ChipSiP Smart Glass Specs Better Than Google Glass? 129
First time accepted submitter SugarManner writes "Google Glass is in for a fight even before they hit the market. The Taiwanese company Chipsip has just released plans for a competing product that beats Google Glass on all specifications. (Seen on the Swedish Elektronik Tidningen — warning: written in Swedish) Nine sensors on the Taiwanese product 'Smart Glass' can detect speed, altitude, temperature, light and position. It has built-in GPS, Bluetooth 4.0 and a microphone. The processor is based on Rock Chips Cortex A9 system RK3168 running at 1.5 GHz. While Google Glass supports 802.11g communication, Chipsip Smart Glass supports 802.11n. The camera and screen resolution also top Google Glass by a notch, and with stereo sound on the Smart Glass compared to Google's mono sound, it seems that the Taiwanese company has hit all the right spots to make Google goggle. Or not. Google Glass is still in Beta, so specs on the final product may change."
Google Is Trembing (Score:5, Funny)
Because you know, they haven't been doing anything to prepare the next version of Google Glass. I'm sure they'll get started right away after this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Google Is Trembing (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you know, they haven't been doing anything to prepare the next version of Google Glass.
Beyond that very good point, this company, do they have an actual product? Because, you know, anyone can write "specs". But have they actually built one yet?
Re: (Score:3)
You could always try reading TFA before asking basic questions.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You could always try reading TFA before asking basic questions.
That would go against everything that we stand for here at Slashdot!
Re:Google Is Trembing (Score:4, Informative)
Demo at CES != "product". There's no link where I can actually buy it or even get a price in either link. this video seems to suggest 2nd half 2014, but I haven't heard an MSRP yet. I would love to investigate HUD computers like this without coming up with $1,500 and a reason sufficiently hip to satisfy some Google engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... /. seems to have ate my link: try this one [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind the $1500 or reasons so much if the specs on the current model weren't so horrible that you know you'd have to upgrade when an upgrade comes out.
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard that the Glass Explorers will get the final production model when in comes out, if so that certainly makes the $1,500 more palatable.
Re: (Score:2)
I applied and got an invite (at least to the point that I could see the $1500 price), I didn't get a clear read on provision of upgrades - though I've just been skimming the materials - I may have also clicked on a license acceptance that says I shall hold the specs and price in confidence.... if that's the case, I'm not leaking the $1500 price from my personal knowledge, I read it here on the message board posted by somebody else first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did not see in the (/. summary) specs any listing regarding weight, comfort, or style. Not that Google Glass is great in these areas, but they can be quite important too.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Contrary to what slashdot would have you believe, Google Glass is not the only see through HMD and never has been. For example, Epson is now taking pre-orders for their SECOND generation Movario BT-200. It has binocular display, gyro sensors, front facing camera, runs android, has prescription inserts, and is half the price of glass. It even won an award at CES this year - I even tried them on (very cool). Link:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Landing/moverio-bt-200-smart-glasses.do
There's also a
Re: (Score:1)
More importantly, at which price will this be sold? After all, it is easy to rise the specs (as long as you keep inside the borders of the technically possible) if you don't look at the price.
Also, what will be the battery life? And the weight?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google isn't trembling but Glass should be. They kill off far more successful projects on a weekly basis.
Captcha: infanticide.
Re: (Score:2)
Google isn't trembling but Glass should be. They kill off far more successful projects on a weekly basis.
Captcha: infanticide.
You show a pretty big misunderstanding of the culture within Google.
Google kills off things like Reader, which would have quit working on it's own after the antique back end infrastructure that supported it was phased out, since the people who wrote it had moved onto other, more interesting projects, and weren't all that stoked about leaving their new projects to go back and maintain it so that it would work with the new back end infrastructure. With the front end apps third parties wrote to strip the ads
Re: (Score:2)
Translation : " We will kill off any money-losing product that our employees get too bored to maintain"
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Translation : " We will kill off any money-losing product that our employees get too bored to maintain"
FTFY
This is a more correct translation.
