Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Power Hardware

Google Glass Is the Future — and the Future Has Awful Battery Life 473

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the shorten-length-of-day dept.
zacharye writes "The concept of wearable tech is really buzzing right now as pundits tout smart eyewear, watches and other connected devices as the future of tech. It makes sense, of course — smartphone growth is slowing and people need something to hold on to — but the early 'Explorer' version of Google's highly anticipated Google Glass headset has major problem that could be a big barrier for widespread adoption: Awful battery life." Also, a review of the hardware. The current Glass hardware heads south in less than five hours, which doesn't seem too short relative to similarly powerful devices, but since it is meant to be worn all the time you'd think it would have a large enough battery to make it at least 8 or 10 hours.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Glass Is the Future — and the Future Has Awful Battery Life

Comments Filter:
  • by Enry (630) <enry.wayga@net> on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @01:27PM (#43601965) Journal

    This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life

  • Re:Google glasses (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @01:28PM (#43601977)

    Great. That's where the camera is. I'll have some wonderful footage to provide the cops when assault charges are filed.

    See you in court jackass.

  • Re:Google glasses (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @01:29PM (#43601991)

    I swear that if anyone approaches me wearing those things I'm going to punch him in the face.

    Awww. *pinches cheeks* Remember when you said that about people using cell phones in public? That was just as cute.

  • Re:Google glasses (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zlives (2009072) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @01:30PM (#43602007)

    great just proves my point that I was being recorded without my permission?

  • Re:Doesn't Matter (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HornWumpus (783565) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @01:31PM (#43602019)

    Give it a few generations to shrink and it will hide in glasses frames.

    For now the dorks that will buy it will want you to notice.

  • by Luthair (847766) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @01:42PM (#43602165)
    In truth this isn't even rev-1, its not even intended for consumers.
  • by RoknrolZombie (2504888) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @01:51PM (#43602275)

    I will hit anyone wearing Google Glass. You are stealing privacy from all of us. Get ready to get kicked and your Google Glasses destroyed.

    I hope this becomes a trend, just like what happened to that guy who weared AR glasses in France. Break them and punch in the face.

    So passionate about this, yet you're constantly being filmed wherever you go and have no problem with it? Is the difference between this and a guy with a smartphone that you can tell the guy with the smartphone is recording you from his awkward hold of the phone? What if a "recording" indicator were placed on them (like a red light)? Would you still be so angry about this?

    And, just so you know, it's not recording all the time, only when you tell it to record. Not all that much different than an underpowered smartphone with voice commands, strapped to your head.

    The parent is full of shit anyway - posting as AC? And you expect us to believe that your balls will be big enough to walk up to a random stranger in a public place and punch them? Because of what they're wearing? Right. You'll do what the rest of us do: Mutter under our breath and turn our backs to them.

  • by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @02:07PM (#43602481)

    It's completely different. The vast majority of the time that I'm on video it's surveillance footage that never gets viewed by anybody at all, unless something happens. Comparing that with footage that's easily leaked online is disingenuous at best.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't care to be filmed in general, but trying to suggest that the two are equivalent is just laughable.

  • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @02:10PM (#43602517)

    I'm in my early 30's with better than 20/20 vision. I know that won't hold out forever, but I've never needed glasses. Why would I want to wear these?

  • by peter303 (12292) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @02:21PM (#43602603)
    You have a huge electro-chemical generator just millmeters from the glasses.

    People have also made mechanical power sources from footsteps or pedometer pendulums. Remember self-winding watches?
  • by unrtst (777550) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @02:27PM (#43602677)

    This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life

    Not only this, but the article is simply flamebait:

    But for all the hype surrounding another category of wearable devices — connected eyewear — early tests with Google Glass suggest battery performance may be absolutely awful.

    I would hardly call 5 hours of continuous use "absolutely awful". Personally, I'd put that in the "could be better" category. If I'm sitting at my computer, I'm probably going to take them off; If I'm playing frisbee or basketball etc, I'm taking them off; if I'm just sitting around the house, I'm taking them off; etc etc. I think 5 hours a day is more than I'd use them anyway... but all those times when you take them off, they could also be charging.

    The article gets much worse though:

    If the user captures longer videos and uses Glass a bit more regularly, Stevens believes the headset will only last “a couple of hours” before the battery dies.

    A device that only lasts two hours between charges is not the future of tech.

    That wasn't a test. That was what he thought would happen, and he didn't try it. I doubt that claim is accurate. The screen and communications channels are running the whole time anyway, and that's probably sucking the majority of the power. Recording while doing so probably won't make much of a difference... but I'm just postulating too. Maybe he should have actually tested it, since he has one!
    And then they follow it up with a statement, as if that was actually fact. That's rotten.

    I've looked at battery powered pico projectors over the years (never got one though), and most claimed around 2 hours life. That's *nearly* enough, but I want to be sure I'll be able to finish a movie on one. This, IMO, is similar. If it gets 2.5 hours or more, I think that's pretty good for constant recording or playing (besides, where are you storing 2.5+ hours of HD video?), and this isn't meant to replace video cameras. I don't know what they're thinking.

    A complaint about batterly life from someone that probably wouldn't wear this in public for more than 10 minutes... yeah, I don't care what he has to say. (I'm not saying I'd wear it all that much either... but I'm not going to berate the battery life of something I wouldn't use anyway)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @03:24PM (#43603285)

    Right. This isn't even to the level of a product prototype. It's a prototype of a *class* of product, an entirely new thing. To use an obligatory car analogy, this isn't a Model T, or even something like an early Benz automobile, it's more along the lines of an early steam powered "road locomotive". Yeah, it's got a few rough edges.

    Google is feeling their way, trying to figure out how this technology might be applied. It has a long ways to go before mass adoption, if it even gets there. It's very interesting technology, so it's getting a lot of attention. Thus, "OMG!! Battery life SUX!!!!"

  • by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @05:34PM (#43604437) Homepage
    That's a lousy excuse to allow a company to shift a poor product. They're charging for it and besides the point for something meant to be worn all day battery life should have been at the top of the list of things to sort out. Otherwise it just shows poor planning.
  • by Oceanplexian (807998) on Wednesday May 01, 2013 @08:29PM (#43605567) Homepage

    In truth this isn't even rev-1, its not even intended for consumers.

    Why then is Apple capable of releasing polished products from the beginning?

    Google yet again comes out with a neat concept but fails at delivery. They're obviously trying to get journalists to review it and generate the fake exclusivity hype. Unfortunately, as usual, the prototype doesn't deliver, makes compromises in quality, and looks absolutely goofy. It's hilarious they have the audacity to charge a ridiculous sum of money for a 640x360 screen shoved in some sunglasses.

    I'm sorry, but great innovations are 1% ideas and 99% application. Google should STFU about concepts until they have something worth buying

Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.

Working...