Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Open Source Hardware Technology

Is the Rise of Wearable Electronics Finally Here? 98

Posted by Soulskill
from the don't-let-charlie-stross-design-them dept.
ptorrone writes "MAKE Magazine takes a look at the last ten years or so of 'wearable electronics.' From wireless watches to LCD goggles, MAKE predicts we are collectively entering a new era of wearables. As the price for enabling components drops, always-on connectivity in our pockets and purses increases, and access to low-cost manufacturing resources and know-how rises, we'll see innovation continue to push into these most personal forms of computing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is the Rise of Wearable Electronics Finally Here?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:04PM (#36522064)

    I didn't appreciate you while I owned you

  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:10PM (#36522114) Homepage

    Circuit board: $10
    Computer chips: $80
    Soldering iron: $30
    Looking like a huge dork: Priceless.

  • by cheeks5965 (1682996) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:11PM (#36522122)
    Wearable electronics are a pipe dream and will never happen! ::looks at watch:: oops running late got to go!
    • by Jimbob The Mighty (1282418) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:27PM (#36522254)
      We already have wearable electronics... have had for a while... Sony WalkMan, Apple iPod, etc... I'm sure the corporations that stand to make billions from these products will throw some money at marketing to try and work out how to make these devices 'cool'.
    • by Asic Eng (193332) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @07:45AM (#36526240)

      What they mean with wearable electronics, are electronics embedded in things which you already wear for other purposes. Like belts, glasses or jackets. Neither watches nor smart phones are supposed to be included in that category.

      Nobody has come up with an application which would make that interesting. Having your mp3 player in your belt buckle is inconvenient unless you are using only one belt. Having something built into your sun glasses is inconvenient unless you like with wearing your sunglasses even when there is insufficient light (ok that could be a niche). Embedding your smartphone into your jacket is inconvenient unless you only want to use your smartphone when wearing that jacket, or you have it build in all your jackets and are happy to only buy jackets which are equipped with smartphones. (So no more "hey I like that blue one".)

      Wearable electronics have to compete with other technologies like pockets, belt clips, wrist bands and bags. So far they've been losing that competition rather dramatically.

      • by anyGould (1295481) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @11:54AM (#36542302)

        The company that builds a better pair of glasses will get my business the moment "cash on hand" meets "price".

        I've been wearing glasses my whole life, and it annoys me that it's nigh-impossible to get a pair that does anything more than just "fix my eyes". Give me something that records video and audio. Maybe some binocular capability. I'd say throw video on there, except we haven't solved the "fry your eyeball" problem there.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:14PM (#36522150)

    And maybe 2012 is The Year Of The Linux Desktop...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:17PM (#36522170)

    as this is one of his 7 failed predictions 4 articles down I call "BITCOIN"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:24PM (#36522224)

    Didn't the WHO mention something about a link between wireless radiation and cancer recently?

    Just a thot...
    AC and PROUD! :-)

  • by EdZ (755139) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:25PM (#36522236)
    But with one hand weighed down by a wrist computer, how will we operate our digital watches?
  • by Anonymous Cowar (1608865) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:26PM (#36522244)
    It seems like every 5-10 years or new development points to wearable electronics. First, transistors, then microchips, a decade or so ago, it was small lithium batteries, now? compact wireless. Of course i didn't RTFM, but we've been "wearing" our electronics for years. Carrying cell phones has been the status quo for a decade, walkmans/diskmans for longer. Yes, we carry more electronics every day, but I still wear a timex ironman which has the same functionality as the timex ironman I got in 1994 (indiglo FTW!). However, I doubt that people will consent to wearing t-shirts that monitor heart rate, undies that take/analyze stool/urine samples, and shoes that measure stress as long as you can get cheap clothes that look good and are comfortable. Also, the average person can, you know, feel what's going on with themselves and if they're the kind of person who would buy a watch to monitor heart rate, they can take their pulse by hand and will. How many people do you know regularly check their pulse? Especially when not exercising?

