you are walking down the street you don't need to read status updates because you don't need to be distracted (most of the time).
Don't you? That's exactly when I pick up my phone; unless I have something to think through, walking to/back from work, etc. feels like a waste of time for me so I do want to do something then (read, reply to emails), or at least distract myself with social media.
Don't you? That's exactly when I pick up my phone; unless I have something to think through, walking to/back from work, etc. feels like a waste of time for me so I do want to do something then (read, reply to emails), or at least distract myself with social media.
I guess I'm not most people. When I'm walking down street I want
- map, with routes etc. proximity of my "friends" - location direction distance to cops (like weekend downtown horse patrol's ) - ability to overlay datasets (crime, traffic, business ratings, etc) - notice of interesting history/landmarks (basically wikipedia) - notice/splice with local news (yesterday this happened here). - notice/splice with events (in hour so and so will be signing books at store on your left), tonight x band is playing at bar on right. - splice with my notes of place, when/how often here, money spent, stuff ordered, etc.
I want augmented memory and senses.
pie in the sky, I want it to face recognition and tell me the name and why I know guy (which I don't remember) who is talking at a me like he knows me.
- map, with routes etc. proximity of my "friends" - location direction distance to cops (like weekend downtown horse patrol's ) - ability to overlay datasets (crime, traffic, business ratings, etc) - notice of interesting history/landmarks (basically wikipedia) - notice/splice with local news (yesterday this happened here). - notice/splice with events (in hour so and so will be signing books at store on your left), tonight x band is playing at bar on right. - splice with my notes of place, when/how often here, money spent, stuff ordered, etc.
I want augmented memory and senses.
pie in the sky, I want it to face recognition and tell me the name and why I know guy (which I don't remember) who is talking at a me like he knows me.
You've hit the nail on the head there. The enterprise market is actually seeing a decent uptake in Glass, as it's much more relevant there. Glass, in the iteration it's in and given current cultural/social context, was not a fit for the consumer market.
Current iteration is not fit for any market. They botched the implementation by going for the nerdgasm angle instead of actually making a good product. 100+ posts on this page and not one mentions the shit battery life. A device like this starts with battery life and uses that as the constraint on the quality of the screen, chipset and camera. We saw this with the iPad, they started with the full workday/school day as their battery standard. For a more personal device like this the standard is even higher, likely 12 to 16 hours. That is for professional or mass market use.
The killer apps for glass type device are life casting and personal security and glass can't do either of those due to battery life.
The killer apps for glass type device are life casting and personal security and glass can't do either of those due to battery life.
anything with a list of task glass is great for i think all the marketing etc was great to make it know what glass is its just people buying it and using a a consumer device than a dev device is the problem but maybe this is what google wanted to explorer world with glass and see what work and what doesn't.
I used to work in the "Self-guided tours for Museums" industry. That was an area I could see Glass being legitimately useful.
Walking through a museum, seeing something you were interested in, and having more information about it read to you be someone knowledgeable almost instantly is a great User Experience.
Walking through a museum, seeing something you were interested in, and having more information about it read to you be someone knowledgeable almost instantly is a great User Experience.
Yeah, somebody already built that for Google Glass.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27234868/museum-2-0-g...
The de Young Museum's partnership with Google, and the exhibit-tour app created specifically for Glass, is one of the most thrilling experiments yet. Billed by French app-maker GuidiGO as the first-ever tour of a complete exhibition on Glass, the augmented-reality effects unfolding within my wearable device made me feel less like a detached spectator and more like a privileged guest at an intimate salon. With one eye on the actual painting before me, I could tap and slide my finger along the Glass stem and call up text or images or an audio interpretation of the piece by Haring's sister, Kristen, who teaches history of science and technology at Stanford University.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27234868/museum-2-0-g...
The de Young Museum's partnership with Google, and the exhibit-tour app created specifically for Glass, is one of the most thrilling experiments yet. Billed by French app-maker GuidiGO as the first-ever tour of a complete exhibition on Glass, the augmented-reality effects unfolding within my wearable device made me feel less like a detached spectator and more like a privileged guest at an intimate salon. With one eye on the actual painting before me, I could tap and slide my finger along the Glass stem and call up text or images or an audio interpretation of the piece by Haring's sister, Kristen, who teaches history of science and technology at Stanford University.
Much like Segway became useful only for guided city tours. It's presumably only a matter of time before Segway tour operators start augmenting their operations with google glass heads-up annotations.
I had assumed it would be of great utility to police, fire, and emergency personnel. Of utility for the personnel themselves (pop up display of criminal record info, maps, home owner info, etc), but also for the safety of the citizens (recording, etc) they are serving.
There already are better products for that though:
http://www.mygoldeni.com/
Its an app idea, not a brand new >$1K hardware idea.
Guidigo is actually doing exactly this.
> AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work
That is both incredibly accurate (watches will already provide you with all the information you need in a less obtrusive manner), and it reminds me of that toothbrush test Google gives its products:
> We ask ourselves, 'Is this something people use once or twice a day and does it solve a problem?'
They might need to revisit this. Airplanes wouldn't pass the test, for instance. Glass shouldn't have; they simply tried hard to make it pass the test.
That is both incredibly accurate (watches will already provide you with all the information you need in a less obtrusive manner), and it reminds me of that toothbrush test Google gives its products:
> We ask ourselves, 'Is this something people use once or twice a day and does it solve a problem?'
They might need to revisit this. Airplanes wouldn't pass the test, for instance. Glass shouldn't have; they simply tried hard to make it pass the test.
This. I was really excited about the possibilities glass could bring to my desk job, or other aspects of my daily work, but was pretty let down by how it pushed to augment aspects of my daily life where it wouldn't make any sense (going for walks, commuting, jumping out of planes, etc.). Hopefully we'll see another iteration of Glass or another product with a more domain or task(s)-specific purpose. That's what I'm waiting for, anyway.
I definitely think that domain and task specific AR has a strong future. I would love it if Uber took to using AR instead of relying on dash-mounted iPhones. It could give them visual indicators of a destination (things like which side of the street, potential drop off zones, etc). It could help pinpoint the location of the app-user at the origin. It could augment their GPS so they don't have to type in directions or look at a tiny screen while driving.
Imho, they should have targeted athletes. Get it down to $200 and go after joggers and cyclists and other folks in the GoPro set.
Directions are one of the things it does do really well.
the only time glass has felt useful is on my bike. whether it's recording a video (to show off, document in case of accident, etc), getting sms without having to stop, getting directions...
the problem is wearing it and getting in an accident is basically asking to wear an eye patch.
the problem is wearing it and getting in an accident is basically asking to wear an eye patch.
I'm not sure why they went after the consumer market first. I feel awkward on the street talking into a headset. But at my desk, it's my preferred technology for taking a call.
There are industries where a mini heads-up display would be valuable. Consider, for example, a mechanic. Peering into an engine and seeing the parts labelled, color coded and flagged by diagnostics would be powerful. Or a policeman surveying highway traffic. Or a lawyer reviewing paper documents. In none of these cases would a Glass-like device be awkward.
There are industries where a mini heads-up display would be valuable. Consider, for example, a mechanic. Peering into an engine and seeing the parts labelled, color coded and flagged by diagnostics would be powerful. Or a policeman surveying highway traffic. Or a lawyer reviewing paper documents. In none of these cases would a Glass-like device be awkward.
I can safely infer from your post that you have never repaired anything on a car. I'm talking about the "getting so dirty you have to use Dawn Ultra as shampoo" part of the experience. Glass wouldn't last a minute. I usually even remove my Casio G-Shock watch.
The problem is that Glass wasn't an overlay, it was a screen near your eye.
The technology isn't ready for overlays; we can't take a picture, analyze it, and pipe a drawing to a display fast enough. If it's not fast enough you get lag which is confusing and distracting and wrong.
The technology isn't ready for overlays; we can't take a picture, analyze it, and pipe a drawing to a display fast enough. If it's not fast enough you get lag which is confusing and distracting and wrong.
Google Glass was an awesome idea, and the only reason it seems to have failed is because of that camera, or rather because what media and bloggers did with it. They took what was a perfectly good HUD prototype and turned it into a story about obnoxious stalker dorks and Google the evil Big Brother.
BTW. This situation is one of the many that make me more and more convinced that we can't have both privacy and continued technological progress; we need to pick one.
BTW. This situation is one of the many that make me more and more convinced that we can't have both privacy and continued technological progress; we need to pick one.
Technological progress doesn't necessarily have to work against privacy. That's only the trend now because the interests of business and government happen to converge on aggressive surveillance. Technology can progress in a myriad of ways.
> Technological progress doesn't necessarily have to work against privacy.
I honestly see this as unavoidable. There are important problems to be solved that need more data and constant monitoring.
Want to have early warning about diseases and their spread (extremely important as we're entering the age of garage biotech)? We need more data about people, their movements and health, preferably realtime.
Want to have better weather prediction? More data.
Want to have better disaster relief? More data, more monitoring, as real-time as possible.
Want to turn social sciences into some kind of actual hard-ish science? More tracking, more data.
There are absolutely enormous benefits we could get from constant gathering and processing of data about people. There are tons of security issues here which are of course important and need to be talked about, but it seems to me that this is the only thing people are talking about now, and no one is noticing that we could use this data to further improve our lives.
While threats to one's safety are real and have to be adressed, I'm starting to believe that the notion of "privacy" as is currently understood needs to go, if we want to enjoy the continued progress of mankind.
Someone wrote somewhere downthread that society is based on trust. I think it should be based on "I trust you won't harm me with what you see" kind of trust, rather than "I trust you don't look at me even though you can" kind.
I honestly see this as unavoidable. There are important problems to be solved that need more data and constant monitoring.
Want to have early warning about diseases and their spread (extremely important as we're entering the age of garage biotech)? We need more data about people, their movements and health, preferably realtime.
Want to have better weather prediction? More data.
Want to have better disaster relief? More data, more monitoring, as real-time as possible.
Want to turn social sciences into some kind of actual hard-ish science? More tracking, more data.
There are absolutely enormous benefits we could get from constant gathering and processing of data about people. There are tons of security issues here which are of course important and need to be talked about, but it seems to me that this is the only thing people are talking about now, and no one is noticing that we could use this data to further improve our lives.
While threats to one's safety are real and have to be adressed, I'm starting to believe that the notion of "privacy" as is currently understood needs to go, if we want to enjoy the continued progress of mankind.
Someone wrote somewhere downthread that society is based on trust. I think it should be based on "I trust you won't harm me with what you see" kind of trust, rather than "I trust you don't look at me even though you can" kind.
But does "data" necessarily have to be deanonymized in each of those cases?
Can you not collect the necessary data about disease and its spread without being able to immediately call up the medical history of every specific person you see? Does better weather prediction mean NOAA has to know where I am, by name, to within a centimeter at all times?
Data doesn't need names, places, faces, phone numbers, geolocation and social media accounts correlated and updated in realtime to be useful, unless you're trying to sell that to advertisers, or a government. I'm not convinced it has to be as intrusive as it is.
Can you not collect the necessary data about disease and its spread without being able to immediately call up the medical history of every specific person you see? Does better weather prediction mean NOAA has to know where I am, by name, to within a centimeter at all times?
Data doesn't need names, places, faces, phone numbers, geolocation and social media accounts correlated and updated in realtime to be useful, unless you're trying to sell that to advertisers, or a government. I'm not convinced it has to be as intrusive as it is.
There are two angles to this. One, there could be some possible use for the more detailed data - but I don't want to be inventing fictious and biased examples so let's just acknowledge a possibility.
But the second, more important angle is that at this scale, there is no such thing as "anonymized data". There have already been papers showing that what is now called "anomymized" can be trivially deanonymized by mashing together other data sets and some computing power. Trying to hold on to the concept of anonymized data is futile - the reality itself is highly correlated and interconnected, and all those causal relationships will be reflected in the colected datasets. The more data sources you have, the easier is to deanonymize them all together.
