6 ms·

I'm sympathetic to the skepticism overdose, but ultimately this is a fallacious appeal to authority. GP makes good points. Even the Google/Verily glucose contac

I'm sympathetic to the skepticism overdose, but ultimately this is a fallacious appeal to authority. GP makes good points. Even the Google/Verily glucose contact lens didn't work out and this is an order of magnitude more complicated. Do we really believe that the deal breaker for Google Glass was just that it made you look like a dork? Because that is the only problem the contact lens seems to solve, and it introduces a whole host of new problems. I'm not sure I feel great about putting a battery straight into my eyeball after seeing what they can do to cars and laptops when they fail.

bergenty 4y ago
In my opinion, the contact lenses solve a whole lot of issues. Invisible to people around you, literally captures the entirety of your retina, no motion sickness, higher fidelity and did I mention completely invisible to everyone around you making uptake on this seamless.
- nwiswell 4y ago
  > Invisible to people around you Not based on the PR photo. It would be very obvious to anyone who makes eye contact with you.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  Ok, let's diligence this, so our skepticism isn't unfounded: >Invisible to people around you. Except for the not-built body-wearable computer that will eventually run the things [0] > literally captures the entirety of your retina This prototype covers <20% of your field of vision [1] >no motion sickness, higher fidelity I think you're comparing this to headsets, but I can tell you from [1] that this is not 'high-fidelity' by any means (for one, it's monochrome and each pixel is binary on or off) Another problem to think about: A sunny day is c. 30k nits. From the looks of the photo, this display is maybe 100 nits. IT will be nearly impossible to see the display outdoors. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVAMRe3kmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVAMRe3kmA - [1] https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/30/mojo-vision-reveals-the-worlds-smallest-and-densest-micro-display/ https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/30/mojo-vision-reveals-the-w...
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    > IT will be nearly impossible to see the display outdoors. There’s probably something to be said for having 100 nits right on your eyeball.
    - ungamedplayer 4y ago
      THE GOGGLES, THEY DO NOTHING ?!
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      Why does the location matter? If its 10k on your eyeball or 10k from across the room there is the same amount of light entering your eye.
      - 0n34n7 4y ago
        Unless the one across the room is a laser, it does matter.
        charcircuit 4y ago
        Are you saying that shining a laser from across the room is safer than from right in front of your eye?
        mh- 4y ago
        I mean, yes. Depending on the lens, the laser will disperse its energy over a larger surface area. Perhaps not materially so given the small relative difference.
        IanCal 4y ago
        Nits aren't a measure of total light though. A 100 nits huge screen at a distance that covers 20% of my field of vision would be the same as a 100 nits tiny screen close to my eye that covers 20% of my field of vision. Or to put it another way, things don't look dimmer just because they're further away. It's less total light because it covers less of my field of vision.
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  You know what contacts don’t solve? Shoving your finger into your eye, cleanliness and fatigue. I stuck with glasses precisely because I didn’t want to deal with keeping contacts clean, shoving things in my eyes everyday, and retaining the ability to just pop them off and ignore the world.
  - lallysingh 4y ago
    You can stick with glasses then. Liking contacts is a very reasonable prerequisite. I've had no trouble with my contacts for the last 20 years.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
      I shouldn’t have been snarky. You are free to like contacts. But there are billions of people who wear glasses. We wear them for pretty much everything. We don’t care that we have glasses. But contacts make the technology “invisible” for “seamless uptake”? Miniaturising things to contacts just sounds like they made everything at least an order of magnitude harder to achieve. Meanwhile they could have generated revenue from the glasses wearing population.
      - lallysingh 4y ago
        There are other glasses-based systems in development and for sale. Vusix, Google Glass, Meta's stuff, etc.
pmontra 4y ago
If I remember well the backslash about Google Glass was the camera. People didn't want Glasses inside their shops or generally around them. A camera inside a phone that one has to explicitly point and shoot was and is OK. A kind of hidden camera was not. Contact lenses solve a number of problems especially against headsets. They create others with the interference with vision correction devices but at least one could wear prescription glasses or sunglasses. BTW, I wore contact lenses for about 20 years, then suddenly couldn't wear them anymore and went back to glasses.

