8 ms·

Bad News: Google Is Doing The Corporate Future-Vision Video Thing

148 points by Robelius 15y ago

bobthedino 15y ago
I feel Nokia's video, in the article, is much better than Google's, mainly because the hero protagonist doesn't speak.
- ralfd 15y ago
  Well … our heroine does not only not speak, she does really nothing. She wakes up only to crawl out of the bed and lie down on the couch. And then she relaxes in the garden. While she is stalked by a guy. And only replying with smilies! (I guess she is just not that into him. Or Nokia didn't foresee in 2009 stuff like Siri.)
- coopdog 15y ago
  Wow, really? I thought the Nokia video was creepy as hell (and the Google one was quite well done)
cromwellian 15y ago
Except like the Google Car and unlike the Microsoft future video with transparency, flexible, credit card computer displays, and unlike Apple's Knowledge Navigator, Google has functioning devices. Self-drivable cars hade been around for years. What's different about the Google Prius versions is that they look almost practical, if you squint just a little bit, just minimized the sensors a little bit more it could even fit within a car's stylish exterior. In contrast, some of the past versions were very slow driving and had a truck's worth of equipment in them. I really think this is a false comparison (to other corporate future videos). Google may release a product that fails to gain adoption, but they will release something. BTW, go search youtube for AT&T's "You Will" campaign with Tom Selleck. They got a lot of stuff right.
- jedc 15y ago
  Apple can test new phones and new phone prototypes pretty easily. Hardware can be hidden in new cases, software can just not be shown to other people. Google tested self-driving cars for quite a while; it was only when the NYTimes was about to write a story about it anyway that they publicly released information. I would assume these glasses are going to be pretty difficult to hide from the general public when the team is out testing them. If I were them I'd rather release information they want to the public instead of a random blogger getting a photo and kicking up a firestorm of interest.
  - martinkallstrom 15y ago
    Yeah you never want a firestorm of interest around new products.
    - jedc 15y ago
      But it doesn't look like it's a new product at all; it's just a prototype they want to test in public.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
    - abrahamsen 15y ago
      I think they are just trying to influence the spin right now. Try to give the less imaginative (or too imaginative) journalists something to write. The "firestorm of interest" can wait until they actually have a product.
  - obtino 15y ago
    > If I were them I'd rather release information they want to the public instead of a random blogger getting a photo and kicking up a firestorm of interest. There were rumours of these glasses in the NYT last December: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/wearing-your-computer-on-your-sleeve/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/wearing-your-comput... They did their best to conceal it then. It's not in Google's DNA to hide disruptive products for a long period of time.
forkrulassail 15y ago
Odd that this received a 'bad news' in the title. The Glass video got me excited about not needing to carry around GPS, a phone and other unnecessary gadgets, wearing only the glasses I already require. Also, the writer doesn't know what is currently happening inside Google X.
- ht_th 15y ago
  But all the things shown in the video already are available in a top-of-the-line smartphone. The only difference is that you don't need to pull it out of your pocket. That's just a small improvement if you're into that kind of thing. What I did miss was actually augmenting reality enabling me to do new things, to perceive the world around me in ways I cannot do now. For example, given my preference in clothing and my body measurements, when shopping in the city I would like to "block out" somehow all those shops than probably don't have anything for me. Or while cycling, I would like to seen an indication how fast to drive the next section to not have to stop for the next traffic light. I often have to stop for a red light to immediately start up again because the light turns green. I hate that. Or when I am working in my garden I would like to see some helping lines and measures to dig straight lines, or to cut my trees at the best spots for it to grow out nicely next summer. Or to be able to sow seeds at the optimal distances from each other. And so on. What kind of augmented reality do you want?
  - lucian1900 15y ago
    Actually, it would be a major improvement not to have to look down at your phone, if only for the health benefits to your neck and eyes (moving target). It would also be much more practical. I would love to have my existing glasses enhanced with a screen powered by my phone.
  - eric-hu 15y ago
    But all the things available in a top-of-the-line smartphone were already available in a laptop. The only difference is that you don't need to pull it out of your backpack. It's just a small improvement if you're into that kind of thing. I could go on, but my point here is that improvements are incremental. Having a desktop has been more convenient than a terminal remoting into a mainframe. A laptop is that much more convenient over a desktop, and likewise with a smartphone.
staunch 15y ago
If Apple started releasing videos like this it might be revealing. For Google it just seems like the kind of out-of-character "mistake" they frequently make due to their less strict and more decentralized nature.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  If you do something frequently doesn't that make it part of your character?
  - ollerac 15y ago
    I think he's arguing that Google has less of an established character because they've put less effort into establishing one than Apple -- they're more a bunch of teams working for the same company than one company. I agree with this point, but I think Google is moving away from this, which I think will be healthy in the short term and unhealthy in the longterm. Focused companies need focused leaders. I think Larry Page is filling the Steve Jobs role nicely right now, but if he falters the whole company will falter with him.
    - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
      Maybe it's just me but I think that Google has a pretty established culture - tech led, try lots of stuff, beta early, don't be afraid to kill projects that aren't working. Page has certainly done a good job focusing the company more but I think it's premature to suggest he's in the Steve Jobs mould. He's been in position for 12 months, Google simply isn't as built in his image as Apple was in Jobs. I'm not talking about quality of thinking, leadership, intelligence or anything like that, just the sheer extent to which Jobs had asserted his will over Apple and it's culture.
chj 15y ago
