Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Jun 2012 20:27 UTC
Google So yeah, Google totally just won the conference showdown by easily beating both Apple and Microsoft. Not only did Google announce Android 4.1 with some really cool new features, a cheap but non-crippled tablet, and a new Android device called the Nexus Q, but they also opened up pre-orders for Google Glass. So yeah.
Thread beginning with comment 524130
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Seriously?
by Morgan on Thu 28th Jun 2012 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seriously?"
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

The difference with Project Glass is that at first it was an augmented reality device which was really revolutionary. Now its a head mounted camera, with question mark specs, which may come out next year as a shadow of its former self. Oh, and its $1500 and only available to I/O attendees meaning General Availability is even further out.


That's my biggest problem with Project Glass; they sold us on such an amazing concept, teased us with "it will be in testing next year" and now we find it's a webcam -- a very nice looking one, but still a webcam -- that will cost as much as three of the phones required to use it. Granted, that's a developer special price, but come on! I can build what they demoed with parts lying around my workshop.

I'm really glad Google is serious about bringing Glass to fruition, but they are years away from having The Real Thing if this is all they have right now. Then on top of that, to charge an insane amount of money for a single-function prototype sounds really fishy. Surely Google has the R&D budget already in place for this project, and a few hundred units at $1500 each is probably a fraction of that budget. So why the ridiculous price tag on something that's not even as advanced as a Kinect?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Seriously?
by zima on Wed 4th Jul 2012 23:59 in reply to "RE[7]: Seriously?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

but they are years away from having The Real Thing if this is all they have right now

Many years.

What eye-displays seem to be primarily good at is giving people headaches
...unless they have optical systems which make their size, weight and costs non-trivial (much above 1,5k; like even the newest on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display )

What people imagine, what people want (yeah... http://www.osnews.com/permalink?525237 ), will be probably possible around the time of holographic displays (by the virtue of tech with pixels comparable to the wavelength of light - essentially also perfect optical surfaces; I mention such eye-display usage in http://www.osnews.com/thread?492454 ) ...but that's at least few decades away.
Laser projection on the retina should be earlier - but that's still quite some time away; plus not what people expect and want, likely quite "schematic" and monochromatic, in plausible consumer implementations.

Edited 2012-07-05 00:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2