I believe Google at one point offered the source code to Reader to anyone who wanted to update it for the current third party hosting infrastructure, with the proviso that they contract for some number of months of hosting. There were no takers, presumably because no one else could figure out how to make money from it, either, if Ads were not a possible revenue stream due to the front end apps on phones stripping the ads out.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a more correct translation.
More correct, but not correct. I'll take a shot at a correct explanation.
There are several things that can keep an unprofitable product alive at Google. One is employee interest. Google's culture is quite bottom-up, and if a group of people are willing to invest time -- and, along with it, a portion of their bonus/promotion prospects -- then the company is reluctant to kill it. Another is user impact. If a product has broad and/or rapidly-growing usage, and users use it very regularly, then Google will al
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Google Reader was very well used?
No, it wasn't. Google Reader pretty much owned the space it was in, but it was a small space. Not hundreds of millions.
Re: (Score:1)
Cool. Here's hopeing Google doesn't... (Score:1, Insightful)
... send in an entire armada of lawyers to try and stamp this out before it can even happen.
I'm far more interested in what other companies will do with the idea than what Google will do with it. Especially if these 'knock offs' don't come with Google+ mandatory installed.
Hard to defend the patent. (Score:2)
And - yeah - I'm pretty sure Google is already well down the path to the next version of Glass, which may be a match for ChipSip's
Re: (Score:3)
This is Google. Not Apple.
So you're saying they'll sue through their wholly-owned Motorola subsidiary rather than using their own name?
Specsmanship (Score:5, Funny)
That's all well and good, but what about the spec that really matters: does it beat Google Glass on dorkiness?
Re: (Score:2)
That's all well and good, but what about the spec that really matters: does it beat Google Glass on dorkiness?
In the Navy we called 'em BC glasses (birth control). 'cause you sure weren't going to be fathering any babies wearing 'em ...
Re: (Score:2)
Features != UX (Score:5, Insightful)
"detect speed, altitude, temperature, light and position. It has built-in GPS, Bluetooth 4.0 and a microphone. ..."
OK. It'll fail.
When will product managers understand that trying to compete by stuffing features into products does not a better product make? Has the tech design industry learnt *nothing* from the likes of Apple?
When Google's "inferior" product completely crushes them, I bet these idiots will be crying to their mystified managers that they didn't "market" it hard enough.
Muppets.
Features != Capabilities (Score:3)
When will product managers understand that trying to compete by stuffing features into products does not a better product make? Has the tech design industry learnt *nothing* from the likes of Apple?
You are confusing features with capabilities. The problem with features is mostly about complexity and interface.
A non-smart phone had many features, but was complex to use. You had to memorize which keys enabled which feature, and the unit was stuffed with things that the programmers felt were easy-to-program such as a calculator, timer, and texting.
In contrast, an iPhone has two or three orders of magnitude *more* features than a typical non-smart phone, but presents these with a much-simplified interface
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you get stranded in some strange country and your pocket computer is gone, yo
Re: (Score:2)
The primary purpose of a phone is to make phone calls.
Really? I use my phone dozens of times per day. I make or receive telephone calls on it perhaps twice per week.
Re: (Score:2)
"You are confusing features with capabilities. The problem with features is mostly about complexity and interface."
No, you're confusing good UI design with bad UI design. That's a different thing to what I'm talking about because in your example features can be rendered easy or hard to use by the way they are designed into the interface. Put it another way, you can have great features poorly executed, or poor features well executed - and in both cases the outcome is fail. Features are neutral until executed
Re: (Score:2)
When will product managers understand that trying to compete by stuffing features into products does not a better product make?
Well, that depends on the user interface, and what all those features are actually being used for.
I can't think of a use case for those features offhand (altitude?) ... oh wait, yes I can. guiding you to the right office on the right floor. So it's possible.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPS is unnecessary. It should have had Bluetooth 4.0 and not had 802.11 at all, because realistically you'll still need a phone. But many phones lack the ambient environmental sensors, so I want those.