usually this sort of things aren't going anywhere than the labs.
krollew 15y ago
Why bad news? Realy nice video. I dont't need that to enjoy any moment of my life, but may help another people to do so. Why not?
Steko 15y ago
The other side of this argument is that what Google is doing here is closer to what MS did with Kinect -- get visibly attached to a groundbreaking original new product it has confidence it will bring to market. The Project Natal concept/intro video similarly overpromised when you look at the first wave of Kinect but the product itself is still crazy revolutionary and the intro did build the hype and attached the tech unmistakably to MS.
- ralfd 15y ago
  This is actually a good point. Hm. The concept video was released a year and a half before release. Microsoft obviously had to announce it, so third party devs could support it. But if you watch the video so much stuff is bullshit! ^^ Also it gave the competition a chance to react to it (Playstation Move? I don't own either and don't know which wave-your-hand-stuff is working better or has better games.) Natal Project: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAFbWE_5GvA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAFbWE_5GvA Comparison by CNet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJkPN2smB8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJkPN2smB8 It certainly built hype (but also derision. I remember many wouldn't take it serious and as hyperbole). I think Kinect would have been successful in a more truthful presentation. Like if Microsoft had done an Apple-like reveal and only shown the real product two months before release.
abrimo 15y ago
This reminds me of the article gruber wrote late last year about the types of companies that make future concept videos. http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/companies_that_publish_concept_videos http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/companies_that_publish_con...
- adabsurdo 15y ago
  At this point, what is the difference between John Gruber and an Apple P.R. flack? He derives all his income from writing stuff glorifying Apple and bashing its competitors.
zv 15y ago
Imagine "Enlarge your member" and "Buy viagra now" popups on these devices :)
- zogwall 15y ago
  Doesn't happen on my Android.
- joezydeco 15y ago
  This is kind of a funny rework of the Google video along those lines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3TAOYXT840 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3TAOYXT840
  - drKarl 15y ago
    I think it would be something more like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mRF0rBXIeg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mRF0rBXIeg
skimmas 15y ago
for a guy that spends most of it's day working on a laptop, I really don't see the need for yet another screen. This google thing just seems an excuse to become a road kill. Multitasking all the time just seems to be incredible tiring. (from someone that recently ditched his smartphone for is old regular phone)
Tichy 15y ago
TL;DR: guy is dissatisfied that Google is not Apple.
pinaceae 15y ago
interesting that a lot of people don't get why this is bad news. it is all about expectations, this is still about a product that google wants to make money of. this video now tickles the fancy of nerds all around. read the comments and you see things like 'all it needs is a direct to brain interface' or 'i will buy all iterations of it'. the problem being that google will not be able to deliver on this concept video, not for the first iterations at least. just look at how long it took for the iphone to reach its current state, with apps, etc. the iphone launch is the perfect counter-example to concept videos. do not build expectations by releasing concept videos, do not build up false expectations full stop. release and proclaim this. is. it. then see how you build upon that. even apple stumbles, siri being a case in point of reality not matching the aspirations. nothing worse than releasing a great product that just sucks in comparison to the grand concept videos that didn't have to take into account things like battery life, difficult background/lighting situations, safety rules, etc. concept videos take up energy you should spend on the actual product, the one people will actually need to pay money for.
- ArekDymalski 15y ago
  On the other hand it's good to check if really there are any people who would pay for that, before you start building it and spending real resources. This video is just an MVP to check the market and get some press coverage. So, in my opinion it's very good news - Google started to work in more methodological way on new products.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    That doesn't work if you set expectations far beyond what you can deliver, though. You can show that people are interested in flying cars by showing them the Jetsons, but if you can't achieve that in your product, it is useless (perhaps even damaging) information. On the other hand, if Google knows they can achieve what they show, then it's a good strategy. But if they don't have the tech in hand and just "think" they can achieve it, things won't go well. At best, they'll release a product everybody thinks is subpar. At worst, they'll never release as they keep trying to reach the goal they set for themselves.
- 15y ago
swang 15y ago
From a pure Speech Recognition POV, I will believe Google Goggles is possible when they somehow solved the major problems in Speech Recognition. SR tech has been around forever, but only in the last few years have companies been able to process it on the server side and then zap it over a wireless connection to get somewhat OK processing times. But no one has yet to solve the two problems plaguing SR: First, putting a whole SR engine on a machine let alone on a pair of embedded chips on a piece of eyewear for instant SR. Even with miniaturization and speed/power improvements I just don't see it happening mainly because chip makers have decided to just add more cores. I may be wrong but it seems difficult to parallelize this with a large corpus. Obviously the solution is to go the other way and have super fast guaranteed wireless connection at all times. This will still produce lag but probably acceptable levels for most people. The second problem is one that most people encounter with SR which is when the bloody thing doesn't translate what you said. Either because of an accent or because you're saying something unique or difficult to parse. I tried asking directions to a Mexican place in OC and the results were: Q Cortes, cute protcullis, cute Portos, Q Portales. Can you figure out what I was trying to say? That is the inherent difficulty of the "last mile" problems that SR has and I haven't read or heard anything about anyone solving this anytime soon. SR tech will always be just "good enough" where they can show it off at a meeting/conference but never good enough to be like Star Trek (which unfortunately has set a incredibly huge bar for people's expectations). Even though the Nokia video is less ambitious they seem to have decided to not include any talking in their future tech videos which seems like a smart idea to me.