    Wearable electronics are in direct competition with simple sensors that feed into your smartphone. Integrate the electronics into a garment and you only get to wear it once a week (more if you're grody) or however often you do laundry. Watches do lots, but people like not having to recharge or change batteries more than once a year.
  • by bhcompy (1877290) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:26PM (#36522248)
    Gonna get some phat lewtz when I gank you outside of your house
  • http://www.pocketcalculatorshow.com/nerdwatch/fun2.html [pocketcalculatorshow.com] That was the first computer I wore. Didn't help me meet girls back in Grade 12 - I wonder if today's wearable electronics will help better?
  • Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:55PM (#36522492) Homepage Journal

    From wireless watches to LCD goggles

    Can someone tell me when we ever had wired watches?

    And since I had an LCD wristwatch about 20 years ago, I'm not sure what this business about "wearable technology" is talking about.

    I walk the dog with a radio clipped to my belt listening to the Sox game, and I've been doing that since about 1965 (though with a different dog and mono earphones).

    So what, now we're going to have another round of LCD glasses that suck? Didn't Microsoft have some extremely stupid service with wristwatches that got downloads of information over a decade ago? That went nowhere, too.

    Why are LCD glasses and watches with WiFi considered "wearable technology" but 3G smartphones you can put in a pocket or wear on your belt and media players that clip to your shirt pocket are not wearable technology.

    I'm too weary to look at anything but the RSS feed headline to this article. Is it another link to some horrible Conde Nast ad-story?

    • by ptorrone (638660) * <pt@NoSpaM.adafruit.com> on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @09:47PM (#36522886)

      "I'm too weary to look at anything but the RSS feed headline to this article. Is it another link to some horrible Conde Nast ad-story?"

      MAKE isn't owned by conde-nast, it's part of oreilly.

      the article talks about the failure of SPOT watches and what's changed since then, and why something like an open source hardware watch will probably do ok within a smaller market.

      don't be so lazy :)

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @10:19PM (#36523096)

      Can someone tell me when we ever had wired watches?

      When they were called clocks.

      I'm pretty sure wireless is used here to denote wifi instead of the standard "no wires" that wireless normally means.

      And since I had an LCD wristwatch about 20 years ago, I'm not sure what this business about "wearable technology" is talking about.

      I walk the dog with a radio clipped to my belt listening to the Sox game, and I've been doing that since about 1965 (though with a different dog and mono earphones).

      So what, now we're going to have another round of LCD glasses that suck? Didn't Microsoft have some extremely stupid service with wristwatches that got downloads of information over a decade ago? That went nowhere, too.

      Why are LCD glasses and watches with WiFi considered "wearable technology" but 3G smartphones you can put in a pocket or wear on your belt and media players that clip to your shirt pocket are not wearable technology.

      Seems to be considering more ubiquitous forms of technology. More towards technology you "wear" instead of technology you "carry". A smartphone isn't "clothing" so this article doesn't seem to consider it "wearable" as such, though it does make a nod towards how bluetooth headsets and so on are pieces people "wear" as much as "carry".

      The premise of the article appears to be technology making the leap from simple function to fashion. As components get smaller and smaller, they'll be added into clothing more since it's cheaper and cheaper to do. Bracelets/rings which hold your information instead of cards or tickets. Jackets you can plug your mp3 device in your pocket, the cuffs have built in music controls, and the collar has an extensible headphone. Shoes that come with GPS, accelerometers, and what have you so that, even if you get lost, you can always find your way back even when the GPS doesn't connect. The usual glasses that have LCD screens in them. So on and so forth.

      Yeah, a lot of these functions are in other devices, but the argument is always "wouldn't it be better if you didn't have to think about it?" Then again, there's the whole privacy aspect of it.

    • by Livius (318358) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @10:19PM (#36523102)

      Maybe the 'walk' aspect of the Walkman was too subtle for them?

    • by MacTO (1161105) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @12:06AM (#36523762)

      I think their point is that very little wearable technology has found success in the marketplace, outside of watches (which many people treat as a fashion accessory). Everything else has pretty much been an accessory that you carry in your purse or, if you wore it, you looked like a dork.

