Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th May 2012 22:30 UTC
Google "So the titanic showdown between Facebook and Google might not be the News Feed vs. Google+ after all. It might be Facebook Camera vs. Project Glass. It might, in fact, be pictures vs. vision." Sounds esoteric, but bear with author Robin Sloan, because I think he's clearly on to something. By extension, this.
Order by: Score:
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

... is lawsuits due to vision damage.

Reply Score: 5

jburnett Member since:
2012-03-29

Nah, just stick a warning on the box.

Reply Score: 2

stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

cybergoths will be sued out of existence!

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 31st May 2012 01:21 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Better to stick with Diaspora*.

Reply Score: 2

Meh
by Neolander on Thu 31st May 2012 06:16 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

By "sharing a vision", does the author mean more crappy video with an unstable point of view that makes you feel ill in seconds ? ;)

Making good videos, that are a pleasure to watch, requires work. It is, in my opinion, not something that can be done spontaneously like that, you always have to remember that you're filming and keep concentrated on what the camera is doing.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Meh
by Radio on Thu 31st May 2012 11:01 UTC in reply to "Meh"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

By "sharing a vision", does the author mean more crappy video with an unstable point of view that makes you feel ill in seconds ? ;)

Solved.
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/youtube-offers-free-...

More seriously, there is already a sample video taken from a project glass device, and guess what? It is very watchable. The head, as long as it is not weighted down too much by equipment, is a more stable support for a video device than one's arm and hand.
https://plus.google.com/photos/111626127367496192147/albums/57458498...

I expect first-person videos to become a new "standard" way to film sport, events, life. I think the tiny difference of POV - moving from a handheld camera to a head-attached one - is far more important and far-reaching in our psyche than many think it will be, and may be as important as the ubiquity of cameras nowadays. It is no accident that many scifi writers envisioned that one day, we could see what other people see - literaly, from their point of view, through artificial camera-eyes or through uploading your memories.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Meh
by zima on Wed 6th Jun 2012 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Meh"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Such (limited) software stabilisation tricks still leave the "crappy" part.

Overall, it reminds me about the small fad of home videos, at my place happening 1-1.5 decade ago. Even though the equipment is now much better and less expensive... it mostly passed.
People, to my slight amazement, figured out how utterly tormenting such videos tend to be, and they mostly went "back" to photos (I guess also because there are usually not that many, people can quickly sift through them for the few good ones; not really universally first-person BTW).
Plus http://www.osnews.com/permalink?521083


And yeah, scifi... it also envisioned colonies on the moon or "super AI" in XX century; or flying cars / airplanes from "our" times: http://goo.gl/9TLhg (Wiki Unicode URL, tends to work weird ...and we can even build them - take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy - still a horrible idea vs. "boring" reality: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryanair_Boeing_737-800_appro... ); or that videocalls will be the mode of distant communication.
(or http://www.osnews.com/permalink?520970 )
OTOH they didn't really envision the ubiquity of computers, mobile phones, or - yes - digital capture and storage of images or audio.
Or Rosey vs. Roomba difference.

see what other people see - literaly, from their point of view, through spells or through magically transmitting your memories
is an old trick in myths or fairy tales. A closer term for scifi would tech fantasy ...after all, there's usually not much place for science in it (as in depicting a scientific process, or having a minimum of respect to the conclusions it gives about our world)

Edited 2012-06-06 23:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Meh
by zima on Wed 6th Jun 2012 23:34 UTC in reply to "Meh"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Making good videos, that are a pleasure to watch, requires work. It is, in my opinion, not something that can be done spontaneously like that, you always have to remember that you're filming and keep concentrated on what the camera is doing.

Also, making good videos typically involves discarding, essentially, most of the material shot - that's not only probably the single most important thing overlooked by creators of crappy videos, the concept of such "life experience" videos also goes right against it.
(sure, there might be a small craze for some time, like with more usual home videos http://www.osnews.com/permalink?521084 , but...)

Edited 2012-06-06 23:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

i really liked this article
by REM2000 on Thu 31st May 2012 12:23 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

I really liked this article and many like it as it points in your a different direction of thinking. When put on the blog/black and white it makes perfect sense.

Obviously Facebook will continue to try and push the facebook platform but the idea of photos being at it's core of course perfectly obvious it's just never dawned on me before where i would like that communication would have been the primary use of facebook, thats not sarcasm its how i viewed the platform but photos are the core make a lot more sense with the communication around the photos.

I also appreciate the view of google and in particular their long view of the future, i can see how they are positioning themselves for augmented information delivery and world information/interaction.

Like i said it was a good article and one that got the grey cells moving.

Reply Score: 3