- grogs 15y ago
  Maybe the solution to SR is more/better learning. The computer could ask for confirmation/clarification, and gradually learn your speach patterns over time - lessening the need for constant clarification. This sounds achievable. People in Scotland should be able to talk to Siri, the learning phase should just be a little longer.
- JohnLBevan 15y ago
  I guess if you have a central SR processor which everyone's connecting with (as per proposed solution for issue 1) then you also have a huge amount of incoming data from all of your users. That means your system can evolve by taking feedback on errors its made, and can rapidly improve based on this new information, building larger dictionaries, taking info such as location data to improve context awareness, and using the vast volume of samples to improve SR where unusual accents are involved.
irollboozers 15y ago
Man, what a debbie downer. This article coming from a guy who tweeted, "It's April 1st. THE SINGLE LEAST FUNNY DAY ON THE INTERNET." Maybe it's just because I've seen the actual effort and the basic research being done by those tinkerers at Google, that it seems real to me. I know a phd student who has spent the past 1.5 years without his professor because he was away at Google working on this (Babak). This writer just seems like he is stirring the pot though. Unless he has supreme insight into Google's go-to-market plans, or even basic research for that matter, I don't get why he feels entitled to shoot down another person's vision. While others daydream, semi-journo's abound whose only existence is pointless contrariety.
pipecork 15y ago
Let's hope it works better than my Apple Knowledge Navigator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mLqJNDWx-8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mLqJNDWx-8
- falling 15y ago
  1987. Right when Apple was starting to fall apart under Sculley. I think you just proved his point.
DanBC 15y ago
About speech recognition: Google has very many computers. Google has many smart people. Google knows how to wrangle large data sets. Google also has a bajiliion customers, and those customers are used to jumping through various hoops. Google could get many people to speak words from a dictionary; and then wrangle that data to improve speech recognition. (I'd be interested in differences between languages and quality of recognition.)
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  Google's speech recognition on their voicemail-to-email interface is comically bad.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - moocow01 15y ago
    I'd have to second this - it used to really frustrate me but now I keep using Google Voice because their transcriptions make for some great comedy. They are always painfully off but constant entertainment.
- krollew 15y ago
  Google know nothing about slavic languages now(I mean to few to translate sentences with non-english word order or making to big use of declension or conjugation).
- vidarh 15y ago
  Google has also had years to try to get the automated captions on Youtube to work, and they're still so bad for even well spoken, clear English that they're pretty much useless.
esolyt 15y ago
Except they do have the product in their hands right now. They are testing it.
- ralfd 15y ago
  But it is nothing like in the video.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    Siri is nothing like in the video, either. But saying "is nothing like" is exaggerated anyway. I'm sure it's not 10x worse in reality, but pretty close.
sek 15y ago
Should i tell you how these videos get made at Microsoft? The MS Office division has a million left in his marketing budget "Why not make a cool futuristic video?" When they are hyper futuristic they are just Marketing. Look at us we are visionary and innovative. Google has a prototype for a concrete product and tries to show us what the idea behind this is. Like Microsoft they also have the money for an expensive video. Look at the difference between Google Cars, with a prototype and a clear value proposition and this Toyota video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4k0i0c2LWw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4k0i0c2LWw where nothing makes sense at all.
- swalsh 15y ago
  The boldness of future videos in terms of style seems to have increased quite a bit since the invention of CGI.
erikb 15y ago
Google makes those videos for a long time now and usually they actually make it happen. I think just because you know some situations where it didn't work, it is not correct to assume that it is always a bad idea. Very likely we have a lot of high tech stuff today because of this kind of videos. It's just a way of presenting your idea in a quite understandable and exciting way. There are of course other things like Powerpoint slides, blog posts and so on, but in in the end what you do just depends on your budget and your available skillset.
- falling 15y ago
  > Google makes those videos for a long time now and usually they actually make it happen. Do you have have links to any of them handy? It would be interesting to compare the concept video to the real product.
kombine 15y ago
This is not the future I want. I already got into the habit of not researching things myself but rather finding a quick answer on Google. Now they take this approach into the real life. You need to go somewhere? Google will carefully plan a route for you. Their eventual goal is to route us throughout our entire lifes. No, thanks.
- krollew 15y ago
  That's true. Google has very big impact on our information-looking habits. But I'm not sure if it's so bad.
- almost_usual 15y ago
  I agree with this completely, I'm beginning to believe that these 'cool' and 'innovative' gadgets are beginning to strip away at the individual's creativity and existence. I'm not saying this technology wouldn't be cool or awesome to use, I just don't see it benefitting the majority of humanity in the future.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    > I just don't see it benefitting the majority of humanity in the future. What do you mean by "benefit"? There's a lot of stuff which has very little benefit if you define benefit in certain ways. With luck the trickle down (people becoming rich from creating these gadgets; concentrations of very smart people in California; etc) could be used not only to explore deep oceans but also to create smart innovative tech for developing world problems. It'd be great if Google (for example) had a developing world think-tank.
- sid05 15y ago
