Google Glass Is the Future — and the Future Has Awful Battery Life 473
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.
Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:4, Insightful)
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!!!!"
Re: (Score:3)
an entirely new thing.
Nope.
These things have been around in academia for ages. In the distant past, they had a PC in a backpack powering huge bulky glasses. In the marginally less distant past they had a much smaller PC powering less bulky glasses with enough grunt to do computer vision on an attached camera.
At that point the things (glasses, camera, other sensors) were usually bodged together on a plastic hard hat since they were cheap convenient and flexible. Duct tape may have been involved. The Sony Gl
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe if people really do want to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, don't knock the luggable - I typeset an economics textbook on one, carrying it to campus daily. It at least kept me fit.
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:4, Funny)
This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life
You have half of it right. Rev 1 has bad battery life because it was a prototype. Think outside the box about the need for better batteries, though; Rev 2 will simply plug into neural probes and power itself from your brain. What battery life problem?
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:5, Funny)
... Rev 2 will simply plug into neural probes and power itself from your brain. What battery life problem?
There are some managers where I work who would experience severe battery life problems, then.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, I just bring my mother-in-law along. Yeah, it's mostly horrible, but her face emits an anti-photographic EM field.
Re: (Score:3)
Well when you put it like that, it's hard to see any way that Google Glasses could possibly be a failure in the market!
I'm sold.
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:4, Informative)
I used to work in security and I'm well aware of where the cameras are located, and I'm definitely not being recorded every step of my trip to Starbucks. What's more, any cameras that I am caught on are unlikely to be looked at by anybody ever. They're recording in case something happens. And rarely if ever do businesses around here pool those tapes or otherwise share them. In most cases the footage is deleted within a month, provided they aren't specifically retaining a section, because storing footage with no value for years is expensive.
What's more, they don't generally change their position, they're where they are, and what they see is relatively fixed. Whereas with Google glass and such, the cameras are constantly moving and unpredictable. What's more once the footage is uploaded, it's much more likely that it will be seen by people at large.
Just because you don't get the situation, doesn't mean my views are paranoid, it just means that I'm well aware of the situation and have done actually thinking about it.
Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people (Score:4, Funny)
but its so awesome (Score:2)
i got data flashing in front of me all the time. i know the news before anyone else. i'm so cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:but its so awesome (Score:4, Funny)
Or easily replacable... (Score:2)
Batteries.
Since it's, effectively, a pair of glasses, make each of the temples or temple tips be a rechargable battery, with a good enough connector to handle connecting/disconnecting and plugging / unplugging hundreds of times.
Design them so that it won't shut down if even one of the two power sources is present, and ship with two+, allowing people to buy additional. Power temple #L1 is low? Disconnect and plug in power temple #L2. Power temple #R1 is recharged, replace power temple #R2 that are on the
Re: (Score:2)
People are supposed to put on the glasses (even if they don't wear glasses) and then also remember to bring three or four handfuls of batteries, and not lose them also? And you also have to remember to charge three or four sets of these tiny things every day?
People did that regularly with several models of cell phones.
But there's also that new battery model, which if it scales well, could solve the entire problem. (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153614-new-lithium-ion-battery-design-thats-2000-times-
Battery life is directly proportional to dorkiness (Score:5, Funny)
You could probably have a 48-hour battery life if you wanted to wrap the sides and back of your head with batteries. Go for it.
Propeller head (Score:5, Funny)
Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short (Score:3)
...of course battery life on these is going to be low; they're designed to attach to one side of your glasses! Even if they had the space to put more battery in, they wouldn't, because then you'd have a device that was always pulling your glasses down one side of your face, to say nothing of the extra weight on your nose and ear.
Batteries are heavy. If you create a face-mounted computer, you're going to want to make it as light as humanly possible. This should not come as anything remotely close to a surprise or shock to geeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The battery life of almost EVERYTHING is low. About the only electronics that can be charged at my leisure and not that of the device are my eReaders.
This isn't new. I bought a portfolio case for my Newton because it offered an AA battery pack instead of having to rely on the pitiful amount of juice that the Newton's internal AAA batteries could provide.
