Google Glass

[+and-then]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/25/tech/innovation/google-glass-privacy-andrew-keen/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

I think we are crossing a line with this one. I'm all against it and I hope people see it for what it is - the rape of our last shreds of privacy.

[ExpandMyMind]

While I think that there are obvious privacy issues with Google glass, the article is sensationalist tripe. Everyone already carries a camera with them, in the form of a mobile phone. And I highly doubt that the 'takes a picture every five seconds and uploads to Google' mode will be compulsory, if it is even true. In my opinion this has to be nonsense, because that would mean Google would be downloading pictures of people, every 5 seconds, within their own homes? Places of business? Changing rooms at the gym? Don't think so.

Google glass, while possibly a form of technology (being developed by others, too, it should be added) that might be appearing a bit too soon (like many forms of technology), is the future of internet, computer games, and our general way of lives. Ubiquitous, embedded, smart computing is our future. The privacy issues are important and need addressing, but garbage, scare articles like this one from CNN do more harm than good.

Edited February 26, 2013 by ExpandMyMind

[Keel M.]

Privacy issues aside, I think this is one of the dumbest ideas Google has ever come up with. Of course optical manufacturers will get behind Google's idea because it would mean more revenue for them as not everyone has to wear glasses.

[ExpandMyMind]

Privacy issues aside, I think this is one of the dumbest ideas Google has ever come up with. Of course optical manufacturers will get behind Google's idea because it would mean more revenue for them as not everyone has to wear glasses.

A lot of technology that we use today has also been thought of as 'dumb'. Most people, when the internet became more accessible in the 90s, thought it was silly or stupid. Now most of them have Facebook pages and couldn't imagine life without it. Online shopping was also thought to be useless (during the Dot-com boom a massive online shopping company went bust. If only it had come 5-10 years later), but now Amazon is a God to consumers. MP3s were thought of as useless as well, before Napster then iPods. Computers themselves were thought to be relatively useless for businesses, before the 60s, and for homes, before the 80s. Analogue control sticks were thought of as unnecessary, before being implemented into games consoles across the board. Mobile phones were thought of as a novelty and something that wouldn't catch on, now a large amount of people's lives revolve around the technology. Digital TV was thought to be a waste of time and money, now I hate watching lower quality films and programmes. Even microwaves weren't accepted at their birth, yet how many people would like to see theirs disappear from the kitchen?

It is primarily down to human nature, and fear of the unknown. We fear what we cannot understand, which leads to the slow, at first, implementation of many technologies. Glass-type hardware is the future of mobile computing, and just because someone cannot see that right now, does not mean this prediction will not become a reality.

And just to add: this will not mean more revenue for optical manufacturers, as far as I'm aware. It will not involve everyone going to Specsavers for glasses. The glasses will come non-prescription, at first, but if you then want them to be used in unison with your prescription glasses, they will need to be carefully constructed together with the prescription glass. This combination is actually one of the technological bumps in the road that Google and other manufacturers and designers are trying to smooth out (it has something to do with the shape of the glass needing to be specific to display the screen to your eye/s properly).

Edited February 26, 2013 by ExpandMyMind

[Rlyeh]

They need to make xray glasses already

[Keel M.]

And just to add: this will not mean more revenue for optical manufacturers, as far as I'm aware. It will not involve everyone going to Specsavers for glasses. The glasses will come non-prescription, at first, but if you then want them to be used in unison with your prescription glasses, they will need to be carefully constructed together with the prescription glass. This combination is actually one of the technological bumps in the road that Google and other manufacturers and designers are trying to smooth out (it has something to do with the shape of the glass needing to be specific to display the screen to your eye/s properly).

And who, pray tell, will manufacture these non-prescription glasses????? Last time I looked the same companies who make the glasses for those who have prescriptions are the same ones who will make them and put just a piece of non-prescriptive piece of plastic in the frame.

[ExpandMyMind]

And who, pray tell, will manufacture these non-prescription glasses????? Last time I looked the same companies who make the glasses for those who have prescriptions are the same ones who will make them and put just a piece of non-prescriptive piece of plastic in the frame.

The company who creates the product (in this case, Google) will be the one manufacturing the glasses, or outsourcing it to any manufacturing company. They're not 'glasses' in the traditional sense.

Here is a nice article to read:

What’s next for Google Glass? Replacing your glasses altogether

The excitement surrounding Google Glass is unlike any product since the iPad, especially when you consider that it’s most likely we’re still nearly a year away from a commercial release. The hardware is an incredible concept made real, but Google has taken every opportunity to remind everyone that Glass as we see it now is far from its final form. A recent patent application gives us a peek into what that might look like, and if the designs are any indicator of the future you’ll likely be replacing your glasses with generation two.

The biggest complaint about Glass as it exists right now is probably the least useful, as the criticism contributes very little to the actual product. Many potential future users are concerned about how the slight plastic bulge on the one side of your head would look, especially with the metallic band across the head. There’s been a few mentions of a design adjustment that allows the wearable computer to be somehow clipped onto regular glasses, but the details regarding this have been sparse. So far all of the Googlers seen wearing Glass in public have been wearing them in the “stock” configuration, though several have made mention to Glass needing to be fitted to their head. The design for this first generation of Glass supports a quick glance at available data, but there’s still plenty of reasons to take it off when you’re not using it. Google clearly wants to offer no reasons for you to remove Glass, which is why it is likely that generation two will be all about replacing your glasses altogether.

Replacing your glasses isn’t nearly as easy as it sounds. You can’t just inject Glass into a pair of prescription lenses and send someone on their way. The way the information Google presents is displayed on the screen, even in direct sunlight, relies on the projected image being caught by your eye at just the right angle. Glass isn’t projected straight into your eye for a variety of reasons, and the headband included with the current iteration is there to make sure you are able to see the display even while jogging.

http://www.geek.com/...ether-20130225/

Edited February 26, 2013 by ExpandMyMind

[Render]

It is primarily down to human nature, and fear of the unknown. We fear what we cannot understand, which leads to the slow, at first, implementation of many technologies. Glass-type hardware is the future of mobile computing, and just because someone cannot see that right now, does not mean this prediction will not become a reality.

ExpandMyMind 4 president