  A quick answer isn't research anyways. It's like going to a wikipedia page and blaming it for giving the superficial amount of knowledge you needed in the first place. Do we stop there? No, we employ further systematic investigation. Don't wear em if you know where you're going. I don't think anybody uses Google Maps to get to their own house or anything they're familiar with. I only watched the video without sound but my guess is the use case is to help you interact and get things done when you have no starting point or fishing for something unfamiliar. Basically its just a HCI transformation from phone to glasses which I personally wouldn't use either. I'm still waiting for the contacts version ;)
ChrisAnn 15y ago
Can I get them with a prescription? :/
dbattaglia 15y ago
I think the real bad news here is imagining a world where everyone is walking around the city talking to their glasses.
- Tichy 15y ago
  This might be a use case where I would be in favor of gestures. Although that might look weird, too. Since the glasses are attached to the head, maybe some brainwave measuring thing could work?
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  Still better than talking to their phones? siri...? bluetooth earpiece...?
  - glanch 15y ago
    Nobody talks to Siri.
uptown 15y ago
I tend to think of videos like these as creations that are maybe technically possible today, but not in a package that's affordable, and compact enough for general sale. It's like Pixar making some of their movies. They'd save the production of some scenes till the end of production because they presumed the technology they'd need to pull off what they wanted to do would be available by then.
ollerac 15y ago
Bad news? I think it'd be cool if contributors were encouraged to remove blatant opinions from flame bait headlines. I think this would show more respect to our intelligence and openness as a community. I value the discussions on hacker news more than the articles themselves and I think it's too bad that this discussion started out with a biased tilt. I think something more like "Google made a future vision video" would have been a more appropriate headline. Then, if the community actually thinks it's bad news, they can comment on the story and say so. I'd rather discuss plain facts than the opinion of a time magazine article.
gjmveloso 15y ago
With a simple difference: Google executes their vision faster than Microsoft's and Nokia's future visions.
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
There seems to be a lot of hate for this. I like to applaud companies for making videos like this. Regardless of if it'll make the market in 2-5 years, it inspires the imagination. It gets you thinking "If that is possible, I wonder what else is possible" And then the ideas just flow. Same even goes for that MS video with all those flat transparent screens. It really gets the creative juices flowing with what can be done. Even if it just sparks you to think of something completely different from what they show you. I like it.
nextstep 15y ago
Exactly. If Google wasn't on a path to disappoint everyone, they would make claims about their new product, and then release the damn thing a month or so later so consumers could actually experience it (like any Apple release). Instead, Google pre-hypes this thing with no announced plans to release it. I think we can all assume that either the technology isn't quite as good (yet) as it seemed in the video.
- mladenkovacevic 15y ago
  Poor disappointed consumers. You mean I can't use this yet? But I want it naaaooowww!! SIRI! Remind me to make a whiny blog post about this after my afternoon mochaccino! First world makes me sick sometimes
tjic 15y ago
What irks me is the painfully studied hipness of the video. Indy bookstore? Check. Ukulele reference? Check. Food truck? Check. Brooklyn location? Check. Late 20-something SWPL protagonists in man-boy phase of life? Check. Ugh.
- Kylekramer 15y ago
  It was pretty obviously Manhattan. Hip Lower Manhattan, but Manhattan.
  - tjic 15y ago
    Sure, the Strand is in lower Manhattan, but you're telling me a video that features a food truck and a uke book doesn't START in Brooklyn? 10:1 the apartment was in Park Slope.
    - rory096 15y ago
      That's not really reconcilable with the guy using the 6 train stop at 23rd and Park.
- mturmon 15y ago
  Also: Exotic coffee. Flip-flops. Someone forgot that true hip happens partly when you make it new because you don't care about tired memes. They're copying the surface but not the essence.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Agreed, but what is the next big thing in lifestyle? Maybe the urban hipster is still a relatively attractive model for living among all the choices.
  - Apocryphon 15y ago
    The Bay Area hacker-chic tech hipster?
cinquemb 15y ago
If i had a new product, i would MVP it until it reaches success and iterate until that point, not spend millions on it upfront. Sure its a nice product, but great inventions will sell themselves if the people find it useful (and can afford it) as long as you inform people that it exists.
snowwrestler 15y ago
Visual interface won't work for this sort of thing. Glasses are too close to the eye and multitasking will require constant focus racking, which will tire the eyes and produce headaches. Elements displayed in stereo will require very precise calibration to the user's face geometry to prevent ghosting or eye strain. Elements displayed in one lens only will appear transparent. Even if the tech issues are solved perfectly, humans do not multitask visually when moving; this is why heads-up displays are not common in cars despite the technology being easy. It distracts more than it helps. HUD works in planes because there is no immediate danger of collision when flying, so pilots can focus just on the HUD for extended periods of time. Humans in motion multitask across senses, not within senses. Most people can walk and talk no problem--but walking and reading is a lot harder. So, the future of wearable computing is probably a wearable computer that listens and speaks. And it's here now: a smartphone with an earbud is a wearable computer, and it's proven successful in the marketplace. To be truly useful, it will need to volunteer interactions the way the Google glasses do--but to do that well, it will need to be listening at all times, and understand when information is welcome and/or needed. Right now that is not possible with current levels of battery and speech recognition technology. In the far, far future I could see visual communication multi-tasked into everyday life. It will take a lot of societal changes for that to happen though. I like the portrayal of "picting" in Greg Bear's EON series.
fatjokes 15y ago
I think this is rather unfair as the main difference here is that Google has demonstrated an active commitment to technologically groundbreaking projects, namely the robot car. While it has not been brought to market either, it is clearly an advanced prototype.
ArekDymalski 15y ago
Google responded to the buzz - Sergey appeared wearing'em http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/06/google-project-glass-sergey-brin/ http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/06/google-project-glass-serg...