So the choice is - either stop collecting data or accept that there ain't such thing as anonymity. What we definitely shouldn't do is fooling ourselves that we can do both. Datasets are and will be trivially deanonymized if anyone cares to do so.
EDIT:
> Data doesn't need names, places, faces, phone numbers, geolocation and social media accounts correlated and updated in realtime
Names - social studies. Places - social studies, urban optimization. Faces - social and medical studies. Phone numbers - dunno, probably something. Geolocation - urban optimization, crime prevention, social studies once again. The more data you have, the more interesting experiments you can devise.
I'm pushing that social studies example for a simple reason - this level of data collection is a holy grail for psychology, sociology, et al. Right now those sciences mostly keep faking "lifelike" conditions to test some theories and we all know how much problem there is with small sample sizes, unrealistic experiment setups, etc. Inferences based on natural patterns of behaviour of millions, or even billions of people would be much, much more reliable. We could finally learn a lot about ourselves, just by observing.
But the second, more important angle is that at this scale, there is no such thing as "anonymized data". There have already been papers showing that what is now called "anomymized" can be trivially deanonymized by mashing together other data sets and some computing power. Trying to hold on to the concept of anonymized data is futile - the reality itself is highly correlated and interconnected, and all those causal relationships will be reflected in the colected datasets. The more data sources you have, the easier is to deanonymize them all together.
So the choice is - either stop collecting data or accept that there ain't such thing as anonymity. What we definitely shouldn't do is fooling ourselves that we can do both. Datasets are and will be trivially deanonymized if anyone cares to do so.
EDIT:
> Data doesn't need names, places, faces, phone numbers, geolocation and social media accounts correlated and updated in realtime
Names - social studies. Places - social studies, urban optimization. Faces - social and medical studies. Phone numbers - dunno, probably something. Geolocation - urban optimization, crime prevention, social studies once again. The more data you have, the more interesting experiments you can devise.
I'm pushing that social studies example for a simple reason - this level of data collection is a holy grail for psychology, sociology, et al. Right now those sciences mostly keep faking "lifelike" conditions to test some theories and we all know how much problem there is with small sample sizes, unrealistic experiment setups, etc. Inferences based on natural patterns of behaviour of millions, or even billions of people would be much, much more reliable. We could finally learn a lot about ourselves, just by observing.
> there is no such thing as "anonymized data".
Of course there is.
I work in a business today that collects highly personal consumer data and does advanced analytics. We strip personally identified invention once the data is brought in so there is technically no way to to deanonymise it.
We are hardly unique.
Of course there is.
I work in a business today that collects highly personal consumer data and does advanced analytics. We strip personally identified invention once the data is brought in so there is technically no way to to deanonymise it.
We are hardly unique.
I still assert it's only a matter of cross-correlating that data with something else.
I don't know what kind of data you're working with, but for the sake of example let's assume you're handling buying records from supermarkets. You obviously hashed people's ClubCard/credit card numbers. But let's say I get hold of the data from an ALPR on a street near one of the markets. Would correlating that with your database not help to deanonymize a lot of your data?
My point is - as the data collection of every kind increases, for every dataset you have anonymized, there will be a lot of other data sets of all sorts that can be used to deanonymize back yours.
I don't know what kind of data you're working with, but for the sake of example let's assume you're handling buying records from supermarkets. You obviously hashed people's ClubCard/credit card numbers. But let's say I get hold of the data from an ALPR on a street near one of the markets. Would correlating that with your database not help to deanonymize a lot of your data?
My point is - as the data collection of every kind increases, for every dataset you have anonymized, there will be a lot of other data sets of all sorts that can be used to deanonymize back yours.
You are also talking about the benefits of massive surveillance without any reference to its cost. A society with no private sphere would, in particular, be extremely susceptible to authoritarianism. People have repeatedly written dystopias about that prospect for a reason. I do not see that any amount of whizz-bang nice things you can do with the data, like better social science research, will remove those consequences.
My point is, everyone is talking only about the consequences. I'm perfectly aware of them (and so I don't see a point of mentioning them in my comment; everyone else keeps bringing them up). I'm definitely not advocating pushing blindly for more data collection. But then again, while authoritarianism is a real threat that needs to be addressed, some level of "privacy" people are so afraid to lose could probably be relinquished, yielding more benefit than harm.
Glass seems designed to make it impossible not to relinquish one's privacy. Granted, cellphones could conceivably be used is almost the same way, but they're not meant to be. If you're in the wearer's field of view, you give up whatever the technology can take. That's intentional, and the attempt to make that ubiquitous on the part of Google, a company whose entire reason for being is data collection, is also intentional.
Even if there is a possible net benefit, there will also be, inevitably, be a loss of control over identity and autonomy that no one can be blamed for not wanting to give up without a fight (futile though it might be.)
Even if there is a possible net benefit, there will also be, inevitably, be a loss of control over identity and autonomy that no one can be blamed for not wanting to give up without a fight (futile though it might be.)
My issue with Glass hate is that people say it's about the camera - it's not. It's about the fact that they know there's a camera. There's a lot of cheap cameras embedded in glasses, pens or even clothing, that anyone can buy from a random 'spy shop' down the corner. We're long past point of random stalkers filming people. So all that objections against Glass killed useful technology (AR) for zero real gain in privacy.
> Even if there is a possible net benefit, there will also be, inevitably, be a loss of control over identity and autonomy that no one can be blamed for not wanting to give up without a fight (futile though it might be.)
I think we'll have to learn how to live with that. I doubt that a lot will change though.
> Even if there is a possible net benefit, there will also be, inevitably, be a loss of control over identity and autonomy that no one can be blamed for not wanting to give up without a fight (futile though it might be.)
I think we'll have to learn how to live with that. I doubt that a lot will change though.
I think it's not so much even knowing there's a camera, but knowing there's a camera which might be on and streaming to the cloud at all times. Yes, I know there's a little light. No, no one is going to trust it.
There aren't a lot of random spy shops down the corner, and not a lot of random stalkers sneaking upskirts of people on escalators with pen cameras hidden in their shoes.
You could make the argument that cellphones are far more powerful as tools for surveillance (and they certainly are in regards to surveilling their owners) than Glass would have been capable of. And you would have a point - for maybe the first couple of generations, and before there were several million Glasses in the wild. At that point, being a random stalker becomes socially acceptable, and being randomly stalked becomes unavoidable.
Consumer AR isn't entirely dead. I've seen it on portable game consoles. But Google's attempt to literally shove it into people's faces demonstrates that there are more than technical hurdles to overcome.
There aren't a lot of random spy shops down the corner, and not a lot of random stalkers sneaking upskirts of people on escalators with pen cameras hidden in their shoes.
You could make the argument that cellphones are far more powerful as tools for surveillance (and they certainly are in regards to surveilling their owners) than Glass would have been capable of. And you would have a point - for maybe the first couple of generations, and before there were several million Glasses in the wild. At that point, being a random stalker becomes socially acceptable, and being randomly stalked becomes unavoidable.
Consumer AR isn't entirely dead. I've seen it on portable game consoles. But Google's attempt to literally shove it into people's faces demonstrates that there are more than technical hurdles to overcome.
I think it's much more complex than that. Here was my first experience observing someone using Google Glass in the field, in a SF coffeehouse:
>See attractive woman.
>See bespeckled gentleman apparently leering grotesquely at the attractive woman.
>Realize he has Google Glasses on. OK, he might just be checking the weather. Perhaps in order to use this, you have to stare off into space, with your mouth hanging open like the creepmaster.
>Second-guess whether he was really using the glasses or just filming the woman.
It isn't just that one knows there's a camera, it that using the thing mucks deeply with humans' instinctual reaction in reading people's eyes and faces. It's the ambiguity around the camera and the undermining of one's instinctual reactions to eye-contact. A shoecam is a shoecam. Something mounted near your eyeballs is entirely different.
There's also the aspect that may of us already spend 50-75% of our lives looking at screens. Most people know 'that guy' who can't go out for breakfast without checking his feeds between bites of huevos ranchero. IMO, "it make anti-social activities even easier" was never a very good sell (perhaps outside the googleplex.)
>See attractive woman.
>See bespeckled gentleman apparently leering grotesquely at the attractive woman.
>Realize he has Google Glasses on. OK, he might just be checking the weather. Perhaps in order to use this, you have to stare off into space, with your mouth hanging open like the creepmaster.
>Second-guess whether he was really using the glasses or just filming the woman.
It isn't just that one knows there's a camera, it that using the thing mucks deeply with humans' instinctual reaction in reading people's eyes and faces. It's the ambiguity around the camera and the undermining of one's instinctual reactions to eye-contact. A shoecam is a shoecam. Something mounted near your eyeballs is entirely different.
There's also the aspect that may of us already spend 50-75% of our lives looking at screens. Most people know 'that guy' who can't go out for breakfast without checking his feeds between bites of huevos ranchero. IMO, "it make anti-social activities even easier" was never a very good sell (perhaps outside the googleplex.)
>> Second-guess whether he was really using the glasses or just filming the woman.
I can't help but ask: so what? I know I might be totally biased here as I never had an issue with being filmed, but such examples make me feel we're trying to blame technology for what is our society having trouble with its own sexuality.
I accept this is an issue, though I personally don't "feel it".
> There's also the aspect that may of us already spend 50-75% of our lives looking at screens. Most people know 'that guy' who can't go out for breakfast without checking his feeds between bites of huevos ranchero. IMO, "it make anti-social activities even easier" was never a very good sell (perhaps outside the googleplex.)
Now this attitude, very common among people, is IMO unfair and feels like bullying. I am 'that guy'. And you know why I'm sticked to some screen for most of the day? Because brain-computer interfaces are not here yet. I'd be happy to use some different interface like, say, AR glasses but hey, aren't those being frowned upon because they have a camera? sigh.
I can't help but ask: so what? I know I might be totally biased here as I never had an issue with being filmed, but such examples make me feel we're trying to blame technology for what is our society having trouble with its own sexuality.
I accept this is an issue, though I personally don't "feel it".
> There's also the aspect that may of us already spend 50-75% of our lives looking at screens. Most people know 'that guy' who can't go out for breakfast without checking his feeds between bites of huevos ranchero. IMO, "it make anti-social activities even easier" was never a very good sell (perhaps outside the googleplex.)
Now this attitude, very common among people, is IMO unfair and feels like bullying. I am 'that guy'. And you know why I'm sticked to some screen for most of the day? Because brain-computer interfaces are not here yet. I'd be happy to use some different interface like, say, AR glasses but hey, aren't those being frowned upon because they have a camera? sigh.
>some level of "privacy" people are so afraid to lose could probably be relinquished, yielding more benefit than harm
But, I think the question is who gets to make that decision? Who gets to say how much should be relinquished and decide when there is more benefit than harm?
You could say, "well, anyone who doesn't like it can elect not to use X technology." But, that will become increasingly difficult as more and more "core" technology adopts less privacy-oriented models.
So, I am cautious about advocating an approach of continuing to push and erode privacy as long as there is some argument for additional benefit. I think it is very much a slippery slope and we have already experienced some of the slippage. A little privacy here. A little privacy there. And, it is difficult to walk it back.
So, we are redefining what we consider a reasonable expectation of privacy as a society. Too much of that definition seems to be coming from commercial interests and, I believe, many people are feeling uncomfortable with the increasing erosion of their privacy and the decisions that are being made for them.
But, I think the question is who gets to make that decision? Who gets to say how much should be relinquished and decide when there is more benefit than harm?
You could say, "well, anyone who doesn't like it can elect not to use X technology." But, that will become increasingly difficult as more and more "core" technology adopts less privacy-oriented models.
So, I am cautious about advocating an approach of continuing to push and erode privacy as long as there is some argument for additional benefit. I think it is very much a slippery slope and we have already experienced some of the slippage. A little privacy here. A little privacy there. And, it is difficult to walk it back.
So, we are redefining what we consider a reasonable expectation of privacy as a society. Too much of that definition seems to be coming from commercial interests and, I believe, many people are feeling uncomfortable with the increasing erosion of their privacy and the decisions that are being made for them.
