Details of Google's Project Glass Revealed In FCC Report 76
Flozzin writes with news that documents published to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's website have provided new details about Project Glass, Google's augmented-reality headset.
"A test report describes video playing on the device alongside audio running to a 'vibrating element.' The description tallies with a patent filing suggesting it plays sound via 'bone-conduction' tech rather than earbuds. Developers are due to receive a test edition of the headset later this year. ... [The FCC's papers] describe data being sent to the small screen display via wi-fi and Bluetooth using a radio unit manufactured by Broadcom. The equipment is also said to be able to store video files internally and can be recharged by plugging a power connector into the computing unit on the right-hand arm of the glasses' frame. However, the most arresting detail is the suggestion that audio is provided without the user needing to wear headphones which might disturb how they hear ambient sounds. Last week Google filed a patent application entitled Wearable Computing Device with Indirect Bone-Conduction Speaker."
Re: (Score:2)
Google: Shut up and take my money!
Need for padded poles. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't even want to think about how many idiots will drive while using such devices.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude. Sure, it overlays in your field of vision, so it's not like looking down at a phone, but we're just not meant to multitask with our senses the way this kind of device demands. I don't even want to think about how many idiots will drive while using such devices.
... and BOOKS, don't even get me started on those. I mean, people used to have to KNOW things, and now they can just look them up? And they're in ENGLISH? Seriously. It loses so much meaning when it's not in the traditional latin.
Re:Need for padded poles. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
If it is really a stupid choice, evolution will do the rest. No need for name calling, ape.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is really a stupid choice, evolution will do the rest. No need for name calling, ape.
I've never driven a car with such a device on so I don't have an opinion on whether or not it's safe.
But when people do unsafe things while driving, people that are being safe are often on the receiving end of that stupidity. So maybe let's not get fast and loose with the 'evolution will do the rest' line.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says its a stupid choice? Do you have a shred of evidence to say it might not enhance safety?
Re: (Score:3)
They say using a mobile phone while driving causes accidents, and nobody disagreed so they banned it in many places. Yet when they did so, even though people used their mobiles less while driving, accidents didn't go down.
Just because you *think* it is a stupid choice, doesn't necessarily make it so. Without actually putting the method of interaction into field use, you don't know how exactly it will effect users, or how they'll adopt it. For the longest time people believed that the UI seen in minority rep
Re: (Score:2)
For the longest time people believed that the UI seen in minority report would be an awesome thing to have, only now that touch devices are widespread, we're seeing just how bad touchscreens are ergonomically and how little demand there is for large touchscreen displays.
We have known UI's like that suck since the 80's.
http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/gorilla-arm.html [catb.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt that. People don't _need_ directions very often. Quick: do you remember how to drive to work every day? Do you even look at the signs while driving to work? Do you regularly make a left turn when it should be a right turn, and arrive at work 30 minutes late because of it? No? Then you don't need directions.
What you _will_ need from the HUD regularly is entertainment. Because let's face it, driving to an
Re: (Score:3)
I highly doubt that. People don't _need_ directions very often.
I live in a very large, sprawling (17,000 sq. mi according to Wikipedia.), city. I know less than 20% well enough to know exactly where I am going without looking it up. We like to go new places, and eat at new restaurants, so I generally have my phone's GPS sitting around when we go places. Even when I know roughly where something is, by cross streets, I often use GPS for the exact location. So, around twice a week, we do use GPS. A couple of times a year, we also travel, and we use GPS almost 100% of
Re: (Score:2)
You won't have to look at a HUD, it will just read out messages or speak directions for you.
Re:Need for padded poles. (Score:4, Insightful)
You forgot about Google's self-driving car.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't want a car that's going to take a close to optimal route just so it can drive me by a few more advertisements.
That's a ludicrous interpretation of Google's approach to business. The ads will be displayed in the car or else on its windows. Whether you see them won't depend on what route is taken - where would be the sense in that?
Re: (Score:2)
people with better genes for multitasking will survive, natural selection at work
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
These glasses never block your vision or require you to take your eyes off the road, so at least you will see things you are approaching. They also have a camera embedded so they could probably be programmed to know when you are driving, and limit the display of data to just navigation info.
Re: (Score:2)
"In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude."
Think of it as evolution in action.