Re: (Score:2)
...of course battery life on these is going to be low; they're designed to attach to one side of your glasses! Even if they had the space to put more battery in, they wouldn't, because then you'd have a device that was always pulling your glasses down one side of your face, to say nothing of the extra weight on your nose and ear.
Batteries are heavy. If you create a face-mounted computer, you're going to want to make it as light as humanly possible. This should not come as anything remotely close to a surprise or shock to geeks.
The current design *is* a pair of glasses, it doesn't attach to them. So, there is a bit of real estate but grow the batteries too much and you start to look ridiculous. Unless that was what you were going for...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would prefer a power cable. Put the battery in my pocket.
Kinda what I was thinking.
Has no one at Google ever used a lav mic?
External battery pack. (Score:5, Interesting)
Would look like stereo headphone cords. Could have an arbitrarily large battery in your pocket or purse. They sell them now for cell phones-- basically double the life.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! Then you can look even more nerdy using them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes! Then you can look even more nerdy using them.
Said the Slashdot poster with a UID of less than 100,000.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think people will listen to their music while wearing google glasses?
Basic Engineering Constraints Google dreaming (Score:2)
Google glass has to have a powerful ARM processor and a high resolution display to implement it's specs. 2013 technology can only reduce the power consumption for that to a certain extent. And glass is supposed to be a wearable pair of glasses, so the battery mass can only be so high before it causes pain for the wearer.
A wire trailing down from the user's neck to a battery pack elsewhere is a potential solution...but wires like that get tangled up.
Maybe a bleeding edge higher density experimental battery
Re: (Score:2)
A wire trailing down from the user's neck to a battery pack elsewhere is a potential solution...but wires like that get tangled up.
Why not a battery that hangs around your neck? If you make it flat and thin enough and hang it from a lanyard it could be worn under the shirt with comfort and would also be discreet. It could easily hold a battery twice the size of that found in a cellphone. If the battery is built into the lanyard you can have a wire take the charge from the battery up through the lanyard to the back of the neck where the glasses can plug in. Get's the weight of the head and onto a part of the body than can handle the
Who's Ready for.... (Score:5, Funny)
Blink Blink Revolution...
***
Blink Right Eye
Now Left,
Right again,
Left twice....
You did it!!!!
Battery Life (Score:3)
I wonder if some product developers have been operating on the assumption that battery life will triple in the next year or two. There have been reports suggesting that such a close-in timeframe for such substantial improvement is not impossible.
And those of us who don't need glasses? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
use the host as powersource - a la Matrix (Score:3, Insightful)
People have also made mechanical power sources from footsteps or pedometer pendulums. Remember self-winding watches?
You guys are tough! (Score:3)
Why is everyone so critical of this technology?
It's new and interesting. Obviously it is going to take a few iterations to be fully functional, but why should that stop the early adopters from beta-testing the device if they want to pay for it? Other companies make us do it all the time with computers, phones, software and cars.
Also, how much battery life is enough? The hardware is very small... would you rather have a gigantic Lithium ion battery strapped to your head? (That might help with balancing the device center-of-mass.) Or maybe a micro-nuclear reactor? Just like your phone: If you want it to last all day, don't use it all the time.
Have we really become so elitist that we cannot appreciate novel technology unless it is completely and utterly perfect?
Re:Google glasses (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
great just proves my point that I was being recorded without my permission?
Re:Google glasses (Score:4, Informative)
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
Re:Google glasses (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes and no.
Depending on the location (nation, state, municipality, etc) there are laws about deliberately filming someone. ~Sometimes~ there are legal differences between casual recording (you walking past in the background) and deliberate recording, but sometimes not.
Sure, you're not going to be (normally) busted for filming your friends at the beach and getting some random people in the background, but it's still possible. (IIRC, there was an Australian case very recently about this.)
Re: (Score:3)
Given Google is in the US, I'm going by US based laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Public_property [wikipedia.org]
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf [krages.com]
It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property.