> > Technological progress doesn't necessarily have to work against privacy.
> I honestly see this as unavoidable.
You might be interested in reading "Industrial Society and Its Future". It has a lot of well-argued points along these lines. Highly recommended.
> I honestly see this as unavoidable.
You might be interested in reading "Industrial Society and Its Future". It has a lot of well-argued points along these lines. Highly recommended.
Well, I certainly didn't expect that google search to lead me to the Unabomber's manifesto. Did you expect everyone to know that by name?
If I said "The Unabomber's Manifesto", fewer people would read it just because of the stigma attached to the name. On its own, it's a legitimately interesting piece of writing with salient points about the topic at hand.
Not exactly sure if you were trolling or not, but I skimmed it and it seems interesting. I'm definitely going to give it a read - it seems to cover intersting points, even though I don't expect to find myself in agreement with the conclusions.
>Technological progress doesn't necessarily have to work against privacy.
This is true, but it seems that rather than acknowledge this, many technology producers are purposely pushing the needle the other way. That is, they frequently opt for the least privacy-oriented approach, even when more privacy-oriented approaches are available at the same or lower cost.
Take FitBit. I am opposed to the tracking it does on so many fronts. But, I received one as a gift, so thought I would investigate further. Here's the short: It only syncs my data to the cloud, and doesn't even provide the option to keep it locally. This, even though it requires a desktop app and USB dongle to wirelessly sync my data from the watch to my laptop. So, it could very easily provide a local dashboard, but, it's not an option. They want my data.
Then, I look at their privacy policy. The usual stuff about not selling my personally identifiable data, but the right to sell it in aggregate form, give it up if compelled by subpoena, etc.
But, why do I want even them to know when my heart beats or when I sleep? And, do I really want to take the risk that my information can be used against me in some insurance claim that goes to court one day?
Point being, that it truly is unnecessary for their product to work against privacy, but they've opted for a longer view that sacrifices my privacy for their future profits. This erosion of privacy for commercial gain is part of the ethos that is being foisted on consumers at so many turns that it is normalizing the approach, and leaving us with fewer options where this is not the case.
This is true, but it seems that rather than acknowledge this, many technology producers are purposely pushing the needle the other way. That is, they frequently opt for the least privacy-oriented approach, even when more privacy-oriented approaches are available at the same or lower cost.
Take FitBit. I am opposed to the tracking it does on so many fronts. But, I received one as a gift, so thought I would investigate further. Here's the short: It only syncs my data to the cloud, and doesn't even provide the option to keep it locally. This, even though it requires a desktop app and USB dongle to wirelessly sync my data from the watch to my laptop. So, it could very easily provide a local dashboard, but, it's not an option. They want my data.
Then, I look at their privacy policy. The usual stuff about not selling my personally identifiable data, but the right to sell it in aggregate form, give it up if compelled by subpoena, etc.
But, why do I want even them to know when my heart beats or when I sleep? And, do I really want to take the risk that my information can be used against me in some insurance claim that goes to court one day?
Point being, that it truly is unnecessary for their product to work against privacy, but they've opted for a longer view that sacrifices my privacy for their future profits. This erosion of privacy for commercial gain is part of the ethos that is being foisted on consumers at so many turns that it is normalizing the approach, and leaving us with fewer options where this is not the case.
Yesterday I was working on something that required reading through old paper documents and taking notes, and I thought of how Google Glass could be useful in that situation.
Google Glass has a bright future in B2B — minus the stream everything to our cloud approach, I hope.
Google Glass has a bright future in B2B — minus the stream everything to our cloud approach, I hope.
> Google Glass has a bright future in B2B — minus the stream everything to our cloud approach, I hope.
I'm still not sure about how my feelings toward "streaming everything to cloud", but I totally want that camera in my AR glasses. Armed with proper software, this is a huge area for immensely useful solutions. Unfortunately for now you need to offload the data somewhere for processing, as there's only so much computing power that can fit in your glasses.
I'm still not sure about how my feelings toward "streaming everything to cloud", but I totally want that camera in my AR glasses. Armed with proper software, this is a huge area for immensely useful solutions. Unfortunately for now you need to offload the data somewhere for processing, as there's only so much computing power that can fit in your glasses.
[deleted]
> Flying fighter jets, driving race cars, fighting on a battlefield, working in complex and unsafe industrial operations, etc.
You are implying Google Glass was a failed product but I would argue that discovering those specific applications is precisely what Google sought to achieve by mass releasing the product. I doubt they ever expected Google Glass in its current form to succeed as a consumer product although I bet they'd been happy with that outcome too.
You are implying Google Glass was a failed product but I would argue that discovering those specific applications is precisely what Google sought to achieve by mass releasing the product. I doubt they ever expected Google Glass in its current form to succeed as a consumer product although I bet they'd been happy with that outcome too.
Most of those applications were dreamt of, and to some degree implemented, long before google glass. The F-35 utilizes a "smart helmet" (or whatever the thing is called) that permits the pilot to look through the aircraft in any direction they can turn their head. Cars and aircraft have utilized HUDs for many years (not worn, but that's a limitation of technology at the time). Battlefield combat in Soldier 2.0 and similar initiatives long predates the Google Glass project.
These aren't applications discovered with it, these are applications potentially implemented with it or similar tech. I'd wager that video games (primarily the real-time sort) have given more inspiration for applications of AR and proper worn HUDs than Google Glass itself produced.
These aren't applications discovered with it, these are applications potentially implemented with it or similar tech. I'd wager that video games (primarily the real-time sort) have given more inspiration for applications of AR and proper worn HUDs than Google Glass itself produced.
>"The F-35 utilizes a "smart helmet" (or whatever the thing is called)"
The Apache helicopter pilots in 1985 had helmet mounted displays (HMDs). I remember being blown away when I first saw a demo. They could select a target by looking at it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display
The Apache helicopter pilots in 1985 had helmet mounted displays (HMDs). I remember being blown away when I first saw a demo. They could select a target by looking at it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display
I meant novel applications they hadn't anticipated, not the ones you listed. Sorry if I was unclear in my comment.
[deleted]
There isn't quite as much money in targeting ads at fighter jet pilots as there is in targeting ads at people riding the bus. Asking Google to not do glass for the guy on the bus (fighter pilot or not) is like asking them to not do it at all, given the nature of Google's business. Which, in hindsight, might have been the right call.
The Nest division, where glass seems to be headed now, could maybe evolve into a completely new branch with a more straight forward business model, more product than platform. Maybe there glass could still be salvaged, surviving as a simple, focused HUD tool for the "jet pilot", after failing as a pervasive wearable for the guy on the bus.
The Nest division, where glass seems to be headed now, could maybe evolve into a completely new branch with a more straight forward business model, more product than platform. Maybe there glass could still be salvaged, surviving as a simple, focused HUD tool for the "jet pilot", after failing as a pervasive wearable for the guy on the bus.
Actually I believe there is quite a bit of money in making HUDs for fighter pilots [0]. It just doesn't look like Google Glass and it doesn't have quite the same mainstream pull.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#Helmet-M...
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#Helmet-M...
There is money, but there is zero value for ad targeting. "Core Google" is famously not about selling products to the end user, it is about establishing platforms to facilitate the ad business. Jet fighter HMD fall short in this (at least I hope so - a war decided by superior ad blocking would make for some very dark fiction)
> AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work, ordering dinner at a restaurant, taking a walk around the block, or even most forms of labor (manual or otherwise).
It could. Riding the bus? It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you. Ordering dinner? It could approximate calorie counts of the food on your plate. Taking a walk? It could pull up information about the flora and fauna around you, and the history of the buildings.
AR could be amazing, but the tech isn't there yet. Google Glass reminds me of Apple Newton -- an amazing piece of technology that's a decade or two too early.
It could. Riding the bus? It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you. Ordering dinner? It could approximate calorie counts of the food on your plate. Taking a walk? It could pull up information about the flora and fauna around you, and the history of the buildings.
AR could be amazing, but the tech isn't there yet. Google Glass reminds me of Apple Newton -- an amazing piece of technology that's a decade or two too early.
> Riding the bus? It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you.
Jesus Christ please no. Does anyone really think this is a good idea?
Addendum: of all the people replying to my post, saying how great it could be, I'd be willing to guess that none are in positions where they get harassed on the bus on an almost daily basis (eg being a woman).
Jesus Christ please no. Does anyone really think this is a good idea?
Addendum: of all the people replying to my post, saying how great it could be, I'd be willing to guess that none are in positions where they get harassed on the bus on an almost daily basis (eg being a woman).
Whether auto-face recognition is a good idea or not, it's going to happen as the trends we all know and love continue. Even if major tech companies don't build this in to their camera-enabled products, open source projects will using distributed datasets. Or perhaps not-so-distributed datasets: face recognition systems use only something like 70-80 nodal points that give you internodal distances like eye spacing, mouth width, etc. (I may be wrong on that number; if I am I'm sure someone who works in this area will correct me.)
If this happens, I suspect it will change human interaction significantly and make it more different to be casually anonymous. I'm not so worried about people I casually interact learning my identity; I'd be more concerned about cradle-to-grave government collection and permanent storage of these records, coupled with license plate scanners, etc.
If this happens, I suspect it will change human interaction significantly and make it more different to be casually anonymous. I'm not so worried about people I casually interact learning my identity; I'd be more concerned about cradle-to-grave government collection and permanent storage of these records, coupled with license plate scanners, etc.
Yea, so at Lambda, depending on the application, we use either convolutional neural networks or layered neural networks initialized with unsupervised training using autoencoders to do the feature extraction from images. The features are either passed through a softmax layer or used as a "siamese" network. (Siamese networks provide a similarity metric as opposed to a probability distribution over labels.[3])
As far as recognition goes, most modern algorithms don't use fiducials (what you call 'nodal points') to do recognition. So there's nothing in our code that has to do with interocular distance or mouth width, etc., so all of the features are "learned". However, fiducials are used to do a frontalization or re-alignment step before passing it through the feature extractor (neural network or otherwise). This type of frontalization step allowed Facebook's deepface algorithm to use locally learned filters for their CNN as opposed to shared weights.[1][2]
[1] http://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/content_cvpr_2014/pa...
[2] http://mmlab.ie.cuhk.edu.hk/pdf/YiSun_CVPR14.pdf
[3] http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/chopra-05.pdf
As far as recognition goes, most modern algorithms don't use fiducials (what you call 'nodal points') to do recognition. So there's nothing in our code that has to do with interocular distance or mouth width, etc., so all of the features are "learned". However, fiducials are used to do a frontalization or re-alignment step before passing it through the feature extractor (neural network or otherwise). This type of frontalization step allowed Facebook's deepface algorithm to use locally learned filters for their CNN as opposed to shared weights.[1][2]
[1] http://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/content_cvpr_2014/pa...
[2] http://mmlab.ie.cuhk.edu.hk/pdf/YiSun_CVPR14.pdf
[3] http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/chopra-05.pdf
I'm a research scientist at a face recognition company. From my experience, we don't use internodal distances, we use information from all the pixels.
Would you be so kind as to expand slightly on what "information from all the pixels" means to us plebeians?
Well with regards to the post I answered, some have the idea that you locate certain features like eye corners, mouth corners, etc. and then do recognition based on the measurements between these feature locations.
One of the earlier successes of face recognition as described in Pentland and Moghaddam's paper was to use simple PCA on the images of faces normalized by eye position. This PCA would use all the pixels of a vector made from an image. Obviously there's been a lot of progress since then, but all pixels are getting used for information.
One of the earlier successes of face recognition as described in Pentland and Moghaddam's paper was to use simple PCA on the images of faces normalized by eye position. This PCA would use all the pixels of a vector made from an image. Obviously there's been a lot of progress since then, but all pixels are getting used for information.
A couple years ago I worked on a product that added a feature to do, not exactly facial recognition, but "facial similarity" perhaps. Not any kind of bleeding-edge research but just a helpful little value-add. The approach we took was exactly the kind of geometrical measuring of nodes that I believe you are referring to. It worked okay.