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't exactly 'spec stuffing' when all of these things can be found in your typical cellphone (other than temperature) and even that it can be argued is a USEFUL feature. For anything worn against the temple, I'd also like it to measure heartrate would be a nice addition as well. Sensors are cheap, why not load up on them?
Not all (Score:2)
The smartphone already has all of these sensors.
Hardly. The smartphone has a light sensor, but it's not really usable for most uses being in your pocket... same thing for temperature (which most phones don't really have). Both of those things do more good on a sensor you wear in the open.
I don't think glasses are a good form-factor for anything but specialized uses (like protective goggles), but I do think there's a good use to be had for a lot of sensors to be put somewhere on us (my vote is, hat or atta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the specs that matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
'What exactly does having this thing attached to my face do to make up for having this thing attached to my face?'
Google can make pretty penny on selling GG to people who already have an answer to that question. Numbers of those people are growing every day. Those people are absolutely certain that everything that happens to them is so precious, important and valuable that they just must, as a service to humanity, carry GG on their face all day and all night, lest we, poor peons, miss one of their excit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because of side effects of new technologies. You can say the same thing about nuclear power, for example. If you buy the light side of it - easy power with little fuel - then you have to also buy the dark side of it (potential contamination of large territories that cannot be cleaned for a hundred generations.)
In this case the only thorny issue of GG is its camera - that may or may not record you. You are not important to millions of other people, but you are important to you. It may well be that I will
Re: (Score:1)
Not the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly the point. I want a device that will integrate with all my Google things, not some random collection of shit that some Taiwanese company threw together. It's the same reason why iPhone is popular. Same reason why the Nexus line is popular. Same reason why Kindle is popular. Integration. This is why companies like Microsoft and Facebook suck, they have nothing to integrate with, or just don't get it.
Re: (Score:1)
Glass and Google's sum-of-all-knowledge (Score:2)
(Emphasis added.)
You nailed it, but I think you only scratched the surface.
What knowledge does Google have, anyway? You mentioned Google Maps, and yes, that is a good one. But what about all the information they can glean from GMail? Yes, we've been lead to believe Google
Re: (Score:3)
Who's going to want Google Glass after many glassholes will be beaten by random people angry for being illegally recorded?
Covertly taken photographs, or it didn't happen...
Re: (Score:2)
Hope they will do a better job than Vuzix... (Score:1)
...since the M100 is, as far as I've tried, unusable.
The good part of Google Glass is that in it's current incarnation IS USABLE, and it has been designed 1.5 / 2 years ago (_designed_ not presented).
Turn them on, do some basic configuration, and you are up and running in a matter of _minutes_.
The M100 comes with _nothing_ more than a bare android: you must do everything by yourself, and it not nearly comparable from the usability point of view.
This one, they seems they copied much of the design from google
Re: (Score:2)
CmdrTaco on Google Glass (Score:2)
No stereo. Less speed than a ChipSiP. Lame.
Specs mean nothing (Score:2)
There are a slew of android devices out there that easily best iOS devices in every form factor. User experience and software support mean everything in a mobile platform - unless it's easier to use and more useful than what google is offering, it's DOA.
Re: (Score:2)
There are Android that beat iOS on user experience as well. Marketing plays a huge role.
Borg! (Score:2)
When? (Score:4, Funny)
It seems like I've had to read about Google Glass for about 2 years now. Really boring, no interest in it, but inescapable. Google, please release it so all the early adopter tossers can drop £1500 or whatever and strut around like the fucking hipster idiots that they are, then, as a released, naff product the tech press will take a little less of an interest in it and we can all move on with our lives.
Re: (Score:1)
The only possible win: (Score:2)
If not, then: FAIL.
Yes Sir. (Score:2)
Nailed it. What good are twenty million sensors when you don't have a proper UI to control them? And that's just proper software to control the equipment - what about the rest of the ecosystem?
