While we were at RIT in the early 2000s Steve Pomeroy was bluetooth tethering a van full of laptops headed to Penguicon using his Symbian phone. Tethering wasn't an option for normal people until much much later. Early adopters are further ahead than you think they are, and you have to wait longer to catch up than you realize.
So, did you have a Blackberry or Palm Treo or Symbian or Windows Mobile Phone or any other equivalent device in the early 2000s?
While we were at RIT in the early 2000s Steve Pomeroy was bluetooth tethering a van full of laptops headed to Penguicon using his Symbian phone. Tethering wasn't an option for normal people until much much later. Early adopters are further ahead than you think they are, and you have to wait longer to catch up than you realize.
So, did you have a Blackberry or Palm Treo or Symbian or Windows Mobile Phone or any other equivalent device in the early 2000s?
I was poor, but I WANTED ONE BADLY and didn't sour grapes it.
So, did you have a Blackberry or Palm Treo or Symbian or Windows Mobile Phone or any other equivalent device in the early 2000s?
I was poor, but I WANTED ONE BADLY and didn't sour grapes it.
There's a difference between being sour grapes and being "it's not quite ready for prime time." I wasn't poor back then (started my first job out of college in 2000) and could've afforded a smartphone if I wanted one, but I was like "meh, these are all crappy, the data plan costs are too high, and it's just a toy where I'd be spending my money and not getting any real benefit out of it." That's precisely how I feel about Google Glass right now.
Now, if Google Glass was around $200, then it would certainly be a near no-brainer as I'd be willing to pay that much even for a toy. Even at $300, it would be borderline, but probably still not ridiculous. $1500 though? Sorry... Even with all its potential, I'm not going to fork over $1500 to be a glorified beta tester.
And as I said, until I see actual applications running on it other than "show me the weather and time hovering in front of my eyeballs," I'm still not going to believe it's ready for prime time. However, it's much easier to justify the cost of a not ready for prime time toy at $200 than $1500.
Well, I am also a very cheap bastard who hates to spend money on anything, so this does cloud my judgment somewhat. FWIW, if it's a technology that I feel is worthwhile and has usefulness at the present, I am willing to jump into it. I got one of the first 28.8K modems when they first popped onto the market. I got a cable modem as soon as I lived in an area where they were available. I was an early adopter of the Pentium CPU and, later, the original AMD Athlon (back when AMD was kicking Intel's ass). I actually paid $35 to essentially be a beta tester for Windows 95, even. However, I don't get that sort of impression from Google Glass, at least not yet. I'm willing to be wowed once developers get their hands on it and start making it truly sing, but I have yet to be wowed by anything I've seen it do so far. Until I'm actually wowed by the thing, I'm not going to fork over any of my hard-earned money for it.
You guys are so cute, waxing fondly of the possibilities of AR. I'll be over here beaming music directly into my brain and using my Next Generation communicator.
What would be really cool use is being place geotagged labels in 3D space. People could then place information, trivia, or digital graffiti that would be rendered in 3D for users. You could even make it so you subscribe to certain lists/people and only see their tags.
Umm, if you are driving, it is demonstrably better and safer.
One of the things I badly want in my next car (if I ever buy a next car (if it isn't a robot car)) is a heads-up-display instead of lame-o dials or whatever. Not only is it totally sweet, it's actually better than taking your eyes off the road. They have them in jets, why don't they have them in every car? Is it too expensive still?
They have them in jets, why don't they have them in every car? Is it too expensive still?
It's tricky to do, and they're not exactly small or cheap units to build into a car. They exist, they've been offered in the past, with varying degrees of quality and success.
To be honest, though, Jets - fighter jets, at least, as well as Helicopters - are moving away from HUDS and into Helmet mounted displays. Many currently use a combination of the two.
To be honest, though, Jets - fighter jets, at least, as well as Helicopters - are moving away from HUDS and into Helmet mounted displays. Many currently use a combination of the two.