Principal Component Analysis looks interesting, but I'm struggling to understand how 2D pixel data would be transformed into the appropriate covariance matrix. Any insight on the missing link you could offer?
Principal Component Analysis looks interesting, but I'm struggling to understand how 2D pixel data would be transformed into the appropriate covariance matrix. Any insight on the missing link you could offer?
I would look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenface
The technology has advanced far beyond that, but that was the start where automatic face recognition first became realistically possible.
The technology has advanced far beyond that, but that was the start where automatic face recognition first became realistically possible.
Would bet state-of-the-art is doing face recognition with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolutional_neural_network or similar.
You are assuming a context which is negative for you. It may be there are ways, with sufficient settings opted in for both parties, where this may be a good thing. Finding out that person in front of you is someone you've corresponded with, or have a strong n+1 contact with through a co-worker or friend may be useful and wanted in some instances.
For example, you're at a party/mixer, so you set your locality privacy settings to show your name to those in proximity, or to those in proximity that you have a direct or once removed connection to through Facebook or G+.
Another example, you are at a conference, so you set the locality privacy filter to show your name, location, and workplace to anyone in your work address book that happens to be close by.
Finally, imagine you are on the bus, going to your good friend's house, who you've set to always see you when within a mile or so. You see a marker for her/him show up in the distance, rapidly approach, and pass you going in the other direction. You realize they misunderstood your prior conversation about meeting, and are on their way to your house, or at least, were, until they realized you were on the bus they just passed and turned around to pick you up at the next stop, which you've quickly agreed to get off at.
I think there are cases where capabilities like this could be extremely useful and desired, it's just a matter of working out the issues.
This, and a thousand other uses, are what people mean when they say "It could" with respect to AR enhancing our everyday life.
For example, you're at a party/mixer, so you set your locality privacy settings to show your name to those in proximity, or to those in proximity that you have a direct or once removed connection to through Facebook or G+.
Another example, you are at a conference, so you set the locality privacy filter to show your name, location, and workplace to anyone in your work address book that happens to be close by.
Finally, imagine you are on the bus, going to your good friend's house, who you've set to always see you when within a mile or so. You see a marker for her/him show up in the distance, rapidly approach, and pass you going in the other direction. You realize they misunderstood your prior conversation about meeting, and are on their way to your house, or at least, were, until they realized you were on the bus they just passed and turned around to pick you up at the next stop, which you've quickly agreed to get off at.
I think there are cases where capabilities like this could be extremely useful and desired, it's just a matter of working out the issues.
This, and a thousand other uses, are what people mean when they say "It could" with respect to AR enhancing our everyday life.
But if you have to wait for others to opt-in, your system will never take off. So it must must must be opt-out - scrape as much data as you can from Facebook or Twitter or driver's license photos or whatever. There's just no chance at all that this could be an opt-in system. It cannot work.
When the government does facial recognition, they're not asking you to opt-in to being facially recognized... why do you think that is? When the police deploy license plate scanners, they don't ask you to opt-in and provide data, why do you think that is?
Literally the first app developed on a system like this would be something to "look up and stalk hot girls you see everyday".
When the government does facial recognition, they're not asking you to opt-in to being facially recognized... why do you think that is? When the police deploy license plate scanners, they don't ask you to opt-in and provide data, why do you think that is?
Literally the first app developed on a system like this would be something to "look up and stalk hot girls you see everyday".
You're concentrating too much on a single specific problem instead of the concept overall. There are plenty of ways to have sane defaults for privacy that when people aren't happy about, they can then change. One of the simplest I can think of is to offload to facebook and/or G+. If they are a friend, they show as such, if they are a friend of a friend, they have a marker indicating that. If they are in one of your G+ groups (and maybe they require you be in one of theirs), then they show as such. Let companies with a vested interest in making it a useful interaction put some resources behind it.
Or maybe it's any one of a thousand other possible solutions, or capabilities. I'm really just trying to illuminate that when we are talking about something as far reaching as enhancing one of our senses with network information, and the unknown unknowns are enormous, I'm really just espousing a bit more caution before it's written off as useless, or a toy, or not worth the hype we've seen. I don't think we've seen a fraction of what's possible yet in this space.
Or maybe it's any one of a thousand other possible solutions, or capabilities. I'm really just trying to illuminate that when we are talking about something as far reaching as enhancing one of our senses with network information, and the unknown unknowns are enormous, I'm really just espousing a bit more caution before it's written off as useless, or a toy, or not worth the hype we've seen. I don't think we've seen a fraction of what's possible yet in this space.
> There are plenty of ways to have sane defaults for privacy that when people aren't happy about, they can then change.
No, there aren't. It is not possible for a system which is opt-in to get off the ground.
Do you want to purchase Google Glasses, which are opt-in (and which therefore identify 0.000001% of the people you see every day), or China Blackmarket Glasses, which are opt-out, and which not only cost 1/10th as much, they also identify 99.735% of the people you see every day, along with their birthdate, home address, cell phone, relationship status, sexual orientation and SSN? Which product will be successful?
No one is calling such things "useless". They have plenty of "uses". I'm calling them disastrous, and abusive, and privacy-invasive.
Nor is anyone saying they won't happen. They will, undoubtedly. And it will be ugly.
No, there aren't. It is not possible for a system which is opt-in to get off the ground.
Do you want to purchase Google Glasses, which are opt-in (and which therefore identify 0.000001% of the people you see every day), or China Blackmarket Glasses, which are opt-out, and which not only cost 1/10th as much, they also identify 99.735% of the people you see every day, along with their birthdate, home address, cell phone, relationship status, sexual orientation and SSN? Which product will be successful?
No one is calling such things "useless". They have plenty of "uses". I'm calling them disastrous, and abusive, and privacy-invasive.
Nor is anyone saying they won't happen. They will, undoubtedly. And it will be ugly.
> No, there aren't. It is not possible for a system which is opt-in to get off the ground.
Opt-in was your assumption. Even so, that statement is trivially proven false. Facebook is opt-in by nature of needing an account. There's plenty of adoption.
> No one is calling such things "useless". They have plenty of "uses". I'm calling them disastrous, and abusive, and privacy-invasive.
Well, a statement close to calling AR useless (for these situations) farther up-thread is what started this.
I think the world will just adapt as needed to the new reality. Too easy to identify someone when in public? The public will adapt norms that make that harder. Right now we have assumed implicit anonymity, which isn't really anonymity at all in many circumstances. I'm not sure moving to a situation where people think about anonymity and how much of it they want when going about their lives, and then taking steps to try to achieve that level is entirely all bad. To be sure, it's got it's downsides, but I don't think ignoring the upsides and assuming that society will stay static while all this changes is unrealistic.
Opt-in was your assumption. Even so, that statement is trivially proven false. Facebook is opt-in by nature of needing an account. There's plenty of adoption.
> No one is calling such things "useless". They have plenty of "uses". I'm calling them disastrous, and abusive, and privacy-invasive.
Well, a statement close to calling AR useless (for these situations) farther up-thread is what started this.
I think the world will just adapt as needed to the new reality. Too easy to identify someone when in public? The public will adapt norms that make that harder. Right now we have assumed implicit anonymity, which isn't really anonymity at all in many circumstances. I'm not sure moving to a situation where people think about anonymity and how much of it they want when going about their lives, and then taking steps to try to achieve that level is entirely all bad. To be sure, it's got it's downsides, but I don't think ignoring the upsides and assuming that society will stay static while all this changes is unrealistic.
Of all your examples, the conference one is probably the only time such a feature could be useful. Every other example you've raised has a low tech alternative: just talk to people. I realize many people have a tendency to fear small talk, but it's an incredibly useful skill to have.
I can guarantee there are at least a dozen potential startups in this idea alone. Imagine some version of Linkedin or OKCupid, or even some general purpose scraper that correlates identities and social media accounts through facial recognition and online photos.
Even better, facial recognition plus a decent method of determining height, weight and ethinicity, and you have an x-ray specs app. The first person to make that work is probably going to be a millionaire.
Even better, facial recognition plus a decent method of determining height, weight and ethinicity, and you have an x-ray specs app. The first person to make that work is probably going to be a millionaire.
> The first person to make that work is probably going to be a millionaire.
Perhaps billionaire, unless the current startup bubble bursts first.
Let's see:
Perhaps billionaire, unless the current startup bubble bursts first.
Let's see:
LinkedIn -- get an idea of income via job category
Tinder -- hmmm, someone "looking for love"
Uber "walk of shame" -- someone not just looking
You seem to be implying that being able to know the identity of the person you're looking at will cause women to be harassed.
But in small communities, everyone already has this feature (by virtue of their being few enough people that an unaided human brain can track them all). And in small communities, you don't get a lot of jerks going around randomly harassing women on a daily basis. Why not? Well, the identity of the jerk who does the harassing is also known, and social (and ultimately physical) sanctions will be applied.
Now you're saying that in a large community where people are anonymous, there are jerks going around harassing women on a daily basis. But that's in a large community without identity tracking, where the jerks don't fear reprisal.
So what you're saying is actually an argument in favor of implementing AR identity tracking and letting human capabilities catch up with community size.
But in small communities, everyone already has this feature (by virtue of their being few enough people that an unaided human brain can track them all). And in small communities, you don't get a lot of jerks going around randomly harassing women on a daily basis. Why not? Well, the identity of the jerk who does the harassing is also known, and social (and ultimately physical) sanctions will be applied.
Now you're saying that in a large community where people are anonymous, there are jerks going around harassing women on a daily basis. But that's in a large community without identity tracking, where the jerks don't fear reprisal.
So what you're saying is actually an argument in favor of implementing AR identity tracking and letting human capabilities catch up with community size.
Do not worry, there will be a do-not-track option... uh oh, never mind.
In Japan I believe it's a legal requirement for cameras to emulate a shutter sound for privacy reasons. I want that, too.
Oh, and I that my consent is required before somebody does face recognition on me.
Oh, and I that my consent is required before somebody does face recognition on me.
Actually, it's not a "legal requirement" exactly. It's more of an industrial self-regulation among mobile phone manufacturers.
Most of standalone digital cameras have an option to mute it, too.
Most of standalone digital cameras have an option to mute it, too.
And I want my consent required every time someone who overhears my name digs up my facebook.
It's not even remotely enforceable. For better or worse, this is the future.
It's not even remotely enforceable. For better or worse, this is the future.
There is a huge difference there. First of all, I don't have facebook, and I barely use my real name on the internet. So I can defend against that. And second, my name is absolutely not unique and if needed I can adopt other identities. My face is and i can't get a new one.
Many people do, and it's an inescapable part of their social life. And it is quite easy to narrow down results based on location, even if you have a relatively common name. Which many people don't; for example I know of only one Mozaffar Qizilbash and some extensive googling hasn't turned up another.
But this specific example isn't the point. My point is that as information becomes more widely available and integrated in our lives, there will be plenty of ways to find out plenty of stuff about all but the most cautious hermits. Trying to plug every hole just isn't practical.
But this specific example isn't the point. My point is that as information becomes more widely available and integrated in our lives, there will be plenty of ways to find out plenty of stuff about all but the most cautious hermits. Trying to plug every hole just isn't practical.
Do you wear a mask when walking down the street? Do you ask people to sign a document if you want them to see your face? There is always a way to abuse anything, and at some point we need to address it on a societal level, and not by blocking technological progress.
No, I'm not wearing a mask, and I don't want too, that the whole point. The fact that people do need my consent before they film me, or make anonymous is state of the law in may places.
I don't see how a mandatory shutter sound is blocking "technological progress".
I don't see how a mandatory shutter sound is blocking "technological progress".
Yet, video recording does not make any sound on phones.
Like their twitter bio, not a dossier. Well I mean you could but that's a different thing.
Yeah but I still can't imagine why I'd want to know the Twitter bio of the people around me.
It's a bus/train/supermarket/DMV line, not a mixer. If it were a mixer I'd also be more interested in talking to the person than reading their profile and recent tweets.