      That's not likely to change very soon either. I've seen USB flash drives formed into jewellery, but that is the exception because it is small enough to be a subtle fashion accessory without making you look like a dork. I've seen some stuff integrated into clothing, but mostly it has been by geeks who have zero sense of style.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @04:08AM (#36525076)

        I think their point is that very little wearable technology has found success in the marketplace, outside of watches (which many people treat as a fashion accessory)

        Hearing Aids
        Head phones
        walkman/discman/iPod/mp3 player
        Bluetooth headsets
        etc.

    • I got this one. I've studied this area as a fan for about six years now. Here we go.

      Take all your nouns and stick them on a NASA gyro and spin them all sideways into the other sentences.

      You said:

      From wireless watches to LCD goggles

      Can someone tell me when we ever had wired watches?

      And since I had an LCD wristwatch about 20 years ago, I'm not sure what this business about "wearable technology" is talking about.

      I walk the dog with a radio clipped to my belt listening to the Sox game, and I've been doing that since about 1965 (though with a different dog and mono earphones).

      So what, now we're going to have another round of LCD glasses that suck? ...Why are LCD glasses and watches with WiFi considered "wearable technology" but 3G smartphones you can put in a pocket or wear on your belt and media players that clip to your shirt pocket are not wearable technology.

      If it's in your pocket, it's not "wearable" because it's just one more thing crammed into your pocket. Unless you have a few tricks enabled, to use it you ... pull it out of your pocket. Then it's not being worn. Clipping it to your belt is an odd hybrid I'll pass on. Belts are like the Switzerland of style - we expect large objects to be clipped there that don't look right anywhere else.

      That leads into what is in fact a profound part of the field that hasn't quite made the discussion. Wearable tech has to be stylish. All those jokes about bad style are the court jester telling us the way it is. Now, those bluetooth earbuds - that's your first clue we're starting to do things right, combined with the social change needed in tandem. Tell me those don't look like the first small piece of the Borg ensemble! I wouldn't have predicted those would cross the rubicon of cool, but someone made it work so here they are. Right. Next!

      There are about four signature types of wearable tech that are the science fiction holy grails, and apparently there's room for a few more wildcards like those bluetooth earpieces. Let's start with watches! I had one of these mp3 watches (though lower capacity at the time.) (Ps. the USB cord tucks into the watch out of sight.)

      http://store.usbwatches.net/xonix-1gb-mp3.html [usbwatches.net]

      Would you have pegged that as a Music Player!!? (I think wearable tech is Matrix-Urban, so I liked that design. But for the dinners & ties crowd there was another one that looks like one of those "you made salesman of the week" company bonuses.)

      Elsewhere in that story about the Best Buy - iTunes Required disaster, people were starting to chime in that they missed the simple mounted mp3 players. Who needs this cloud junk? Wear your music collection on your arm! And for the icecream on top - remember that mp3 players are flash drives with extra hardware? So 1GB can also contain your entire mobile data collection! Wired Watch. Check.

      LCD Glasses are the next one, but also one of the hardest! Look, there's the court jester reminding us about style again. Turns out that you need the components to be brutally small to hide in the glasses form factor. The Smart Phone is getting close - it's packing the beginnings of usable computing power into Hand Size form factor. So you can't quite get the whole computer into the glasses yet. But you don't need to! THAT's the use case of the pocket! You can get away with clunky stuff in your pocket. So the glasses are ... wait for it ... the ulimate in privacy! A monitor that no one can peek at! No more furtive switching tabs between your manly sports feed and Lady Gaga!

      The good news is that they are almost here! The article is once again the court jester grudgingly admitting that we're close enough on the style front that it's "safe for the masses to talk about." It's not a great article. (Quoting articles from 2008?! Really?!)

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) <{ten.3dlrow} {ta} {ojom}> on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @04:29AM (#36525154) Homepage

      The only practical applications I can think of are energy harvesting (solar, kinetic, thermal) for your other gadgets and built in sensors for monitoring heart rate/BP/pedometer. They would have to be damn cheap but I think that should be possible given time. Some types of security tags are already considered disposable.

