Google pulled the plug on its Glass Explorer program earlier this year, prompting some folks to start writing obituaries for Google’s experimental face computer.
But Google never claimed Glass was dead. The company is no longer selling first-generation hardware and the project is now under management of Tony Fadell, the creator of the Nest learning thermostat (which Google acquired last year). The plan is turn Glass from an experimental project into a consumer-oriented device (which hopefully won’t cost $1500 anymore).
So when will Google Glass 2.0 launch? Soon. Maybe.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the CEO of Italian eyeware company Luxottica mentioned a partnership with Google on next-gen Glass hardware during a general meeting recently.
Details are scarce, but apparently Luxottica is working with Google on “version 2” of Glass with Google, which is at least a pretty good sign that the project isn’t dead.
What’s not clear yet is whether the next-gen Glass will feature new hardware or just a new design. Early versions of Google Glass were criticized for offering short battery life and for using a rather old processor. Some groups were also concerned about the privacy implications of a wearable computer that basically puts a camera on the wearer’s face.
It’s possible that the new design will address some or all of these concerns.
It’s also possible (maybe even likely) that Luxottica is just one of the eyeglass companies working with Google on new hardware. Luxottica just happens to be one of the first to make a public statement about the project: Google hasn’t had anything public to say about Glass 2.0 yet.
Smartwatch? No thanks. Smart glasses? Yes please!
Who wouldn’t want to have atlas/thesaurus/dictionary/instructional material on the Heads Up Display while working/reading/writing/building something?
Google Glasses were meant for professionals in a business, medical or field environment. Not the bedroom or movie theaters as it was sensationalized by the media as being used for. A device that cost over a thousand dollar would not be worn while riding the subway. If you offended someone they’d let you know it. Google Glass has a lot more uses than an Apple Watch and costs less to.
As far as it’s known limitations are concerned most are easily addressable. Battery life doesn’t matter as much when it being used as tool and not a form of entertainment. After all hot swapping batteries is a time proven method of extending the use of a cell phone. Incorporating, “light-field photography” into the design would also address the need to hold your head steady while staring at an object. You wouldn’t have to focus on anything in a room our outside. Google Glasses are a tool with many practical uses and an idea that is here to stay.
Cheers to your point. For occupational purposes, great technology. Things can be safer and advanced. As a street ware device? I hope that doesn’t happen for a long while.
This as worthless as a watch that also needs a phone to work. Sorry capitalists most of us are not that stupid as to buy everything you put out.
These things creep me out – big time. I understand why the people who wear these have earned the moniker “Glassholes”.
Yes because someone else wearing something that you don’t enjoy makes them a “Glasshole”
Gaping glassholes sucking away your privacy.
Except if I can be bothered to record you my battery will die in 45 minutes. If I had a phone on the other hand, that could go in a top pocket and record for hours, you probably wouldn’t notice.
I don’t know, I never found the privacy invasion argument that convincing for that and other reasons like to record good footage with a glass you have to act very unnaturally, keeping your head perfectly still which we humans don’t do, we move our heads around and track with our eyes so we’re not really aware of the movement.
The other major point is people… just aren’t interesting to record a lot of the time, honestly the only times I’ve pulled out my phone to record people have been during major televised events (I see TV crew cameras, I wonder what they’re looking at) or on one occasion when I saw a security guard acting rather menacingly towards some film students recording and thought ‘just in case’. If I kept a 24/7 log it’d be lots of pictures of computer screens or sandwiches. Maybe if I were a cyclist it’d be useful to record journeys in case there’s an accident.
You don’t take photos and videos of your friends and family? I pull out my phone for that all the time: hanging out, trips, in the house, etc.
Yeah but that’s not really relevant to the privacy invasion argument. Pets don’t care if pictures are taken, you’ll say “imma take a picture” to friends/family
And what exactly creeps you out? That they have a camera on them? Are you not creeped out by all the other cameras that watch you all day?
For example: https://www.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/2014/05/01/spurlock-show-extension-cyber-security-orig-ms.cnn
Yes & Yes
Comments are closed.