Re: (Score:1)
Backend software at that.
By it's self Glass is shite, synced to the phone something, but without the backend servers it's nothing.
Smart Glass? (Score:3)
Fortunately with that choice of names we can still call their customers "glassholes". :P
For all you know... (Score:2)
This summary is needlessly breathless. For all we know, Google plans to use this chipset in the next rev glasses.
Re: (Score:1)
And I want *you* regulated to a small desert island.
Am I Reading This Correctly? (Score:1)
Am I reading this right? Google Glass has a _product_, while Chipsip has a _plan_?
Brings back memories of Microsoft Vaporware announcements, which were intended solely to fend off other companies' plans.....
Neither of these is something I'm likely to be interested in, but at least one of them actually exists.
some details (Score:1)
Chipsip product was in development for over a year. First prototypes were shown last march. Chipsip is not interesting in manufacturing it. It is just a technology showcase product and a reference design that will be sold to mainland white box OEMS.
It is remarkable that it has ChipSiPs own display module, which is a custom biaxial piezogoniometer mems IC that should be many times more power efficient than a regular matrix based display.
Re: (Score:1)
You got that right.
Re: (Score:1)
Health (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bluetooth operates at low power (1 mW for Class 3, 100 mW for Class 1.) GG is not likely to run at anything but the lowest power - it costs battery life. GG will not harm you. However it remains to be seen if your eyesight will be affected. EM radiation issues were studied by many teams; however, as I understand, GG was never studied by eye doctors and medical researchers. There are several aspects of a HUD like GG that may be relevant (focusing of the eye; shifting of the view center; and probably a dozen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's been considered. Radio waves are non-ionizing, which means they cannot cause direct damage to DNA (the radiation effect that typically causes cancer). The only potential health risk with radio frequencies is heating effects, and head-mounted devices simply don't have enough power for that to be a serious risk. There are a few scientists who postulate it is theoretically possible for long term exposure to low-power radio waves to cause damage, but there is no known scientific means for such damage
Re: (Score:1)
Hand (Score:2)
Google showed their hand way to early on Google Glass. What, did they think no one would go straight out and copy what they'd done? Wait until you see what Samsung have been building Google...
Re: (Score:1)
Except back end is *everything*.
No one stops to think "should we do this?"
These devices should be banned in public.
But you won't agree, I'm now a Luddite, and no one will get it until they are under the sword.
My last breath will be "WTF is wrong with your generation?"
Re: (Score:1)
Laugh (Score:1)
Yet no one pauses to think "should we do this".
As if the hunch backed idiot masses using "smart phones" wasn't bad enough.
Example: Constant scanning mode, "oh that guy is arguing with his SO", upload photo + facial data to "asshole.com" next subscriber to Ahole.com scans, facial data clicks "oh look there's an asshole".
A whole new level of technological oppression.
Insert scenario here.
And you thought state based CCTV was bad...wait until this crop of sociopathic millennials goes to work on the public.
Rise of the Borg. (Score:1)
That is all, return to your snacks.
Specs don't matter... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
True. This is typical marketing-speak.
<product> is best in <narrowly defined class>.
<product A> beats <product B> in <narrowly defined class>.
etc..
The crappier the product, the more they have to lean on marketing like this (and the narrower the class).
Links to sources and some comments from author (Score:1)
Thanks for linking to us! I think that's a first!
Credit goes to Armdevices for finding the story: http://armdevices.net/2014/01/... [armdevices.net]
Chipsip also of course publishes its own press releases: http://www.chipsip.com/news/in... [chipsip.com]
This is Chipsips own comparison between their design and Google Glass (pdf) http://www.chipsip.com/archive... [chipsip.com]
To some commenters:
- This is not a product. This is a reference design which other companies will build smart glasses from. Some of the dozen or so manufacturers of prisma smart gl
"has just released plans for a competing product" (Score:2)
Oh please.
Really?
Next....