bergenty 4y ago

In my opinion, the contact lenses solve a whole lot of issues. Invisible to people around you, literally captures the entirety of your retina, no motion sickness, higher fidelity and did I mention completely invisible to everyone around you making uptake on this seamless.

nwiswell 4y ago
> Invisible to people around you Not based on the PR photo. It would be very obvious to anyone who makes eye contact with you.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
RC_ITR 4y ago
Ok, let's diligence this, so our skepticism isn't unfounded: >Invisible to people around you. Except for the not-built body-wearable computer that will eventually run the things [0] > literally captures the entirety of your retina This prototype covers <20% of your field of vision [1] >no motion sickness, higher fidelity I think you're comparing this to headsets, but I can tell you from [1] that this is not 'high-fidelity' by any means (for one, it's monochrome and each pixel is binary on or off) Another problem to think about: A sunny day is c. 30k nits. From the looks of the photo, this display is maybe 100 nits. IT will be nearly impossible to see the display outdoors. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVAMRe3kmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVAMRe3kmA - [1] https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/30/mojo-vision-reveals-the-worlds-smallest-and-densest-micro-display/ https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/30/mojo-vision-reveals-the-w...
- Aeolun 4y ago
  > IT will be nearly impossible to see the display outdoors. There’s probably something to be said for having 100 nits right on your eyeball.
  - ungamedplayer 4y ago
    THE GOGGLES, THEY DO NOTHING ?!
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Why does the location matter? If its 10k on your eyeball or 10k from across the room there is the same amount of light entering your eye.
    - 0n34n7 4y ago
      Unless the one across the room is a laser, it does matter.
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        Are you saying that shining a laser from across the room is safer than from right in front of your eye?
        mh- 4y ago
        I mean, yes. Depending on the lens, the laser will disperse its energy over a larger surface area. Perhaps not materially so given the small relative difference.
      - IanCal 4y ago
        Nits aren't a measure of total light though. A 100 nits huge screen at a distance that covers 20% of my field of vision would be the same as a 100 nits tiny screen close to my eye that covers 20% of my field of vision. Or to put it another way, things don't look dimmer just because they're further away. It's less total light because it covers less of my field of vision.
2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
You know what contacts don’t solve? Shoving your finger into your eye, cleanliness and fatigue. I stuck with glasses precisely because I didn’t want to deal with keeping contacts clean, shoving things in my eyes everyday, and retaining the ability to just pop them off and ignore the world.
- lallysingh 4y ago
  You can stick with glasses then. Liking contacts is a very reasonable prerequisite. I've had no trouble with my contacts for the last 20 years.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    I shouldn’t have been snarky. You are free to like contacts. But there are billions of people who wear glasses. We wear them for pretty much everything. We don’t care that we have glasses. But contacts make the technology “invisible” for “seamless uptake”? Miniaturising things to contacts just sounds like they made everything at least an order of magnitude harder to achieve. Meanwhile they could have generated revenue from the glasses wearing population.
    - lallysingh 4y ago
      There are other glasses-based systems in development and for sale. Vusix, Google Glass, Meta's stuff, etc.

pmontra 4y ago

If I remember well the backslash about Google Glass was the camera. People didn't want Glasses inside their shops or generally around them. A camera inside a phone that one has to explicitly point and shoot was and is OK. A kind of hidden camera was not. Contact lenses solve a number of problems especially against headsets. They create others with the interference with vision correction devices but at least one could wear prescription glasses or sunglasses. BTW, I wore contact lenses for about 20 years, then suddenly couldn't wear them anymore and went back to glasses.