I get how such technology would be impressive from a "oooooh cyberspace!" perspective, but that only reinforce's the point made earlier: Google Glass was very impressive tech that had a lot of technically interesting applications that were nonetheless mostly pointless.
It's a bus/train/supermarket/DMV line, not a mixer. If it were a mixer I'd also be more interested in talking to the person than reading their profile and recent tweets.
I get how such technology would be impressive from a "oooooh cyberspace!" perspective, but that only reinforce's the point made earlier: Google Glass was very impressive tech that had a lot of technically interesting applications that were nonetheless mostly pointless.
Even so, most of the time when I'm out in public I like to be anonymous. Since I'm not famous, that is extremely easy, and I like it that way.
That works in some places I guess. In some towns, either everyone is going to know you or you're going to attract attention as a stranger.
>(eg being a woman)
It is amazingly courageous how you manage to go through life with such an inescapable handicap. It must be so hard for you, having to contend with the possibility of encountering strangers and having to deal with them by yourself in a public space. What has the world come to, when such cruelty is not opposed? Something must be done! Now where are all those useless, good-for-nothing men?
It is amazingly courageous how you manage to go through life with such an inescapable handicap. It must be so hard for you, having to contend with the possibility of encountering strangers and having to deal with them by yourself in a public space. What has the world come to, when such cruelty is not opposed? Something must be done! Now where are all those useless, good-for-nothing men?
Dealing with strangers in a public space is often a problem women have to endure.
Both my sisters have told me about borderline harassment and/or inappropriate attention they received while going about their daily lives.
Both my sisters have told me about borderline harassment and/or inappropriate attention they received while going about their daily lives.
No, it's only a problem when it happens to women. When it happens to men, it's called "life", "man up" and "stop being such a pussy".
I think I can say with 100% certainty that either you are in a very bad place right now, in which case you have my sympathy, or you are an utterly titanic asshole, in which case you don't.
When you have no valid point to make, attack the messenger. Don't project how you feel about my opinion onto me, I'm happy and optimistic that this whole oppression charade is finally coming crashing down.
[deleted]
> Riding the bus? It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you.
You do realize most people consider that an anti-feature, and is exactly why a lot of people are worried about it, right?
You do realize most people consider that an anti-feature, and is exactly why a lot of people are worried about it, right?
>>Riding the bus? It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you.
I'm pretty sure this is a good reason NOT to give Glass to the masses.
I'm pretty sure this is a good reason NOT to give Glass to the masses.
"It could. Riding the bus? It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you."
Google, and hence the NSA and the US of America(thanks to Patriot Act) having the information of who is at every moment at a given bus, restaurant, party in any part of the word.... is kind of creepy to me.
With mobile phones they can do it today, but with lots of effort, it draws the battery and I could give my phone to someone else, or leave it on a Faraday box if I want.
With cameras pointing to people you have lots of other metadata, like who is kissing or smiling or hugging whom, who is serious with whom. Who is a leader, who is a follower.
In essence, it is a spy. It is not amazing, people from secret services regularly kill people from other countries if they consider it worth "national security", like a news reporter that wanted to know too much and know hold information that puts "the country at risk".
Talking to people like Arturo Perez Reberte that has been war reporters for decades they tell you very clearly that secret services from the big boys(Russia, US, Israel) have killed some of their friends.
Think for a moment how people, specially women preferred to live in cities instead of villages because they were not controlled in everything they did.
Google, and hence the NSA and the US of America(thanks to Patriot Act) having the information of who is at every moment at a given bus, restaurant, party in any part of the word.... is kind of creepy to me.
With mobile phones they can do it today, but with lots of effort, it draws the battery and I could give my phone to someone else, or leave it on a Faraday box if I want.
With cameras pointing to people you have lots of other metadata, like who is kissing or smiling or hugging whom, who is serious with whom. Who is a leader, who is a follower.
In essence, it is a spy. It is not amazing, people from secret services regularly kill people from other countries if they consider it worth "national security", like a news reporter that wanted to know too much and know hold information that puts "the country at risk".
Talking to people like Arturo Perez Reberte that has been war reporters for decades they tell you very clearly that secret services from the big boys(Russia, US, Israel) have killed some of their friends.
Think for a moment how people, specially women preferred to live in cities instead of villages because they were not controlled in everything they did.
But I don't want any of those things. Or, at least, I want that information so infrequently that pulling out my phone is absolutely fine. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist.
>It's solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Businesses do that all the time. No one ever needs the next big thing, which is why they work so hard to make you want it.
What Google wants is to extend the capabilities of G+ into the real world. That's what augmented reality is, with Google behind the wheel. The problem it's meant to solve is the problem of you not generating marketable data while offline. Well, now you need never be offline. Now everything you see and hear is a part of the social layer. Isn't that wonderful?
Businesses do that all the time. No one ever needs the next big thing, which is why they work so hard to make you want it.
What Google wants is to extend the capabilities of G+ into the real world. That's what augmented reality is, with Google behind the wheel. The problem it's meant to solve is the problem of you not generating marketable data while offline. Well, now you need never be offline. Now everything you see and hear is a part of the social layer. Isn't that wonderful?
> It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you.
This may be a 'significant augmentation' but it's not sure it's one that I want.
This may be a 'significant augmentation' but it's not sure it's one that I want.
Time to start wearing scarves + hoods + sunglasses, watch_dogs style.
That may not be sufficient, but if you want anything to work to maintain your anonymity in the future, you have to start now.
Recognition technologies currently in development can identify a person by gait, posture, and by face while disguised, turned away from the viewer, or otherwise obscured, albeit with a low probability of success. For now.
One of the few countermeasures shown to be effective against the newer recognition systems is "dazzle"-style camouflage. The other is to keep yourself out of any databases used for matching. Obviously, the former looks a bit outlandish for anyone out in public.
The paranoid and prepared will start scrubbing their social networks, wearing veils of some sort in public, and intentionally sewing rocks into their shoes now, so that when the technology matures later, they will be a "no match" to the databases already being built right now. Everyone else will screw their eyes shut and scream silently into their own skulls as their lives are pushed ever closer to resembling all the various sci-fi dystopias and utopias, blended and amalgamated into one terrifying and beautiful reality.
Recognition technologies currently in development can identify a person by gait, posture, and by face while disguised, turned away from the viewer, or otherwise obscured, albeit with a low probability of success. For now.
One of the few countermeasures shown to be effective against the newer recognition systems is "dazzle"-style camouflage. The other is to keep yourself out of any databases used for matching. Obviously, the former looks a bit outlandish for anyone out in public.
The paranoid and prepared will start scrubbing their social networks, wearing veils of some sort in public, and intentionally sewing rocks into their shoes now, so that when the technology matures later, they will be a "no match" to the databases already being built right now. Everyone else will screw their eyes shut and scream silently into their own skulls as their lives are pushed ever closer to resembling all the various sci-fi dystopias and utopias, blended and amalgamated into one terrifying and beautiful reality.
I think Google glass biggest problem will be getting sane people to wear them in public. Right now, I wouldn't want to
be the guy wearing Google glasses on a S.F. muni bus at any hour
other than commute hour. It's just not worth the potential
punch in the face. (yes, I think violence is wrong, but I can't control arseholes.) I think the AI factor will be huge
once Hackers make their modifications, but, I don't think that's a huge problem now--an hacked Android phone tied to a Rasbery,
tethered to a Packet sniffer stuffed into a coat pocket can can gather a fair amount of data? I think the obvious problem with the glasses is a lot of people don't want their picture taken. As a Photographer, five years ago people wanted their picture
taken. Now, I don't dare go out and take anyone's picture
without their permission--even unintentional inclusion, like snapping a Landscape--I got a dirty look. I'm suprised "Don't take my picture" isn't a bumper sticker?
[deleted]
As some people below have mentioned, the main problem was that it was neither a HUD or AR. Personally I loved the idea of being able to have something like Strava available while riding my bike, but the requirement of focusing at a small screen an inch away from my eye made it not tenable, and essentially unsafe.
That's the problem. You actually need to talk to your glasses which can be annoying and distracting to some people.
Now if you could talk to you devices without actually talking it would be great.
Like they do in "Ghost in the Shell"[1].
[1] http://anidb.net/a247
Now if you could talk to you devices without actually talking it would be great.
Like they do in "Ghost in the Shell"[1].
[1] http://anidb.net/a247
They fell into trap of "product/service that seems to be wanted by a very large amount of people a little bit", instead of making it for a niche market where small amount of people need that item very much. PG was right, even the smartest people make these mistakes.
Before google glass became reality I think when people discussed AR it was imagined to help in complicated manufacturing --like assembling an airliners fuselage, etc. I wonder if there's uptake in that market, if not for gglass for an alternative.
Arguing against AR is going to be as silly in retrospect as arguing against email/internet. It will undoubted connect people to information, which is at the very core of what we're looking to achieve with technology.
Google Glass was ahead of its time, for a while. They re-engineered the guts of a cellphone to fit into an eyeglass frame. The visual 'cube' that forms the display was a novelty and kept the project within the bounds of whats possible to be manufactured today.
Then Google came across a fiber optic eye-ball projector that made the Glass visual interface look like an 8-Track of the Doobie Brothers. They immediately realized this and dumped a half billion dollars on the project, Magic Leap.
http://gizmodo.com/how-magic-leap-is-secretly-creating-a-new...
Some day, Google will spring a productized version of this on the public and it'll be like nothing before, including Oculus. Its the best shot we've got at 'true' augmented reality.
Then Google came across a fiber optic eye-ball projector that made the Glass visual interface look like an 8-Track of the Doobie Brothers. They immediately realized this and dumped a half billion dollars on the project, Magic Leap.
http://gizmodo.com/how-magic-leap-is-secretly-creating-a-new...
Some day, Google will spring a productized version of this on the public and it'll be like nothing before, including Oculus. Its the best shot we've got at 'true' augmented reality.
While I'm excited about Magic Leap as well, I don't see it in the same category as Oculus. AR will certainly be useful, but less so for the 'experience' type audience that VR is seeking.
But yeah, probably worlds ahead of Glass for AR.
But yeah, probably worlds ahead of Glass for AR.
Glass actually offloads most of the work to your phone, rather than fitting all that hardware inside the frame.
Google will never bring a Glass-like product to market successfully. Period. They are incapable.
You need to elaborate. Adding the term 'Period' doesn't magically strengthen your argument.
Genuinely interested in your rationale though.
Genuinely interested in your rationale though.
So some speculation (since we on the outside can never be sure, and when I worked at Google it was always interesting to see the difference between what was reported vs the reality inside the company.)
I've always felt that consumer products were going to be really hard for Google to pull off. It reminded me of Intel trying to make an LED wristwatch in the early 80's. Too much consumer 'hands on', too much industrial design. Neither of which Google are strengths.
I expect glass is dead, all the money they might have invested in making it real they spent on Magic Leap, and now its up to the Leap guys to be the 'visual interface to Google.' The small android experience will fold into the IoT part of Google (Nest) and that will be that.
I've always felt that consumer products were going to be really hard for Google to pull off. It reminded me of Intel trying to make an LED wristwatch in the early 80's. Too much consumer 'hands on', too much industrial design. Neither of which Google are strengths.
I expect glass is dead, all the money they might have invested in making it real they spent on Magic Leap, and now its up to the Leap guys to be the 'visual interface to Google.' The small android experience will fold into the IoT part of Google (Nest) and that will be that.
One of the most stinging criticisms I've heard of Google is that they just don't get products. They can, in some cases, do services, but the idea that something ever reaches a finished state in which everything is complete doesn't seem to be part of their DNA.
It's as if they are an eventually consistent system that is constantly moving towards a state of consistency that they never completely reach.
It's as if they are an eventually consistent system that is constantly moving towards a state of consistency that they never completely reach.
It's as if they are an eventually consistent system that is constantly moving towards a state of consistency that they never completely reach.