Of course, helmet-mounted displays could be argued to simply be the next logical evolution of HUDs. Google Glass-like tech could be what it takes to drive the cost of stuff like this down to prices that the masses could afford.
It's illegal to use a cell phone while driving. Do you think the masses are going to be convinced that a projector ON YOUR FACE beaming content directly into your eye is LESS distracting? Good luck.
I know most of you are young and utterly convinced that distracted driving is the same as driving with your toes while drunk. I'm not sure how you rationalize this. You don't have to take your eyes off the road to talk on the phone, either.
Nope, most places (probably wrongly) allow handless use.
I know most of you are young and utterly convinced that distracted driving is the same as driving with your toes while drunk. I'm not sure how you rationalize this. You don't have to take your eyes off the road to talk on the phone, either.
Every study I've EVER seen on this shows a measurable decrease in performance and increase in reaction times ANY time a person is using a phone for vocal communication, regardless of if it's handless or not.
Every study I've EVER seen on this shows a measurable decrease in performance and increase in reaction times ANY time a person is using a phone for vocal communication, regardless of if it's handless or not.
I wonder how much of a distraction it is to talk with people in the car? More or less or same as talking in phone with handsfree?
I think that the knowledge that your reaction times are being measured and studied, and that the phone call is an artificial pretense towards that end, would affect my concentration while driving FAR more than a natural and incidental everyday conversation, which I've had many times while driving and will continue to have since my van has an integrated hands free system that allows me to make calls without any external indication that I'm doing so whatsoever.
Talking with people in the car isn't as distracting. The analysis I've seen leans toward the simple fact that people in the car are aware of the environment and are reacting/pausing naturally. The phone call voice doesn't stop talking when there's an incident, providing continual distraction.
Sure, so are you an advocate of using Google Glass while driving, then? I was addressing those people.
As a HUD? Absoluitely fine. Any other purpose? The person doing so is an asshole.
FYI, HUDs have been available in cars for a while, although mostly in luxury brands like BMW, Cadillac, Mercedes, etc. Interestingly enough, the first HUD in a car debuted back in 1988 in the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme of all things.
I don't see how a head mounted HUD while driving is any more distracting than a cell phone conversation, although I challenge how distracting a phone actually is, especially hands-free, using the rationale I gave above. A study is itself a major distraction.
Certainly it's a significant factor. You wouldn't want it if it looked like a big dick on your forehead, probably.
This thing is 5 years away from prime time. I'll happily let the early adopters pay way too much for it and work the bugs out of it before I'll bother to try it. I'm in no hurry for it.
Comments
*puts glasses down on bedside table*
yeah honey, they're off...
*hacks glasses to turn ON at the sound of "yeah honey..."
Red light H4X! No red light here...
Cams... Cams everywhere...
Now, if Google Glass was around $200, then it would certainly be a near no-brainer as I'd be willing to pay that much even for a toy. Even at $300, it would be borderline, but probably still not ridiculous. $1500 though? Sorry... Even with all its potential, I'm not going to fork over $1500 to be a glorified beta tester.
And as I said, until I see actual applications running on it other than "show me the weather and time hovering in front of my eyeballs," I'm still not going to believe it's ready for prime time. However, it's much easier to justify the cost of a not ready for prime time toy at $200 than $1500.
/hearing aids are awesome
With two scoops of sunshine and strong drugs.
Glorious glorious drugs.
(Better poem later)
To be honest, though, Jets - fighter jets, at least, as well as Helicopters - are moving away from HUDS and into Helmet mounted displays. Many currently use a combination of the two.
I know most of you are young and utterly convinced that distracted driving is the same as driving with your toes while drunk. I'm not sure how you rationalize this. You don't have to take your eyes off the road to talk on the phone, either.
Translation: It appeals to hipsters. See: this thread.
This thing is 5 years away from prime time. I'll happily let the early adopters pay way too much for it and work the bugs out of it before I'll bother to try it. I'm in no hurry for it.