  • by Super Dave Osbourne (688888) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @08:57PM (#36522506)
    make magazine should take a look at the increase in cancer and sterility as a result of always on devices (or even sometimes on) and proximity to the point of the cancer. We are entering a new era for sure, and it may not be too pretty either.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @09:14PM (#36522642)
    I'm a software developer and a friend, who is develops hardware solutions, and I teamed up with a small sewing company, which we are also friends with, to discuss wearable electronics. We spent an entire day pouring over documents, examples, internet content, blogs, existing products etc. to come up with marketable ideas such as complete products, hobby components, kits anything and anything else except we just couldn't come up with anything. Maybe we just aren't creative enough but so many of the existing ideas out there are just 'let's put LED's on it' rather than functional reliable products which actually do something. All the ideas we came up with were either unreliable, outside of the markets price range or could be or already are being done (usually better and cheaper) by existing products such as your phone. As much as a I want wearable electronics to be a success and the next big thing, I just can't see any useful marketable applications beyond a niche set of things like tracking and visual art, or as I said, maybe we just suck.
    • by ptorrone (638660) * <pt@NoSpaM.adafruit.com> on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @09:50PM (#36522906)

      the open source cufflinks that i mention at the end of the article (and a product i co-designed) have already sold out and i'm guessing will be about $250k of revenue just for those, this isn't counting the earrings and necklaces. while they're meant to be decorative, i think there's a good market for this for companies that get the geek/nerd market who actually love these types of things.

    • by value_added (719364) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @11:49PM (#36523670)

      I'm a software developer and a friend, who is develops hardware solutions, and I teamed up with a small sewing company, which we are also friends with, to discuss wearable electronics. We spent an entire day pouring over documents, examples, internet content, blogs, existing products etc. to come up with marketable ideas such as complete products, hobby components, kits anything and anything else except we just couldn't come up with anything.

      You were trying too hard.

      Want wearable? This [discovery.com] is wearable. An artistic, eco-conscious statement that transcends old-skool geekery yet subtle enough to appeal to the common man.

      No idea as to whether any of the buttons work.

  • by vallette (762759) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @09:34PM (#36522802)
    ...computer/GPS/music library/reality augmenter/camera (stills and video)/video player/game machine/ebook reader/web browser/storage device that allows me to communicate with virtually anyone anywhere at anytime and fits in the palm of my hand? Or is this cooler because you can wear it?
  • This is my contribution to wearable electronics:

    http://www.ondatechnology.org/project-life-bracelet.html [ondatechnology.org]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @10:13PM (#36523054)

    some stanford and ucla cs faculty are working on similar stuff, check out their site www.pivotmylife.com, especially in their product review section.

  • by jonsu85 (2293702) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @10:29PM (#36523178)
    Here is my contribution (working with some Stanford and UCLA computer science faculty) to wearable sensors: http://www.pivotmylife.com/ [pivotmylife.com] Prof Ron Fedkiw is also teaching a seminar next year on this topic, entitled "Cellphones, Sensors, and You". Check out his website for a description http://physbam.stanford.edu/~fedkiw [stanford.edu]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @11:01PM (#36523386)

    No mention of ghetto blasters? Those are wearable too. OK, you need big shoulders, but still...

  • by furgle (1825812) on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @11:40PM (#36523630)
    No its not. But aren't those transition lenses magic.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, 2011 @11:45PM (#36523646)
    A crappy article whose sole existence is to sell crappy over priced cuff-links for the elitist iCrowd! Bash Sony for going against hackers then promote Apple themed products? Really? How hypocritical.
  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @12:35AM (#36523936)
    Um... What? All my watches have been wireless - even the "self-winding" one.
    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @04:34AM (#36525174) Journal
      I remember seeing a watch a few years ago that ran PalmOS and had a USB connector so you could sync your calendars and contacts. That's the only wired watch I've seen. I was almost tempted - it was a nice idea, but it just looked hideous, and much too bulky. I eventually got a Skagen watch, which is so thin and light I can forget I'm wearing it, and does nothing except tell the time. It turns out, that's the feature that I actually want from a watch.
      • by vlm (69642) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @07:57AM (#36526328)

        That's the only wired watch I've seen. I was almost tempted - it was a nice idea, but it just looked hideous, and much too bulky.