They have some products which were nearly perfect. For instance, the Chromecast is more or less finished. It's not intended to be a game console or something to have apps in on a television. It's an extremely cheap device that allows you to stream a tab or from apps. That vision is well-executed, because it is cheap and works well for streaming. Of course, some people will have gripes about the Chromecast, but the fact that a device that looked incredibly boring at the start is now a pretty big success indicates that for many people it's exactly the product that they want.
They have some products which were nearly perfect. For instance, the Chromecast is more or less finished. It's not intended to be a game console or something to have apps in on a television. It's an extremely cheap device that allows you to stream a tab or from apps. That vision is well-executed, because it is cheap and works well for streaming. Of course, some people will have gripes about the Chromecast, but the fact that a device that looked incredibly boring at the start is now a pretty big success indicates that for many people it's exactly the product that they want.
More ecosystem would be nice although, with an Android tablet, I gather that doesn't matter any much as you can cast the screen in any case. In fact, I'm seriously tempted to pick up an inexpensive Android tablet just for that purpose.
But I agree that Chromecast gets things just right. I want the ability to "throw" an image or video from my PC, tablet, or phone to my big dumb screen on the wall--whatever proprietary smarts the TV manufacturer is trying to make me interact with--and that's exactly what Chromecast does.
But I agree that Chromecast gets things just right. I want the ability to "throw" an image or video from my PC, tablet, or phone to my big dumb screen on the wall--whatever proprietary smarts the TV manufacturer is trying to make me interact with--and that's exactly what Chromecast does.
Chromecast is pretty shitty. It often lags und quality is not great. The first time I saw it in action, it was pretty embarrassing for a Google manager who tried to demo something with it. I replaced mine with an Amazon Fire TV.
The chromecast thing is great. It's an ugly little widget that comes in an overly-fancy box and does what it's supposed to.
However, it's terribly advertised, and it still annoyingly says "beta" all over stuff. I feel like I bought it out of some kind of anonymised side-door at the back of the warehouse.
However, it's terribly advertised, and it still annoyingly says "beta" all over stuff. I feel like I bought it out of some kind of anonymised side-door at the back of the warehouse.
Due to the fact that the chromecast requires an always-on internet connection it's far from finished and entirely useless in many cases.
I think you've confused "finished" with "what Mithaldu wants".
"Mithaldu and everyone in his cicles of friends, relatives and work acquaintances."
Maybe it's different where you are, but where i live the chromecast is literally useless due to the restriction and nobody has one.
Maybe it's different where you are, but where i live the chromecast is literally useless due to the restriction and nobody has one.
I have to agree with this. Tried taking the Chromecast with me on holiday. At a base level, the Chromecast requires constant connection to an external Wi-Fi router. So even if you want to stream content that you have LOCALLY on your device, you can't, not without a lot of messing around.
Why the Chromecast has the ability to run it's own Wi-Fi network to only connect to another is a design decision I don't understand. The other parts of it are great, but it's a shame that for such a small and portable device, it's such a pain in the ass to use away from home.
Why the Chromecast has the ability to run it's own Wi-Fi network to only connect to another is a design decision I don't understand. The other parts of it are great, but it's a shame that for such a small and portable device, it's such a pain in the ass to use away from home.
While there's other stuff you can do with a Chromecast, and it would make sense to make it usable locally for screen mirroring, the main selling point is internet streaming, which isn't limited by the requirement for an internet connection.
I can certainly see how for some people it's not useful, but its of people do have reliable internet access where they'd want to use it and aren't limited by that requirement.
I can certainly see how for some people it's not useful, but its of people do have reliable internet access where they'd want to use it and aren't limited by that requirement.
Ya, it's so useless it's one of the best selling gadgets on Amazon!
Not saying you're lying, but to rule something out as "useless" just because it doesn't work for you (and the closure of your acquaintances) just makes you look stupid!
A lot of people live in places where a telescope is literally useless (for astronomical purposes, anyway). Does that make it a worthless product?
False analogy. First, the parent didn't state that it was, in ask scenarios, a useless product. S/he said out was useless where s/he lives due to a design decision. Secondly, we can't control the atmosphere, but Google can certainly control the design of the Chromecast.
> They can, in some cases, do services, but the idea that something ever reaches a finished state in which everything is complete doesn't seem to be part of their DNA.
I know what you mean, but I'd actually say the opposite:
Google has a history of dumping a bunch of resources into a first release. Which may be quite good (Google Books), barely a proof of concept (Wave), somewhere in between (Hangouts), or bizarro what (Plus). And then withdrawing all resources, never iterating on it again, never delivering any major improvements.
In fact, this, it seems, is what Glass-purchasers felt for the past year and a half -- So, this is a good first draft, but when's it gonna get better? Answer: Never.
Presumably the projects which start looking like they will make money for Google receive further investment.
I know what you mean, but I'd actually say the opposite:
Google has a history of dumping a bunch of resources into a first release. Which may be quite good (Google Books), barely a proof of concept (Wave), somewhere in between (Hangouts), or bizarro what (Plus). And then withdrawing all resources, never iterating on it again, never delivering any major improvements.
In fact, this, it seems, is what Glass-purchasers felt for the past year and a half -- So, this is a good first draft, but when's it gonna get better? Answer: Never.
Presumably the projects which start looking like they will make money for Google receive further investment.
In my experience, Books, Hangouts and Plus have all had some significant improvements made to them since they've been launched?
You know, it used to be part of every interview where I was asked very seriously how much experience I had with the entire software development lifecycle. I didn't get it at the time, but there's really different skills involved in the different phases of any kind of project: the idea, prototyping, mid-stream development, wrapping up, shipping and then all the work to do to let people know that thing you just made is now available.
If people think SDLC is hard, what about traditional hardware product lifecycles?
I think it's interesting that Google, being built around continuously moving, never-really-finished, web products, has tried to move into really-has-be-finished-to-ship hardware...and I think it's been hard for Google to do, it's just not in their blood.
Occasionally something comes out, the Chromecast, or early 1st round versions of something. But then they seem to get lost in the weeds, not to mention weird cancellations of products right before they're ready to ship.
It kind of reminds me of what I've been reading about what went on inside of Atari during the boom days.
If people think SDLC is hard, what about traditional hardware product lifecycles?
I think it's interesting that Google, being built around continuously moving, never-really-finished, web products, has tried to move into really-has-be-finished-to-ship hardware...and I think it's been hard for Google to do, it's just not in their blood.
Occasionally something comes out, the Chromecast, or early 1st round versions of something. But then they seem to get lost in the weeds, not to mention weird cancellations of products right before they're ready to ship.
It kind of reminds me of what I've been reading about what went on inside of Atari during the boom days.
"calls end to" apparently equals "moved to another division for continued development on different timeline". Linkbaitish title.
I don't know, if they were simply reorganizing it, stopping sales, period, seems like a very strange move. Not only does it look like killing to the rest of the world (which to some extent is going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy), it also does a lot of damage to uptake since, well, you can't get one anymore.
It isn't weird if the explorer design is being retired. I fully expect them to stop selling the current model.
[deleted]
Yeah I mean you could be right, or the claims that they will still be releasing it, etc. could be face saving so as to not spook investors by the amount of money that was squandered on Glass. It's hard to know which one it is without further details like what division? How big is this division? What kind of timeline? etc.
I doubt many large investors bought into google without knowing their desire to fund moonshot programs.
First: you might be surprised.
Second: Glass isn't just any GoogleX project. It's the most publicized and most heavily bought into except perhaps the automatic car. Large investors may well expect Google to chase some dead-ends, but to kill them before they get to the prominence and public stature of Glass.
There are plenty of other reasons why Google might save face on Glass -- there might be internal morale reasons or the pride of an executive or wanting to keep competitors guessing.
Second: Glass isn't just any GoogleX project. It's the most publicized and most heavily bought into except perhaps the automatic car. Large investors may well expect Google to chase some dead-ends, but to kill them before they get to the prominence and public stature of Glass.
There are plenty of other reasons why Google might save face on Glass -- there might be internal morale reasons or the pride of an executive or wanting to keep competitors guessing.
Google didn't make glass the most publicized product, the media did.
I believe I read a comment here that basically said that Google didn't kill glass, they stopped selling it and moved the work to another division. So I think you could debate forever about whether this is considered "killing" google glass or not, but that's neither here nor there.
I believe I read a comment here that basically said that Google didn't kill glass, they stopped selling it and moved the work to another division. So I think you could debate forever about whether this is considered "killing" google glass or not, but that's neither here nor there.
It's not the initial investment, it's the continued investment after it was obvious to most people that it was a bad idea. That's what wall street tends to have objections to.
If you are talking about Wall Street investors, then they have no excuse for investing in a company that loves pet projects. They have all the research at their fingertips. I could understand if Joe from down the street invested $25,000 in GOOG and is now pissed because he thought they would try harder or whatever.
It seems to me that Glass wouldn't have suffered half the backlash it got if the original release had excluded the camera. Even if everybody was just grumbling about how useless the product was without a camera, people still would have bought it, and it probably wouldn't have gotten half the bans or negative press it ended up getting.
That's always been the problem with glass; it's not an AR application platform, it's just an awkward mini-screen floating in the middle of your face.
Without a camera it would have been so pointless no one would have bothered to look at it.
(seriously, can you imagine the sky diving demo sans camera? 'What was thing thing on his face?' 'No idea, I think it was showing him tweets or something')
Without a camera it would have been so pointless no one would have bothered to look at it.
(seriously, can you imagine the sky diving demo sans camera? 'What was thing thing on his face?' 'No idea, I think it was showing him tweets or something')
That's doubtful.
It was a $1500 accessory that never really solved a common problem. Many confused it with Augmented Reality, even the top comment on HN.
If anything, it's analogous to the segway - ie. an expensive, niche piece of technology seen as a novelty.
It was a $1500 accessory that never really solved a common problem. Many confused it with Augmented Reality, even the top comment on HN.
If anything, it's analogous to the segway - ie. an expensive, niche piece of technology seen as a novelty.
If Google wanted to sell it to the world, they should have first made it without the camera. Later on when people are comfortable with the form factor: add the camera.
This is how we have ended up with mobile phones with cameras that nobody seems to mind about. Phones only got cameras halfway through their life. By then, it was too late to stop.
This is how we have ended up with mobile phones with cameras that nobody seems to mind about. Phones only got cameras halfway through their life. By then, it was too late to stop.
I think cameras in phones had a lot to do with the limitations of the tech. Even so, it's a conscious action to hold your phone and take a photo, and while there's plenty of idiots on Reddit that don't care, it's not socially acceptable to take photos of strangers without permission. Everytime I've spoken to someone wearing Glass, I was so paranoid that a photo of my mouth in the wrong pose would be used for someone's karma.
It's still not socially acceptable to take photos, but it's a lot more acceptable to carry a camera around with you.
What percentage of drug deals do you estimate both buyer and seller are carrying a phone with a camera? 70%? 90%?
I laugh when I imagine how many movie plots are broken now that everybody has an audio recording device in their pocket.
What percentage of drug deals do you estimate both buyer and seller are carrying a phone with a camera? 70%? 90%?
I laugh when I imagine how many movie plots are broken now that everybody has an audio recording device in their pocket.
Not only the actual inclusion of the camera itself, they would have marketed this way different, too.
Instead of marketing the benefit of HUD form factor, they have mainly shown off the device as a photo taking device. I remember when it was first appeared at I/O, their marketing video was mostly, if not only, about taking photo and video.
Edit: Fixed bad sentence break.
Instead of marketing the benefit of HUD form factor, they have mainly shown off the device as a photo taking device. I remember when it was first appeared at I/O, their marketing video was mostly, if not only, about taking photo and video.
Edit: Fixed bad sentence break.
Completely. I hadn't thought about the camera-phone analogy but you're absolutely right. There were a few years there of hand-wringing over th new ability of snapping photos in locker rooms and people filming concerts.
I think the screens will lead the way. Seems "the screen" will migrate from the phone to the watch, and maybe then to glasses. Apple's move here seems smart.
Google glass jumped the gun, going after what was possible over what society was ready for.
I think the screens will lead the way. Seems "the screen" will migrate from the phone to the watch, and maybe then to glasses. Apple's move here seems smart.
