5 ms·

This is one of the Google projects that I'm surprised still exist. The new technology here is integrating touch sensors into fabrics. You can see examples on th

This is one of the Google projects that I'm surprised still exist. The new technology here is integrating touch sensors into fabrics. You can see examples on the website of clothing and bags. The main problem is that it's just that - a touch sensor. You still need a separate device that will contain all the other pieces - processor, battery, IMU, connectivity, etc. Once you make that device and wear it - you might as well integrate the input mechanism into it, why bother with using the fabric? Better yet - integrate a screen into it as well, do you don't just have an odd, input only device, but you can actually see what you are interacting with. Oh wait - at that point you've just re-invented the smartwatch. Can someone enlighten me on what is a killer use case that is actually better served with the Jacquard technology?

pavel_lishin 6y ago
Eh, some of the use cases are kind of neat - being able to control certain things without taking that device (likely a phone) out of a pocket.
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  I already control my phone while in my pocket using my headphones. Others do it with their watch. Still others just shout at their phones. I don't think it's impossible that there's an even better solution hiding in this product, but it really does seem to address a solved problem, to my mind.
paxys 6y ago
> You still need a separate device that will contain all the other pieces - processor, battery, IMU, connectivity, etc That device already exists - your smartphone
- tomerico 6y ago
  If the clothes could somehow tap into your smartphone battery and processor that would have at least made the whole thing simpler to use. As it stands right now, you need to have a separate “tag” that you charge separately and connect to your phone wirelessly. At that point you might as well wear a smartwatch or similar.
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  Not a great solution, since people often aren't carrying cellular phones, but are almost always clothed. I think the point is that this can be used at almost any time, compared to a phone which someone will often be without?
  - ceres 6y ago
    >people often aren't carrying cellular phones In 1999 maybe; not in 2021
    - da_big_ghey 6y ago
      I almost never take mine with me places, unless I am expecting to take a call while out. I am aware I'm less common than I used to be in this regard, but I'm pretty sure a significant chunk of people still do this, though probably the majority by now carry them more often than not. In any case, people leave their cellular phones home more than often enough for a device that lives in clothing to provide substantially more availability.
      - paxys 6y ago
        People not carrying phones outside the house isn't just less common, it's an absolutely tiny edge case which no company is going to redesign their products around.
        TacticalCoder 6y ago
        I don't know if it's that tiny. Like GP (I don't know why he's downvoted) I do own a smartphone but I rarely take it with me when I leave the house. And when I do, it usually stays in the car. I know several people who, like me, are using their smartphones basically only for messaging apps and who just let their smartphone here or there at home and check them only once or twice a day (unless it rings which, arguably, is the device's most interesting use case). Life is really totally fine when lived without carrying a smartphone around all the time. It also gives my 6 years old an example of someone she can definitely relates to who doesn't use a smartphone all the time. I'm not a luddite: but between the 38" monitor at home and the car's navi system, I simply honestly don't have much need for a smartphone. Now I gotta say this: the demographic that owns a smartphone but doesn't feel the love to the point of living 24/7 with it is probably not the demographic that is going to fancy a tiny electronic device in their shoes and underwear ; )

pavel_lishin 6y ago

Eh, some of the use cases are kind of neat - being able to control certain things without taking that device (likely a phone) out of a pocket.

wyattpeak 6y ago
I already control my phone while in my pocket using my headphones. Others do it with their watch. Still others just shout at their phones. I don't think it's impossible that there's an even better solution hiding in this product, but it really does seem to address a solved problem, to my mind.

paxys 6y ago

> You still need a separate device that will contain all the other pieces - processor, battery, IMU, connectivity, etc That device already exists - your smartphone

tomerico 6y ago
If the clothes could somehow tap into your smartphone battery and processor that would have at least made the whole thing simpler to use. As it stands right now, you need to have a separate “tag” that you charge separately and connect to your phone wirelessly. At that point you might as well wear a smartwatch or similar.
da_big_ghey 6y ago
Not a great solution, since people often aren't carrying cellular phones, but are almost always clothed. I think the point is that this can be used at almost any time, compared to a phone which someone will often be without?
- ceres 6y ago
  >people often aren't carrying cellular phones In 1999 maybe; not in 2021
  - da_big_ghey 6y ago
    I almost never take mine with me places, unless I am expecting to take a call while out. I am aware I'm less common than I used to be in this regard, but I'm pretty sure a significant chunk of people still do this, though probably the majority by now carry them more often than not. In any case, people leave their cellular phones home more than often enough for a device that lives in clothing to provide substantially more availability.
    - paxys 6y ago
      People not carrying phones outside the house isn't just less common, it's an absolutely tiny edge case which no company is going to redesign their products around.
      - TacticalCoder 6y ago
        I don't know if it's that tiny. Like GP (I don't know why he's downvoted) I do own a smartphone but I rarely take it with me when I leave the house. And when I do, it usually stays in the car. I know several people who, like me, are using their smartphones basically only for messaging apps and who just let their smartphone here or there at home and check them only once or twice a day (unless it rings which, arguably, is the device's most interesting use case). Life is really totally fine when lived without carrying a smartphone around all the time. It also gives my 6 years old an example of someone she can definitely relates to who doesn't use a smartphone all the time. I'm not a luddite: but between the 38" monitor at home and the car's navi system, I simply honestly don't have much need for a smartphone. Now I gotta say this: the demographic that owns a smartphone but doesn't feel the love to the point of living 24/7 with it is probably not the demographic that is going to fancy a tiny electronic device in their shoes and underwear ; )