        What killed it for me was the battery life was measured in hours and could only survive hundreds of charges and it cost hundreds of dollars. So, figure owning one cost about 20 cents/hr no matter if you looked at it or not...

  • by Phoenix666 (184391) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @12:49AM (#36524032)

    Human senses, not merely be another way to surf the web. A HUD style implant in the retina or the ability to see other spectra of light like Jordi's visor would be useful. You know, general bionic man stuff. That's cool

  • by Errtu76 (776778) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @01:03AM (#36524130) Journal

    we need more solarkini's [geenstijl.nl]!!

  • by AAWood (918613) <aawood@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @02:07AM (#36524508)

    Funnily enough, I've been looking at this recently. I still don't get quite there don't seem to be many low-cost monocular wearable displays out there, even if tethered to a desktop. I personally would love to be able to read on my phone on the way to work without worrying about walking into traffic, or to free up monitor at home for a messenger by placing it up on one eye. Surely the explosion of mobile devices out there mean low-cost small displays are common enough to do this now?

    About the only wearable displays I can find that are anywhere close to sensibly priced are the Vuzix displays, but by covering both eyes they're only really usable sat on a sofa. I've honestly been considering buying one just to cut it in half and build a mount for one eyepiece. And all of this is without going into AR devices, as clearly the issue here is as much coming up with the functionality and controls to make it happen.

    • by Michael Meissner (520083) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @07:42AM (#36526226)
      Yes, I agree I've been looking for cheap monocular HMD's for some time that take RCA input, (all I need is QVGA quality) and have replaceable, rechargeable batteries. I want to plug in my steampunk-ish camera (Olympus E-3 DSLR mounted inside of a wooden shell with bellows made to resemble Speed Graphics press cameras) live view feed into something I can see off the side of my field of vision, but not take over my complete field of view. I'd like something in the 1 - 1.8" size. I just got a PMP (portable music player, JXD i696) that uses a cell photo battery and has a 2.8" lcd, but ideally to be mounted on my glasses, I want something a bit smaller (more borg, less Geordi). Maybe I'm using the wrong search terms, but I can't find small portable lcds that take video input.
    • by vlm (69642) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @08:00AM (#36526350)

      I personally would love to

      Connect it to my hand held GPS unit so I can look for geocaches in "heads up" mode, enjoying the scenery rather than staring at the box.

      One problem is I'd like the battery life to be equivalent to my GPS, a couple days continuous. Then again, some people geocache with smartphones that have battery lives best measured in minutes, so maybe no big deal?

      • by Michael Meissner (520083) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @10:08AM (#36527814)
        That's why having a standard replaceable battery is important. So many of these devices either have batteries that are soldered in, or are unique to the manufacturer and will be hard to come by when either the manufacturer goes out of business or makes the next generation of new shiny that uses a different battery type. The JXD 696 that I mentioned earlier for instance takes a Nokia 5C battery that is very common (my previous cell phone in fact used it). Unfortunately, it looks like the newer generation of JXD portable music/video players now have a soldered in battery.

        On the other hand, 5v (usb) charging is pretty common, and you can get cell phone recharger batteries fairly cheaply, and just carry a few for use during the day, and recharge at night (assuming you have power at night). The Energizer Energi to Go is one such unit. There are 9v and 12v power packs as well if your unit needs more juice.

    • by macshit (157376) <miles@nOSPam.gnu.org> on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @12:39PM (#36530470) Homepage

      Funnily enough, I've been looking at this recently. I still don't get quite there don't seem to be many low-cost monocular wearable displays out there, even if tethered to a desktop.

      It's not good enough to be low cost, they'd also have to not suck.