Google glass jumped the gun, going after what was possible over what society was ready for.
Allowing customers to look like they are surveilling other people was a radically Orwellian-seeming move. It amazes me that Google was OK with this from the beginning.
It amazes me that people still worry about this when humans already walk around with two cameras connected to better resolution and light-level management hardware than the glass camera embedded in their skulls, and the input of those cameras, converted to audio, is generally admissible in all courts of law.
It may be sharable through speech, but a picture is worth a thousand words. Even the most detailed prose leaves much to the imagination. I don't think I'd even care if someone told a story about accidentally seeing me naked, but I'd be pretty pissed off if they were sharing a video.
What if they had photographic memory and a lot of drawing skills and were able to produce a drawing of you naked that was indistinguishable from a photo? Should we ostracize those people from society?
It is not true that we have two cameras in our eyes.
We do have visual sense. Completely different. The output of the system is a perception, an interpretation of reality.
Most of what you are seeing right now is going to be forgotten just in seconds. You only leave what holds your attention.
Cameras store the raw content of what they point to. That is gigabytes of information.
The speech information is barely kilobytes of information.
We do have visual sense. Completely different. The output of the system is a perception, an interpretation of reality.
Most of what you are seeing right now is going to be forgotten just in seconds. You only leave what holds your attention.
Cameras store the raw content of what they point to. That is gigabytes of information.
The speech information is barely kilobytes of information.
You do know how google figures out what ads to show people? They collect everything they can about you :)
Aside from the mismanagement of the software/hardware associated directly with Google Glass the true problem it had was the contradiction between the benefits of the user and those around the user. The single greatest thing about Glass, and it really was brilliant, was the ability to take pictures that almost perfectly captured your field of vision. This is, however, the precise feature those around you might take objection to. Take that feature away and Glass really has no use at all.
The irony of this is it's not hard to conceal cameras on people in order to record their surroundings if you're so inclined, and the reception to Glass just demonstrated how opposed people are to this when it's a visible intrusion, regardless of the actual threat presented.
The irony of this is it's not hard to conceal cameras on people in order to record their surroundings if you're so inclined, and the reception to Glass just demonstrated how opposed people are to this when it's a visible intrusion, regardless of the actual threat presented.
The irony of this is it's not hard to conceal cameras on people
The idea that something is technically possible but socially unacceptable is not irony. Concealing something socially unacceptable is not ironic. Expressing disapproval of someone openly breaking social norms is not inherently ironic. The idea society runs on trust is not ironic!
The idea that something is technically possible but socially unacceptable is not irony. Concealing something socially unacceptable is not ironic. Expressing disapproval of someone openly breaking social norms is not inherently ironic. The idea society runs on trust is not ironic!
The person you're responding was clearly just saying that it's funny how uncomfortable people were about being recorded by Google Glass, while covert methods of recording are not difficult but rarely worried about.
Take it easy - we know what was meant. No need to get pedantic about the definition of "irony."
Take it easy - we know what was meant. No need to get pedantic about the definition of "irony."
>while covert methods of recording are not difficult but rarely worried about.
Unless you're a woman who's ever worn a skirt in public, gone to a gym, or used the changing room in a store.
Unless you're a woman who's ever worn a skirt in public, gone to a gym, or used the changing room in a store.
...or a guy who's used the changing room in as store. What's so different about being a woman in that context?
Nothing, in theory. In reality, women are the ones who have to worry about change room cameras. There is definitely a disconnect there.
>while covert methods of recording are not difficult but rarely worried about.
Well, yes. Because they're...covert. People rarely worry about things they don't know exist.
Well, yes. Because they're...covert. People rarely worry about things they don't know exist.
hence the irony. Let's hate this thing we know about and can avoid, while ignoring the real threats to privacy.
But it's not the "thing we know about and can avoid" it's the thing we know about, and wish to push back on so that social norms don't change to find innocuous.
I can't say that Glass photos or videos ever felt like an important part of the experience--other than demoing it--then everyone wanted to take a picture. Given the design constraints of a worn device, it seems a wrong priority. Even simply making the device smaller by not having a camera would have been a better choice.
And obviously the camera led to a ridiculous amount of privacy related angst.
And obviously the camera led to a ridiculous amount of privacy related angst.
Saying it is ironic is equivalent to saying that it's ironic that people object when you take an item out of the store in full view while saying "I'm stealing this, I'm stealing this!" and yet anyone can just surreptitiously put an item in their pocket and not announce it and just walk out the store. Why make such a big deal of openly stealing something?
I'm not sure what it means for the future of Glass, but doesn't the title and most of the content of the article undermine that it's being moved to an actual product division?
The title is sensational and meant to be clickbait. It does not focus on the fact that by moving Glass to an actual product division, Google is expressing commitment to the ecosystem and the product.
Edit: "Glass at Work has been growing and we’re seeing incredible developments with Glass in the workplace. As we look to the road ahead, we realize that we’ve outgrown the lab and so we’re officially “graduating” from Google[x] to be our own team here at Google. We’re thrilled to be moving even more from concept to reality." https://plus.google.com/+GoogleGlass/posts/9uiwXY42tvc
Edit: "Glass at Work has been growing and we’re seeing incredible developments with Glass in the workplace. As we look to the road ahead, we realize that we’ve outgrown the lab and so we’re officially “graduating” from Google[x] to be our own team here at Google. We’re thrilled to be moving even more from concept to reality." https://plus.google.com/+GoogleGlass/posts/9uiwXY42tvc
I see it as something like Google Wave, a bit before the market is ready for it with a terrible form factor. However the technology and intent is correct.
These things will be back, but they won't be Google Glass, they'll be the "GoPro of Google Glass". Probably single function at first, cool looking, wearable/usable, with modders and hobbyists starting to build out functionality piecemeal until they have something really cool.
And back to that form factor, I'm just a regular guy, and I wouldn't be caught dead in these things. When the visual impression of your product is Robert Scoble wearing them in the shower, you know you're doomed.
These things will be back, but they won't be Google Glass, they'll be the "GoPro of Google Glass". Probably single function at first, cool looking, wearable/usable, with modders and hobbyists starting to build out functionality piecemeal until they have something really cool.
And back to that form factor, I'm just a regular guy, and I wouldn't be caught dead in these things. When the visual impression of your product is Robert Scoble wearing them in the shower, you know you're doomed.
And by "Glass programme" they mean the Explorers program, not the entirity of Glass itself, which is being moved from Google X to something less R&D-y, in the hands of the Nest CEO.
Probably about time - Glass needs to sink or swim already.
Probably about time - Glass needs to sink or swim already.
It's more specific than that: current versions of Google Glass are dead and are planned to be sunset. So, Glass, as we know it, is dead.
This is totally not a surprise regarding the current version of Glass. To paraphrase briefly:
Google Glass = ti OMAP 4430 → Texas Instruments axed the OMAP division → no more (closed source) driver updates → no more easy kernel updates → no more Android/system software updates → end-of-life. ☹
Google Glass = ti OMAP 4430 → Texas Instruments axed the OMAP division → no more (closed source) driver updates → no more easy kernel updates → no more Android/system software updates → end-of-life. ☹
Exactly. This is like the G1 being discontinued. It's a product EOL, not a product line being killed.
If the G1 had been discontinued at 3 days' notice - and without there being a replacement already on the market - I'd have expected people to have some pretty harsh things to say about the future of Android...
If I didn't read this line I would feel that it would be a dead product:
> She and the Glass team will report to Tony Fadell, the chief executive of the home automation business Nest
It sounds like they're just transitioning the responsibility to an Apple vet who has good taste.
> She and the Glass team will report to Tony Fadell, the chief executive of the home automation business Nest
It sounds like they're just transitioning the responsibility to an Apple vet who has good taste.
I think we place too much emphasis on visuals simply because they're more readily at-hand for the individual user, even when doing so forces those around that individual far outside their comfort zone. It creates a barrier, putting both sides on the defensive, at odds with each other.
Meanwhile, we drastically underestimate the potential utility of non-visual sensory augmentation. For instance, a hidden device providing vibrotactile information could provide far subtler, lower-level cues about the world around us, even to the point of widening the human experience to nearly limitless novel senses [0].
That's the direction I'd love to see us move wearables and technology in general: pervasive, yet unobtrusive.
[0]:http://www.mase.io/tech/wearables/2014/10/23/wearables/
Meanwhile, we drastically underestimate the potential utility of non-visual sensory augmentation. For instance, a hidden device providing vibrotactile information could provide far subtler, lower-level cues about the world around us, even to the point of widening the human experience to nearly limitless novel senses [0].
That's the direction I'd love to see us move wearables and technology in general: pervasive, yet unobtrusive.
[0]:http://www.mase.io/tech/wearables/2014/10/23/wearables/
The glass team sent this email to Explorers:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8895743
tldr; all XE development stopped as of Monday
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8895743
tldr; all XE development stopped as of Monday
It's the camera.
Google made a massive mistake by bundling the Glass with the camera. Camera is the reason for the backlash and the seriously tainted brand ("glassholes" and such). Of course they couldn't launch it as is. Though I wonder if they learned the lesson or if they will just hold a pause and relaunch it with no hardware changes.
Google made a massive mistake by bundling the Glass with the camera. Camera is the reason for the backlash and the seriously tainted brand ("glassholes" and such). Of course they couldn't launch it as is. Though I wonder if they learned the lesson or if they will just hold a pause and relaunch it with no hardware changes.
So, is this good news or bad news for current Glass owners?
If it was me I think I'd be upset to see that my expensive piece of kit had effectively (if not officially) been end-of-lifed. (if not for Google themselves but almost certainly for any 3rd-party developers.)
But, I suspect some people would like the new exclusivity and perhaps the rare collectibility?
If it was me I think I'd be upset to see that my expensive piece of kit had effectively (if not officially) been end-of-lifed. (if not for Google themselves but almost certainly for any 3rd-party developers.)
But, I suspect some people would like the new exclusivity and perhaps the rare collectibility?
Disappointed owner here. I'm a developer, but I'm not going to write software for a product that isn't even for sale. There just won't be enough users, and even if I wrote something that justified the cost of buying it, people couldn't. That said, it was very clear last Android update that Google just isn't capable of supporting the TI chip any more. It was horrendous.
Me too. Kinda annoying I paid 1500 to be a beta tester for a product that never properly launched. Explorer ... yeah.
I wouldn't want to speak for other explorers, but if a next gen commercial product can build on the potential, create a better product, and create a way for developers to make money, that's a great thing. The current iteration and program seemed to have reached the end of its ability to generate new insight.
I'm happy with my participation, it was a chance to play around with a bit of what the future could be like. It was like owning a Nokia internet tablet back in the day. You could see what it would be like to make (skype) calls , stream music, and use apps on a connected computer in your pocket. But that didn't mean that one didn't think it was a great thing when the iPhone came out, and pushed the vision at consumer scale.
I'm happy with my participation, it was a chance to play around with a bit of what the future could be like. It was like owning a Nokia internet tablet back in the day. You could see what it would be like to make (skype) calls , stream music, and use apps on a connected computer in your pocket. But that didn't mean that one didn't think it was a great thing when the iPhone came out, and pushed the vision at consumer scale.
It's pretty bad; it seems Google is sunsetting the product. We just don't know if that means it'll turn off the servers that support it too, yet.
I was hoping this would be useful at some point for my daughter, who has low vision.
So I am hoping that augmented vision catches on, in more than just niche categories, so that the hardware can evolve more quickly.
It probably needs to be carefully separated from the recording capability, to work around the "creepy" factor.
So I am hoping that augmented vision catches on, in more than just niche categories, so that the hardware can evolve more quickly.
It probably needs to be carefully separated from the recording capability, to work around the "creepy" factor.
This is a speculation but I think Google is dropping Glass because they are convinced that Magic Leap will be the winner. We have to wait to see what comes out from Magic Leap.
"Instead it will focus on 'future versions of Glass' with work carried out by a different division to before."