148 points by Robelius 15y ago

bobthedino 15y ago

I feel Nokia's video, in the article, is much better than Google's, mainly because the hero protagonist doesn't speak.

ralfd 15y ago
Well … our heroine does not only not speak, she does really nothing. She wakes up only to crawl out of the bed and lie down on the couch. And then she relaxes in the garden. While she is stalked by a guy. And only replying with smilies! (I guess she is just not that into him. Or Nokia didn't foresee in 2009 stuff like Siri.)
coopdog 15y ago
Wow, really? I thought the Nokia video was creepy as hell (and the Google one was quite well done)

cromwellian 15y ago

Except like the Google Car and unlike the Microsoft future video with transparency, flexible, credit card computer displays, and unlike Apple's Knowledge Navigator, Google has functioning devices. Self-drivable cars hade been around for years. What's different about the Google Prius versions is that they look almost practical, if you squint just a little bit, just minimized the sensors a little bit more it could even fit within a car's stylish exterior. In contrast, some of the past versions were very slow driving and had a truck's worth of equipment in them. I really think this is a false comparison (to other corporate future videos). Google may release a product that fails to gain adoption, but they will release something. BTW, go search youtube for AT&T's "You Will" campaign with Tom Selleck. They got a lot of stuff right.

jedc 15y ago
Apple can test new phones and new phone prototypes pretty easily. Hardware can be hidden in new cases, software can just not be shown to other people. Google tested self-driving cars for quite a while; it was only when the NYTimes was about to write a story about it anyway that they publicly released information. I would assume these glasses are going to be pretty difficult to hide from the general public when the team is out testing them. If I were them I'd rather release information they want to the public instead of a random blogger getting a photo and kicking up a firestorm of interest.
- martinkallstrom 15y ago
  Yeah you never want a firestorm of interest around new products.
  - jedc 15y ago
    But it doesn't look like it's a new product at all; it's just a prototype they want to test in public.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - abrahamsen 15y ago
    I think they are just trying to influence the spin right now. Try to give the less imaginative (or too imaginative) journalists something to write. The "firestorm of interest" can wait until they actually have a product.
- obtino 15y ago
  > If I were them I'd rather release information they want to the public instead of a random blogger getting a photo and kicking up a firestorm of interest. There were rumours of these glasses in the NYT last December: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/wearing-your-computer-on-your-sleeve/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/wearing-your-comput... They did their best to conceal it then. It's not in Google's DNA to hide disruptive products for a long period of time.

forkrulassail 15y ago

Odd that this received a 'bad news' in the title. The Glass video got me excited about not needing to carry around GPS, a phone and other unnecessary gadgets, wearing only the glasses I already require. Also, the writer doesn't know what is currently happening inside Google X.

ht_th 15y ago
But all the things shown in the video already are available in a top-of-the-line smartphone. The only difference is that you don't need to pull it out of your pocket. That's just a small improvement if you're into that kind of thing. What I did miss was actually augmenting reality enabling me to do new things, to perceive the world around me in ways I cannot do now. For example, given my preference in clothing and my body measurements, when shopping in the city I would like to "block out" somehow all those shops than probably don't have anything for me. Or while cycling, I would like to seen an indication how fast to drive the next section to not have to stop for the next traffic light. I often have to stop for a red light to immediately start up again because the light turns green. I hate that. Or when I am working in my garden I would like to see some helping lines and measures to dig straight lines, or to cut my trees at the best spots for it to grow out nicely next summer. Or to be able to sow seeds at the optimal distances from each other. And so on. What kind of augmented reality do you want?
- lucian1900 15y ago
  Actually, it would be a major improvement not to have to look down at your phone, if only for the health benefits to your neck and eyes (moving target). It would also be much more practical. I would love to have my existing glasses enhanced with a screen powered by my phone.
- eric-hu 15y ago
  But all the things available in a top-of-the-line smartphone were already available in a laptop. The only difference is that you don't need to pull it out of your backpack. It's just a small improvement if you're into that kind of thing. I could go on, but my point here is that improvements are incremental. Having a desktop has been more convenient than a terminal remoting into a mainframe. A laptop is that much more convenient over a desktop, and likewise with a smartphone.

staunch 15y ago

If Apple started releasing videos like this it might be revealing. For Google it just seems like the kind of out-of-character "mistake" they frequently make due to their less strict and more decentralized nature.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
If you do something frequently doesn't that make it part of your character?
- ollerac 15y ago
  I think he's arguing that Google has less of an established character because they've put less effort into establishing one than Apple -- they're more a bunch of teams working for the same company than one company. I agree with this point, but I think Google is moving away from this, which I think will be healthy in the short term and unhealthy in the longterm. Focused companies need focused leaders. I think Larry Page is filling the Steve Jobs role nicely right now, but if he falters the whole company will falter with him.
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    Maybe it's just me but I think that Google has a pretty established culture - tech led, try lots of stuff, beta early, don't be afraid to kill projects that aren't working. Page has certainly done a good job focusing the company more but I think it's premature to suggest he's in the Steve Jobs mould. He's been in position for 12 months, Google simply isn't as built in his image as Apple was in Jobs. I'm not talking about quality of thinking, leadership, intelligence or anything like that, just the sheer extent to which Jobs had asserted his will over Apple and it's culture.

chj 15y ago

usually this sort of things aren't going anywhere than the labs.

krollew 15y ago

Why bad news? Realy nice video. I dont't need that to enjoy any moment of my life, but may help another people to do so. Why not?

