6 ms·

This makes the lack of consumer HUDs/AR glasses even more perplexing. The technology is here, so why are companies toying around with smartwatches (a very limi

This makes the lack of consumer HUDs/AR glasses even more perplexing. The technology is here, so why are companies toying around with smartwatches (a very limited concept, imo, might as well strap a small smartphone on your wrist :-)) instead of making these a reality for everyone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass http://www.lumus-optical.com/ http://www.lumus-optical.com/

digi_owl 11y ago
I'm speculating that video/AR glasses already had a problem because of how they distort facial shapes. And then Google Glass ran into the whole issue with the perception of permanent surveillance. Never mind that the position and such of the display on Google Glass was not the most useful for real AR applications. Frankly i think our real problem is not output, but input. Outside of going lotus with a laptop, inputing anything but the smallest of data amounts is a right pain on the go.
jdhawk 11y ago
Well, there is Navdy - which looks like a really interesting product. I hope it brings a plethora of like devices.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
It's not perplexing. People don't want it. They thought Glass was ... nerdy and creepy.
- brador 11y ago
  Because it was shitty low res with few viable use cases. Make it high res, full view AR, nice robust design and actually useful and it will blow up.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    It would only be a niche.
    - realusername 11y ago
      I think it depends of the kind of service you provide to the customer, if there is no real obvious advantage to use-it, mainstream adoption will never be there. Currently, the technology is not good enough and the services are not either, the current glasses are more prototypes than anything else. But it does not mean that in the future it will still be the case.
    - prodmerc 11y ago
      I don't know, the HoloLens looks like the future...
- aianus 11y ago
  Says who? They never even let people buy it. I would have bought one just for shits and giggles.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    Said anyone who saw one IRL. Said patrons in restaurants. Ok, so _you_ would have bought one. The vast majority? No.
- greggman 11y ago
  People didn't want Newtons either and PDAs were considered nerdy. Now you're a outlier if you don't have one. People will want it when it's presented correctly with the right UX and it has the right set of features.
  - johnchristopher 11y ago
    It remains to be seen if the `glasses' failure was just the wrong UX and the wrong set of features. Not saying it wasn't but sometimes some products will never make it because they are inherently flawed (on the top of my mind: 3D movies).
  - greggman 11y ago
    WTF was this downvoted? What did I say that pissed people off so much they felt this was worth of a downvote? First off 7 French natives have told me the minimum is 2 months. 3 work at Nintendo of France. 1 works at a Nuclear Power Plant. 3 are currently working in Japan, 2 in Kyoto, 1 in Tokyo. They might have been wrong but that's what they believe. Second it doesn't matter if it's 40 days off a year or 25. That's still INFINITELY MORE THAN THE USA which is ZERO and still entirely makes the point that lots more vacation than is typical in the USA is at least something to be considered.
tim333 11y ago
I tried out IBMs around 1997 and it worked quite well. I guess people don't want them? Here's a 2000 video of the roughly the thing I tried https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuk5ED5szSA&feature=youtu.be&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuk5ED5szSA&feature=youtu.be... (my one didn't have the speech recognition but had a mouse type device like this http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/article/980911/ibm_7.jpg http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/article/980911/ibm_7.jpg) In some ways it was better than Glass in that it was a full Windows PC. It didn't have internet connectivity though. I'd quite like something like that today. A proper os, high res display that can show stuff in laptop layout, not darn mobile layout, and 4G connectivity. Possibly without a camera to freak out the people you interact with.
- prodmerc 11y ago
  Wow, 1997... what the hell happened :-)

digi_owl 11y ago

I'm speculating that video/AR glasses already had a problem because of how they distort facial shapes. And then Google Glass ran into the whole issue with the perception of permanent surveillance. Never mind that the position and such of the display on Google Glass was not the most useful for real AR applications. Frankly i think our real problem is not output, but input. Outside of going lotus with a laptop, inputing anything but the smallest of data amounts is a right pain on the go.

jdhawk 11y ago

Well, there is Navdy - which looks like a really interesting product. I hope it brings a plethora of like devices.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

It's not perplexing. People don't want it. They thought Glass was ... nerdy and creepy.

brador 11y ago
Because it was shitty low res with few viable use cases. Make it high res, full view AR, nice robust design and actually useful and it will blow up.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  It would only be a niche.
  - realusername 11y ago
    I think it depends of the kind of service you provide to the customer, if there is no real obvious advantage to use-it, mainstream adoption will never be there. Currently, the technology is not good enough and the services are not either, the current glasses are more prototypes than anything else. But it does not mean that in the future it will still be the case.
  - prodmerc 11y ago
    I don't know, the HoloLens looks like the future...
aianus 11y ago
Says who? They never even let people buy it. I would have bought one just for shits and giggles.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Said anyone who saw one IRL. Said patrons in restaurants. Ok, so _you_ would have bought one. The vast majority? No.
greggman 11y ago
People didn't want Newtons either and PDAs were considered nerdy. Now you're a outlier if you don't have one. People will want it when it's presented correctly with the right UX and it has the right set of features.
- johnchristopher 11y ago
  It remains to be seen if the `glasses' failure was just the wrong UX and the wrong set of features. Not saying it wasn't but sometimes some products will never make it because they are inherently flawed (on the top of my mind: 3D movies).
- greggman 11y ago
  WTF was this downvoted? What did I say that pissed people off so much they felt this was worth of a downvote? First off 7 French natives have told me the minimum is 2 months. 3 work at Nintendo of France. 1 works at a Nuclear Power Plant. 3 are currently working in Japan, 2 in Kyoto, 1 in Tokyo. They might have been wrong but that's what they believe. Second it doesn't matter if it's 40 days off a year or 25. That's still INFINITELY MORE THAN THE USA which is ZERO and still entirely makes the point that lots more vacation than is typical in the USA is at least something to be considered.

tim333 11y ago

I tried out IBMs around 1997 and it worked quite well. I guess people don't want them? Here's a 2000 video of the roughly the thing I tried https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuk5ED5szSA&feature=youtu.be&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuk5ED5szSA&feature=youtu.be... (my one didn't have the speech recognition but had a mouse type device like this http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/article/980911/ibm_7.jpg http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/article/980911/ibm_7.jpg) In some ways it was better than Glass in that it was a full Windows PC. It didn't have internet connectivity though. I'd quite like something like that today. A proper os, high res display that can show stuff in laptop layout, not darn mobile layout, and 4G connectivity. Possibly without a camera to freak out the people you interact with.

prodmerc 11y ago
Wow, 1997... what the hell happened :-)