It will weed out the non-multitask people in a few dozen generations.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Love It! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They're had these types of devices for over a decade. I bought an EyeTop over 5 years ago. Most people can't handle it. The displays give them migraines. You also start turning your head in the direction of the display as you're subconsciously trying to get both eyes looking at it. For some people that means they start turning towards the direction their head is pointed as well. I've seen more than one person walk into walls and stumble over chairs while focused on the display.
I don't see anything abo
Re: (Score:1)
Or maybe wait until the damn thing actually comes out before judging how good it is or not. This is nowhere near the final form so you just make yourself look like a jackass dissing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wearable display meets actual practicality? Assuming they can pull it off, get to disturbing, Google!
Re: (Score:3)
Being Built into a wearable display device makes it a whole separate idea than simply a poor quality headphone.
Remember that patents don't mean that ANY prior use of a technology makes any other use obvious, and thus non-patentable.
All you need to do is combine them in a new non-obvious way in an application not seen before.
Bone conduction isn't necessary for these glasses to do their job. They could use standard ear buds.
It just makes it easier to put them on and take them off.
You might find prior art, bu
Not augmented reality (Score:1)
Google Glass is no more augmenting reality than a TV set is.
If it were rendering also the view behind it so there was no loss of vision, then it would be augmented reality. As it is it's the same as if you strapped your cell phone on an arm attached to your head a foot out or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Glass is no more augmenting reality than a TV set is.
If it were rendering also the view behind it so there was no loss of vision, then it would be augmented reality. As it is it's the same as if you strapped your cell phone on an arm attached to your head a foot out or so.
But that is exactly what it does.
Its a HUD, projecting a mostly transparent overlay [dailymail.co.uk] on what you see behind it. Further, it only covers one eye. So it could show navigation arrows without occluding your vision of the road.
Meets my definition of augmented reality.
Re: (Score:2)
It may however, cause issues with the reality distortion field.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Look, let me paint a use case for you:
Google adapts the code used by google maps cars to be used by your glasses (Just as they've already done for android phones). It gives you simple instructions on how to move and rotate and while you have the camera on, Google glass creates a 3D image based map of your location. Now, all of this is overlapped with the position of you on the planet, the direction you are looking and the tilt of your head. Only, every person who has google glass has the capability to do th
Re: (Score:2)
Google Glass is no more augmenting reality than a TV set is.
You're saying "The Goggles Do Nothing!" [youtube.com]?
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Where do I sign up for the Beta test? (Score:1)
I use a hearing aid, and it massively irritates the one working ear I have. But a non-surgical bone conduction hearing aid? One that might give me some semblance of binaural hearing without turning my ear canal into a mass of pain?
Where do I sign up and what percentage of my soul do they want?
Prescription glasses (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are images of Sergey Brin [aninews.in] wearing them outdoors while attached to sunglasses. Looking at the design I don't think you'd wear them over prescription glasses, but rather would get prescription lenses for the existing frame.
Re: (Score:3)
A bit more searching brings up this article [techtwitt.com] which has an image of them incorporated into more 'normal' looking glasses. So it might be possible to use them in conjunction with your regular eyewear.
Privacy? (Score:4)
So, assuming these things get popular, anyone sort of concerned that now everyone has a camera recording their every move 24/7? Or worse yet, it's going to be indexed an searched and tracked by Google?
Sure, crime will go down - after all, would anyone want to rob anyone where a yell would bring dozens of cameras recording someone get mugged/raped/etc on the street? Or have dozens of cameras recording every face, so you can tell when that sex offender may be breaking their conditions (in other words, a boon for law enforcement when they have dozens of cameras and angles that can pinpoint anyone at any location).
Then there's the somewhat more ... private side, given there'll be dozens of cameras watching you coming out of that ... adult entertainment establishment.
I'm not quite sure society is ready yet for a technology that really puts everyone in the spotlight - where there's a camera on you every moment you step outside your house. Compile the results of dozens of cameras and people would have a pretty good track of your movements even if you only appear for a few frames in every glasses. Between law enforcement, Google ad tracking, insurance companies, they'd be really interested in your whereabouts, your activities, and even what you eat and do...
You can always wear a mask (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Signal to noise will likely be too high. In the words of one of modern day's great philosophers, "Aint nobody got time for that".
Is you insurance agency going to have the time and money (and access) to examine petabytes of data from so many sources, just to put a few more cents onto your premium?
These cameras may be the worst possible thing for insurance agencies. When everyone has one, there's a good likelihood that people will stop buying full comp insurance, and just settle for 3rd party (mandatory) in t
I want to be an early adoptar (Score:1)
Boner conduction (Score:2)