Steko 15y ago

The other side of this argument is that what Google is doing here is closer to what MS did with Kinect -- get visibly attached to a groundbreaking original new product it has confidence it will bring to market. The Project Natal concept/intro video similarly overpromised when you look at the first wave of Kinect but the product itself is still crazy revolutionary and the intro did build the hype and attached the tech unmistakably to MS.

ralfd 15y ago
This is actually a good point. Hm. The concept video was released a year and a half before release. Microsoft obviously had to announce it, so third party devs could support it. But if you watch the video so much stuff is bullshit! ^^ Also it gave the competition a chance to react to it (Playstation Move? I don't own either and don't know which wave-your-hand-stuff is working better or has better games.) Natal Project: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAFbWE_5GvA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAFbWE_5GvA Comparison by CNet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJkPN2smB8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJkPN2smB8 It certainly built hype (but also derision. I remember many wouldn't take it serious and as hyperbole). I think Kinect would have been successful in a more truthful presentation. Like if Microsoft had done an Apple-like reveal and only shown the real product two months before release.

abrimo 15y ago

This reminds me of the article gruber wrote late last year about the types of companies that make future concept videos. http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/companies_that_publish_concept_videos http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/companies_that_publish_con...

adabsurdo 15y ago
At this point, what is the difference between John Gruber and an Apple P.R. flack? He derives all his income from writing stuff glorifying Apple and bashing its competitors.

zv 15y ago

Imagine "Enlarge your member" and "Buy viagra now" popups on these devices :)

zogwall 15y ago
Doesn't happen on my Android.
joezydeco 15y ago
This is kind of a funny rework of the Google video along those lines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3TAOYXT840 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3TAOYXT840
- drKarl 15y ago
  I think it would be something more like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mRF0rBXIeg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mRF0rBXIeg

skimmas 15y ago

for a guy that spends most of it's day working on a laptop, I really don't see the need for yet another screen. This google thing just seems an excuse to become a road kill. Multitasking all the time just seems to be incredible tiring. (from someone that recently ditched his smartphone for is old regular phone)

Tichy 15y ago

TL;DR: guy is dissatisfied that Google is not Apple.

pinaceae 15y ago

interesting that a lot of people don't get why this is bad news. it is all about expectations, this is still about a product that google wants to make money of. this video now tickles the fancy of nerds all around. read the comments and you see things like 'all it needs is a direct to brain interface' or 'i will buy all iterations of it'. the problem being that google will not be able to deliver on this concept video, not for the first iterations at least. just look at how long it took for the iphone to reach its current state, with apps, etc. the iphone launch is the perfect counter-example to concept videos. do not build expectations by releasing concept videos, do not build up false expectations full stop. release and proclaim this. is. it. then see how you build upon that. even apple stumbles, siri being a case in point of reality not matching the aspirations. nothing worse than releasing a great product that just sucks in comparison to the grand concept videos that didn't have to take into account things like battery life, difficult background/lighting situations, safety rules, etc. concept videos take up energy you should spend on the actual product, the one people will actually need to pay money for.

ArekDymalski 15y ago
On the other hand it's good to check if really there are any people who would pay for that, before you start building it and spending real resources. This video is just an MVP to check the market and get some press coverage. So, in my opinion it's very good news - Google started to work in more methodological way on new products.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  That doesn't work if you set expectations far beyond what you can deliver, though. You can show that people are interested in flying cars by showing them the Jetsons, but if you can't achieve that in your product, it is useless (perhaps even damaging) information. On the other hand, if Google knows they can achieve what they show, then it's a good strategy. But if they don't have the tech in hand and just "think" they can achieve it, things won't go well. At best, they'll release a product everybody thinks is subpar. At worst, they'll never release as they keep trying to reach the goal they set for themselves.
15y ago

swang 15y ago

From a pure Speech Recognition POV, I will believe Google Goggles is possible when they somehow solved the major problems in Speech Recognition. SR tech has been around forever, but only in the last few years have companies been able to process it on the server side and then zap it over a wireless connection to get somewhat OK processing times. But no one has yet to solve the two problems plaguing SR: First, putting a whole SR engine on a machine let alone on a pair of embedded chips on a piece of eyewear for instant SR. Even with miniaturization and speed/power improvements I just don't see it happening mainly because chip makers have decided to just add more cores. I may be wrong but it seems difficult to parallelize this with a large corpus. Obviously the solution is to go the other way and have super fast guaranteed wireless connection at all times. This will still produce lag but probably acceptable levels for most people. The second problem is one that most people encounter with SR which is when the bloody thing doesn't translate what you said. Either because of an accent or because you're saying something unique or difficult to parse. I tried asking directions to a Mexican place in OC and the results were: Q Cortes, cute protcullis, cute Portos, Q Portales. Can you figure out what I was trying to say? That is the inherent difficulty of the "last mile" problems that SR has and I haven't read or heard anything about anyone solving this anytime soon. SR tech will always be just "good enough" where they can show it off at a meeting/conference but never good enough to be like Star Trek (which unfortunately has set a incredibly huge bar for people's expectations). Even though the Nokia video is less ambitious they seem to have decided to not include any talking in their future tech videos which seems like a smart idea to me.