      Judging from the "eye displays" I've tried, even the basic tech is still pretty shaky, and trying to make a product that seamlessly integrates with the outside environment is appreciably harder.

      A product that distracts people visually while promoting use "on the move" would also be an interesting public safety problem. Think zoned-out pedestrians listening to their ipod, or drivers yacking on their cellphone, but worse. [Whatever warning labels are on the box, you know Americans would start using them while driving... "oh, but it only blocks one eye, I felt I could handle it ... I didn't mean to kill all those orphans..."]

      So ... yeah, it's a really cool idea in SF and maybe for specialized applications in reality (special forces), but, for general usage... I dunno...

      • by AAWood (918613) <aawood@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @02:40PM (#36532670)

        Agreed on the social aspects, but on the technical ones I don't understand quite why the tech is, as you put it, pretty shaky. For one of these you just need a small screen that looks OK, enough battery to keep it going for a while, a way to get the video to it, and a way to attach it to your head. You can walk into any phone shop and get something that does the first three for a hundred pounds or so, and I don't really see any trouble with the fourth. So why does it cost three times as much to get something that does a fraction of the job at a fraction of the quality?

        I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I don't understand it. I'm missing something. I know I must be. Because right now, I have an old Windows Mobile phone lying round, and I'm trying to figure out what exactly would stop someone more handy than me from putting the screen and circuitry into an eyepatch and using it to do whatever.

        • by macshit (157376) <miles@nOSPam.gnu.org> on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @09:51PM (#36537452) Homepage

          I don't know know enough about the technical details to give a good answer, but there are some things that come to mind.

          It seems that compared to a cellphone, an eye-display would require optics (can't just hang a display in front of your eye), which would add weight/bulk/opacity. Moreover, for casual use, it would have to be even lighter than a cell phone (you can't have a heavy weight precariously perched over you eye, and bulky head gear isn't acceptable for a consumer product), and even with the battery and electronics shunted off into a separate unit (but with the optics added), that's not trivial at a reasonable cost. All of this may be solvable, but ... for a consumer product it also has to have a pretty low cost!

          Another thing is that I think generally people probably won't accept a single-eye display that blocks that eye's view entirely -- something that overlays a display onto normal vision would be far more attractive, but of course that increases the required complexity/precision even more...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @04:14AM (#36525104)

    :)

  • by fastformationuk (2295268) on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @06:50AM (#36525882)
    I like this post http://tinyurl.com/4yn3fuq [tinyurl.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @08:06AM (#36526398)

    ptorrone runs Makezine. Poorly. It's long been an irrelevant, masturbatory waste of time. At best, you got fawning credulous stories about a concept sketch some hippy dippy graphic designer came up with, or some bullshit knitting project. At worst, you had Becky Stern posting garbage about how to be an asshole to others in public.

    Sorry, guess you don't have a "be nice policy" here, Phil.

    • hah! MAKE is doing fantastic (i don't run it) - but there are over 200k+ people at maker faire each year, the advertising and print sales are great and *unlike* every other "magazine" MAKE is profitable and not going out of business. maker shed is multi-million dollar business and one of the largest open source hardware providers online. but hey, you have an axe to grind either MAKE, me or becky - it really doesn't matter how well MAKE does. in the DIY space MAKE is tops, you know that.

      you're an anonymous commenter on slashdot, talking about what *others* are doing and making on a day-old post - think about that :)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2011 @08:12AM (#36526450)

    THAT's what I want!!!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, 2011 @01:25AM (#36538446)

    There has been some being written about the wearable electronics in the past few years and nothing in the local markets, that it seems like a practical joke. Unless, the power supply issues are resolved, these future -proof devices are going to just going to remain in the lab and tech magazine pages.

  • by mostlyDigital (1898874) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @02:18PM (#36569930)
    Call me a dork but my phone is clipped to my belt. I'm approaching the age when I may need a digital hearing aid. My glasses aren't technically electronic but at the atomic level everything is and they adjust to ambient light. We won't get into pacemakers, insulin pumps... None of these items are exotic.

"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." -- Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards

Working...