Is that division made up of people from Magic Leap by any chance? http://gizmodo.com/how-magic-leap-is-secretly-creating-a-new...
The next step is to project 3D images directly into the eyeballs!
Is that division made up of people from Magic Leap by any chance? http://gizmodo.com/how-magic-leap-is-secretly-creating-a-new...
The next step is to project 3D images directly into the eyeballs!
not a big surprise, they've all but completely disappeared from sight around S. Another Segway, but I doubt Google were ever serious about Glass, it was a demonstration of Google as committed to being a futuristic hi tech company.
The problem with the product is that people like the compartmentalization of the smartphone, you take it out of your pocket to take a photo, nothing surreptitious. And to be honest, the smartphone just does a lot more. This is going to be the challenge that the Apple Watch will also face, it competes with the smartphone for your attention and has to add enough additional value to justify the product segment.
Meanwhile, it's no big deal, products come and go and some end up with much smaller target customer base, although I suspect Glass is (as Segway was) being considered for a few specific markets but over the coming year or two will just vanish only to be revisited in a decade but with holographic projection (a la R2D2) and streetview-like surround-camera and built in plethora of biometric sensors that all feed into the big post-Singularity GoolgleBrain to provide it's eyes, ears and voice...
The problem with the product is that people like the compartmentalization of the smartphone, you take it out of your pocket to take a photo, nothing surreptitious. And to be honest, the smartphone just does a lot more. This is going to be the challenge that the Apple Watch will also face, it competes with the smartphone for your attention and has to add enough additional value to justify the product segment.
Meanwhile, it's no big deal, products come and go and some end up with much smaller target customer base, although I suspect Glass is (as Segway was) being considered for a few specific markets but over the coming year or two will just vanish only to be revisited in a decade but with holographic projection (a la R2D2) and streetview-like surround-camera and built in plethora of biometric sensors that all feed into the big post-Singularity GoolgleBrain to provide it's eyes, ears and voice...
I bought one for dev purposes, and I was never really convinced about the design (even being a prototype). It looks nice, but it is unbalanced on a side, they could have put an extra battery on the other side, the official blog was just talking about Instagram-like uses (who is that had that horrible idea?) and the screen was not great.
[deleted]
augmented reality's first home run will be in the mundane industrial sector where it can be used for training, inventory management, logistics, and any number of other things.
i take this as a cautionary tale of product-market fit. as mark andreessen says, where a market exists and a competent but not visionary startup finds itself, the market will often "pull the product out of the startup."
that obviously didn't happen here. i think it is because glass was both narrative AND product. narrative meaning that glass was supposed to be a transformational product, meant to elevate google from a search company to a product company.
they weren't going to let the product find its market (my thesis: industrial). instead, pushed it to the market they wanted it pushed to (consumer), because it fit a narrative they _wanted_ to be true.
i take this as a cautionary tale of product-market fit. as mark andreessen says, where a market exists and a competent but not visionary startup finds itself, the market will often "pull the product out of the startup."
that obviously didn't happen here. i think it is because glass was both narrative AND product. narrative meaning that glass was supposed to be a transformational product, meant to elevate google from a search company to a product company.
they weren't going to let the product find its market (my thesis: industrial). instead, pushed it to the market they wanted it pushed to (consumer), because it fit a narrative they _wanted_ to be true.
[deleted]
Google's Lisa. Maybe I can recoup the cost 20 years down the road as a collectors item.
What's a narcissistic douchebag to do for attention, now?
https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/1015157966444465...
https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/1015157966444465...
"7. On that note, don't give one to Robert Scoble"
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/google-glass-2-0-eight-things-addre...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/google-glass-2-0-eight-things-addre...
From the glass-community forums they are not shutting down and will still support existing warranties etc..... My understanding is that there are some exciting things in store for the platform.
i would absolutely love to use my glass at my desk when working. would do wonders to clear away all the apps i'm running for notifications and constantly checking my phone to see if i got a text or missed call from a client while i was in a meeting or drafting an email.. the major prob is the product is heavily focused on google services. if they came out swinging with a mac notifications app and ios app - i would use it all day. but they didnt, it sits in my drawer as something i use for show and tell.
[deleted]
Wondering if Google had always expected this and Glass was a long-term strategic move or if this was unexpected and should be considered a blunder.
Weren't they building some insane barge in San Francisco and New York to be a consumer showcase for Glass? Guess that's sunk now.
Sometimes, technology is simply ahead of its time. Honestly, I don't see a fit for Google Glass in society right now. That will likely change in three or five years, but right now, I feel there needs to be some kind of evolution to where Google Glass is considered "normal." It has already started with wearables - smart watches, fitness bands, etc. But it needs to expand in a more logical way before Glass can be included in that list.
> Honestly, I don't see a fit for Google Glass in society right now.
There's a huge fit for Google glass. But there is no high volume huge fit. And Google doesn't care about low-volume as they can't move enough ads across it.
There's a huge fit for Google glass. But there is no high volume huge fit. And Google doesn't care about low-volume as they can't move enough ads across it.
I think the concept is ahead of its time, but definitely not the technology. The whole problem with Glass is the technology simply isn't there yet: it is way too big. If you could fit Glass into the size of regular pair of sunglasses, I think it would have a huge appeal. (Or in my dream sci-fi scenario, contact lenses). As it is right now, its obvious and cumbersome. The mere sight of it is intrusive and awkward to those around you. I want the HUD capabilities of Glass, but without the weird stares of those around.
The watches and bands are just piggybacking on the fact that those things are considered normal already. Having a more connected version of the same without drastically changing the form factor is a nothing. However, Bluetooth earpieces still aren't considered "normal". I have no idea what it will take something like Glass to reach that status. They will probably have to very closely match the size and shape of normal frames, if the watches are any indication.
Most things are tried a few times before the technology or society is really ready.
Take the Newton and the iPad, I can't think of a product category which hasn't been tried before and failed. When you have a screen on your glasses or contact lense I can't see how it can't succeed.
Take the Newton and the iPad, I can't think of a product category which hasn't been tried before and failed. When you have a screen on your glasses or contact lense I can't see how it can't succeed.
Glass should not have been pushed at the cellphone consumer-good fashion-accessory market until they had something swanky that actually looked tasteful on a set of glasses.
At the current price-point? Enterprise would be the only market that would pay $1000 in decent quantities for such a niche device. If they could get it down to $200? It could be great for the GoPro set.
At the current price-point? Enterprise would be the only market that would pay $1000 in decent quantities for such a niche device. If they could get it down to $200? It could be great for the GoPro set.
Based on what Google's implying with this Glass news, seems it wasn't happy with the product and wants to change course. Now that it's an actual product division and they're killing the current iteration, I'd expect we don't hear anything for a long while until there's something new.
I don't understand how moving it from (a highly public) R&D to a product division means that we'll be hearing less.
This was sort of a public beta, like GMail. A product division won't show it to anyone until it is done. Maybe even hide it in a fake casing like so many phones.
Google is scaling back its plans while it works on new designs and ways of presenting the product to avoid what happened with the Glass program.
Sales halted of something I could never buy even if I had the money.
Wow! Who could have anticipated this? Shocking.
Yeah, we were planning apps for it too... Sigh.
Disclaimer: I never tried glass. But the actual product screens I saw never seemed to come close to the slick marketing demo they showed with the parachuting guys.
The sad thing is, many of the problems which sank this incarnation of Glass would have been fixed by the community if only they'd released the source code.
But the biggest problem of all with Glass -- its affect on other people around the Glasshole wearing it -- had nothing to do with source code, of course.
Google should rename Google Glass to "Googly Eyes".
yay! no more glassholes. seriosly though, they should have given them away to every popular actor and musician out there and pay them to use at events and concerts.
Thank the lord.
Glass doesn't add any value to your life
let us rejoice ;)
[deleted](1)
"An update on Google Glass..."
So what will Scoble do when his pair breaks? How will he live?
I don't know what to say about Google glass, but the women at 3:57 of the BBC video is IDDG, intellectually drop dead gorgeous. Capturing her smile with $1500 glasses would be worth it.
One of the largest supermarkets in the UK have just released their own Google Glass app.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/wearables/1000284/google-glass-app-la...
Nice timing.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/wearables/1000284/google-glass-app-la...
Nice timing.
I remember when it first came out and developers in my area would kind of gloat over it and being one of the chosen "glass explorers". they would wear it to meetups and brag about the apps they were developing for it.
I'm kind of glad that it flopped in its current form and that those days are over.
I'm kind of glad that it flopped in its current form and that those days are over.
Not really unexpected, the writing was on the wall.
It's a shame though, Glass hate is coming from the old school, technophobe camp. While it _is_ a clunky, underdesigned, underpowered piece of tech, we should aim for sleeker, more powerful, more useful head-mounted computers… instead for no HMC at all.
It's a shame though, Glass hate is coming from the old school, technophobe camp. While it _is_ a clunky, underdesigned, underpowered piece of tech, we should aim for sleeker, more powerful, more useful head-mounted computers… instead for no HMC at all.
Right.
Because no intelligent, technically competent person has ever had a reasonable criticism to make about Glass, or the track record of the company making it, in regards to privacy and participation with NSA surveillance, or of the potential downsides to adding even more ubiquitous, fine-grained surveillance to the modern world.
I mean, Glass is no more ominous than cellphones. It's just a cellphone strapped to your face and pointed right at everyone you're looking at. No one would be creeped out if you held your cellphone out in front of you and recorded everything going on. It even has a little light that shows when you're recording, which is controlled by perfectly trustworthy software.
Bunch of Luddites, they all are.
Because no intelligent, technically competent person has ever had a reasonable criticism to make about Glass, or the track record of the company making it, in regards to privacy and participation with NSA surveillance, or of the potential downsides to adding even more ubiquitous, fine-grained surveillance to the modern world.
I mean, Glass is no more ominous than cellphones. It's just a cellphone strapped to your face and pointed right at everyone you're looking at. No one would be creeped out if you held your cellphone out in front of you and recorded everything going on. It even has a little light that shows when you're recording, which is controlled by perfectly trustworthy software.
Bunch of Luddites, they all are.
I'm not anywhere near technophobe but I definitely hate Google Glass. It has less to do with the technology than the type of person that gloms onto it and what it enables them to do. Examples: Talking loudly to oneself in a restaurant/bus, not watching where one is walking, elitist or showoff attitudes, lax attitude toward invasion of privacy, etc.
Do you remember when we used to say the same about people with cellphones?
I still think that people yammering away at their phones or bluetooth earpieces while in line to order a coffee (or, even worse, doing so while talking to the cashier) are rude and obnoxious. And that people sitting across a table from each other staring at their smartphones and texting are antisocial and a bit ridiculous.
Basic human decency and social norms haven't changed as much as you think. Walking around talking to a computer strapped to your face, staring at a little screen in the corner of your eye, is profoundly anti-social.
Basic human decency and social norms haven't changed as much as you think. Walking around talking to a computer strapped to your face, staring at a little screen in the corner of your eye, is profoundly anti-social.
>Talking loudly to oneself in a restaurant/bus, not watching where one is walking, elitist or showoff attitudes, lax attitude toward invasion of privacy, etc.
Are you implying that doing these things with a cellphone is now alright?
Are you implying that doing these things with a cellphone is now alright?
No they're saying that we use to (unfairly) attribute poor social behavior to ALL cell phone users. Then we all got cellphones, found out they're neat, no longer felt "left out" or "inferior" and realized hey it's not the cellphone that make people obnoxious it's obnoxious people that make people obnoxious.
We still do say the same about (some) people with cellphones.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/lakeysha-beard-kick...
But many, if not most people have learned how to respect people around them while owning and using a cellphone.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/lakeysha-beard-kick...
But many, if not most people have learned how to respect people around them while owning and using a cellphone.
I think your assessment of Glass detractors is way off.
AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work, ordering dinner at a restaurant, taking a walk around the block, or even most forms of labor (manual or otherwise). So not only did Google Glass not have much of a benefit, but it had the drawback of annoying countless people who had to be around the glasshole who never stopped yapping at their glasses.