grogs 15y ago
Maybe the solution to SR is more/better learning. The computer could ask for confirmation/clarification, and gradually learn your speach patterns over time - lessening the need for constant clarification. This sounds achievable. People in Scotland should be able to talk to Siri, the learning phase should just be a little longer.
JohnLBevan 15y ago
I guess if you have a central SR processor which everyone's connecting with (as per proposed solution for issue 1) then you also have a huge amount of incoming data from all of your users. That means your system can evolve by taking feedback on errors its made, and can rapidly improve based on this new information, building larger dictionaries, taking info such as location data to improve context awareness, and using the vast volume of samples to improve SR where unusual accents are involved.

irollboozers 15y ago

Man, what a debbie downer. This article coming from a guy who tweeted, "It's April 1st. THE SINGLE LEAST FUNNY DAY ON THE INTERNET." Maybe it's just because I've seen the actual effort and the basic research being done by those tinkerers at Google, that it seems real to me. I know a phd student who has spent the past 1.5 years without his professor because he was away at Google working on this (Babak). This writer just seems like he is stirring the pot though. Unless he has supreme insight into Google's go-to-market plans, or even basic research for that matter, I don't get why he feels entitled to shoot down another person's vision. While others daydream, semi-journo's abound whose only existence is pointless contrariety.

pipecork 15y ago

Let's hope it works better than my Apple Knowledge Navigator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mLqJNDWx-8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mLqJNDWx-8

falling 15y ago
1987. Right when Apple was starting to fall apart under Sculley. I think you just proved his point.

DanBC 15y ago

About speech recognition: Google has very many computers. Google has many smart people. Google knows how to wrangle large data sets. Google also has a bajiliion customers, and those customers are used to jumping through various hoops. Google could get many people to speak words from a dictionary; and then wrangle that data to improve speech recognition. (I'd be interested in differences between languages and quality of recognition.)

waterlesscloud 15y ago
Google's speech recognition on their voicemail-to-email interface is comically bad.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- moocow01 15y ago
  I'd have to second this - it used to really frustrate me but now I keep using Google Voice because their transcriptions make for some great comedy. They are always painfully off but constant entertainment.
krollew 15y ago
Google know nothing about slavic languages now(I mean to few to translate sentences with non-english word order or making to big use of declension or conjugation).
vidarh 15y ago
Google has also had years to try to get the automated captions on Youtube to work, and they're still so bad for even well spoken, clear English that they're pretty much useless.

esolyt 15y ago

Except they do have the product in their hands right now. They are testing it.

ralfd 15y ago
But it is nothing like in the video.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Siri is nothing like in the video, either. But saying "is nothing like" is exaggerated anyway. I'm sure it's not 10x worse in reality, but pretty close.

sek 15y ago

Should i tell you how these videos get made at Microsoft? The MS Office division has a million left in his marketing budget "Why not make a cool futuristic video?" When they are hyper futuristic they are just Marketing. Look at us we are visionary and innovative. Google has a prototype for a concrete product and tries to show us what the idea behind this is. Like Microsoft they also have the money for an expensive video. Look at the difference between Google Cars, with a prototype and a clear value proposition and this Toyota video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4k0i0c2LWw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4k0i0c2LWw where nothing makes sense at all.

swalsh 15y ago
The boldness of future videos in terms of style seems to have increased quite a bit since the invention of CGI.

erikb 15y ago

Google makes those videos for a long time now and usually they actually make it happen. I think just because you know some situations where it didn't work, it is not correct to assume that it is always a bad idea. Very likely we have a lot of high tech stuff today because of this kind of videos. It's just a way of presenting your idea in a quite understandable and exciting way. There are of course other things like Powerpoint slides, blog posts and so on, but in in the end what you do just depends on your budget and your available skillset.

falling 15y ago
> Google makes those videos for a long time now and usually they actually make it happen. Do you have have links to any of them handy? It would be interesting to compare the concept video to the real product.

kombine 15y ago

This is not the future I want. I already got into the habit of not researching things myself but rather finding a quick answer on Google. Now they take this approach into the real life. You need to go somewhere? Google will carefully plan a route for you. Their eventual goal is to route us throughout our entire lifes. No, thanks.

krollew 15y ago
That's true. Google has very big impact on our information-looking habits. But I'm not sure if it's so bad.
almost_usual 15y ago
I agree with this completely, I'm beginning to believe that these 'cool' and 'innovative' gadgets are beginning to strip away at the individual's creativity and existence. I'm not saying this technology wouldn't be cool or awesome to use, I just don't see it benefitting the majority of humanity in the future.
- DanBC 15y ago
  > I just don't see it benefitting the majority of humanity in the future. What do you mean by "benefit"? There's a lot of stuff which has very little benefit if you define benefit in certain ways. With luck the trickle down (people becoming rich from creating these gadgets; concentrations of very smart people in California; etc) could be used not only to explore deep oceans but also to create smart innovative tech for developing world problems. It'd be great if Google (for example) had a developing world think-tank.
sid05 15y ago
A quick answer isn't research anyways. It's like going to a wikipedia page and blaming it for giving the superficial amount of knowledge you needed in the first place. Do we stop there? No, we employ further systematic investigation. Don't wear em if you know where you're going. I don't think anybody uses Google Maps to get to their own house or anything they're familiar with. I only watched the video without sound but my guess is the use case is to help you interact and get things done when you have no starting point or fishing for something unfamiliar. Basically its just a HCI transformation from phone to glasses which I personally wouldn't use either. I'm still waiting for the contacts version ;)

ChrisAnn 15y ago

Can I get them with a prescription? :/

dbattaglia 15y ago

I think the real bad news here is imagining a world where everyone is walking around the city talking to their glasses.

Tichy 15y ago
This might be a use case where I would be in favor of gestures. Although that might look weird, too. Since the glasses are attached to the head, maybe some brainwave measuring thing could work?
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
Still better than talking to their phones? siri...? bluetooth earpiece...?
- glanch 15y ago
  Nobody talks to Siri.

uptown 15y ago

I tend to think of videos like these as creations that are maybe technically possible today, but not in a package that's affordable, and compact enough for general sale. It's like Pixar making some of their movies. They'd save the production of some scenes till the end of production because they presumed the technology they'd need to pull off what they wanted to do would be available by then.

ollerac 15y ago

Bad news? I think it'd be cool if contributors were encouraged to remove blatant opinions from flame bait headlines. I think this would show more respect to our intelligence and openness as a community. I value the discussions on hacker news more than the articles themselves and I think it's too bad that this discussion started out with a biased tilt. I think something more like "Google made a future vision video" would have been a more appropriate headline. Then, if the community actually thinks it's bad news, they can comment on the story and say so. I'd rather discuss plain facts than the opinion of a time magazine article.

gjmveloso 15y ago

With a simple difference: Google executes their vision faster than Microsoft's and Nokia's future visions.

ImprovedSilence 15y ago

There seems to be a lot of hate for this. I like to applaud companies for making videos like this. Regardless of if it'll make the market in 2-5 years, it inspires the imagination. It gets you thinking "If that is possible, I wonder what else is possible" And then the ideas just flow. Same even goes for that MS video with all those flat transparent screens. It really gets the creative juices flowing with what can be done. Even if it just sparks you to think of something completely different from what they show you. I like it.

nextstep 15y ago

Exactly. If Google wasn't on a path to disappoint everyone, they would make claims about their new product, and then release the damn thing a month or so later so consumers could actually experience it (like any Apple release). Instead, Google pre-hypes this thing with no announced plans to release it. I think we can all assume that either the technology isn't quite as good (yet) as it seemed in the video.

mladenkovacevic 15y ago
Poor disappointed consumers. You mean I can't use this yet? But I want it naaaooowww!! SIRI! Remind me to make a whiny blog post about this after my afternoon mochaccino! First world makes me sick sometimes

tjic 15y ago

What irks me is the painfully studied hipness of the video. Indy bookstore? Check. Ukulele reference? Check. Food truck? Check. Brooklyn location? Check. Late 20-something SWPL protagonists in man-boy phase of life? Check. Ugh.

Kylekramer 15y ago
It was pretty obviously Manhattan. Hip Lower Manhattan, but Manhattan.
- tjic 15y ago
  Sure, the Strand is in lower Manhattan, but you're telling me a video that features a food truck and a uke book doesn't START in Brooklyn? 10:1 the apartment was in Park Slope.
  - rory096 15y ago
    That's not really reconcilable with the guy using the 6 train stop at 23rd and Park.
mturmon 15y ago
Also: Exotic coffee. Flip-flops. Someone forgot that true hip happens partly when you make it new because you don't care about tired memes. They're copying the surface but not the essence.
Tichy 15y ago
Agreed, but what is the next big thing in lifestyle? Maybe the urban hipster is still a relatively attractive model for living among all the choices.
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  The Bay Area hacker-chic tech hipster?

cinquemb 15y ago

If i had a new product, i would MVP it until it reaches success and iterate until that point, not spend millions on it upfront. Sure its a nice product, but great inventions will sell themselves if the people find it useful (and can afford it) as long as you inform people that it exists.

snowwrestler 15y ago

Visual interface won't work for this sort of thing. Glasses are too close to the eye and multitasking will require constant focus racking, which will tire the eyes and produce headaches. Elements displayed in stereo will require very precise calibration to the user's face geometry to prevent ghosting or eye strain. Elements displayed in one lens only will appear transparent. Even if the tech issues are solved perfectly, humans do not multitask visually when moving; this is why heads-up displays are not common in cars despite the technology being easy. It distracts more than it helps. HUD works in planes because there is no immediate danger of collision when flying, so pilots can focus just on the HUD for extended periods of time. Humans in motion multitask across senses, not within senses. Most people can walk and talk no problem--but walking and reading is a lot harder. So, the future of wearable computing is probably a wearable computer that listens and speaks. And it's here now: a smartphone with an earbud is a wearable computer, and it's proven successful in the marketplace. To be truly useful, it will need to volunteer interactions the way the Google glasses do--but to do that well, it will need to be listening at all times, and understand when information is welcome and/or needed. Right now that is not possible with current levels of battery and speech recognition technology. In the far, far future I could see visual communication multi-tasked into everyday life. It will take a lot of societal changes for that to happen though. I like the portrayal of "picting" in Greg Bear's EON series.

fatjokes 15y ago

I think this is rather unfair as the main difference here is that Google has demonstrated an active commitment to technologically groundbreaking projects, namely the robot car. While it has not been brought to market either, it is clearly an advanced prototype.

ArekDymalski 15y ago

Google responded to the buzz - Sergey appeared wearing'em http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/06/google-project-glass-sergey-brin/ http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/06/google-project-glass-serg...