Photographing private property from within the public domain is legal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room. In some states, there is no definition of "private," in which case, there is
Re: (Score:2)
Until I ask you to stop, at which point your continued persistence could be construed as harassment.
Re:Google glasses (Score:5, Funny)
Until I ask you to stop
Fuck asking, I'm getting t-shirts printed up:
By recording this person, you consent to him kicking the holy living shit out of you.
Hey, it works for EULAs...
Re: (Score:2)
Get me an order link and I'll buy like 20 of those. XXL Tall please :P
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to start making shirts with IR LEDs sewn into them.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of those companies that use EULAs have purchased a few members of congress. How many do you own?
Re: (Score:2)
With an average lens or video camera, which means that it doesn't apply to super telephoto lenses and it doesn't apply to cameras that are concealed.
Re: (Score:2)
With an average lens or video camera, which means that it doesn't apply to super telephoto lenses and it doesn't apply to cameras that are concealed.
This thing is hardly conceled. Certainly no more so than a cell phone camera, which is quite common. Heck, I'd argue that a cell phone camera is even more conceled, since it's primarily a phone, and there's lot of other stuff you can do on a phone, and it's not always obvious you're pointing its camera at someone; whereas, with Google Glass, there's this chunky thing attached to a weird partial glasses frame on someones face - it doesn't just blend in, and it doesn't look like ordinary glasses in any way.
He
Re: Google glasses (Score:5, Funny)
Laws regarding filming children (usually more restrictive, sometimes very much so) add to the stickiness of this situation.
Stickiness? Children? Really?
Re: Google glasses (Score:5, Funny)
You're supposed to think of the children -- but not like that.
Glasshole (Score:5, Funny)
There may not be an "expectation" of privacy in public, but being "in your face" photographed and/or recorded in public by someone wearing this device makes the wearer a "Glasshole".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, at least you've saved iGlasshole for the Apple fans.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, however, there's a legal difference between hidden cameras and ones that are in full view when deciding how reasonable it is. If you've gone to the trouble of going someplace that's technically public, but where there are no cameras, you may very well still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but short of standing in the middle of the street, most places people think of as "public" are in fact private property and the owners are well within rights to demand you turn that shit off and put it away or go play in traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. You have no expectation that something made public can be retroactively made private, not that everything relating to public spaces is automatically non-private.
Public restrooms are public access spaces in which a person can expect a great deal of visual privacy but little auditory privacy.
There is also a consideration for the efforts people take to ensure that something remains private. That's why merely locking a container with locks that are trivially circumvented triggers legal protections r
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google glasses (Score:5, Funny)
If you're in a crowded theater, the best way is shouting "Fire!".
Re: (Score:2)
"OMG! MY PRIVACY!" is not a license for violence. (Score:2)
While your privacy MAY be protected to some extent by local laws, it is trumped by the protection of other people's (and yours) bodies from physical harm.
Re:Google glasses (Score:5, Funny)
Great. That's where the camera is. I'll have some wonderful footage... ...or you would have if your battery had not run out about an hour ago.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see why these devices are creating so much anger. Seriously? You're so ticked off by someone wearing a device that you're going to physically assault them?
Re: (Score:3)
The most notable effect of Google Glass has been a resurgence of the internet tough guy.
Re:Google glasses (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Apparently the future also has plenty of imbeciles...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would the assault charge be worth it?
Bearing in mind that if you happened to do this to somebody who just happened to be an off-duty cop, you'd be facing a whole world of grief.
Re: (Score:2)
So you rather be recorded discretely by a phone in a pocket or held in hands casually? At least with Google Glass you are able to tell you might be recorded as someone is staring at you or wearing one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
I swear that if anyone approaches me wearing those things I'm going to punch him in the face.
So, you spend a lot of time in Paris McDonald's [huffingtonpost.com] do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The battery life is definitely going to suck in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it is. Because people haven't been working on that for a decade.
Re: Google glasses (Score:2)
Sorry mom. Even with bringing me Mac-n-cheese, I'm gonna have to pop you one. Teh internets old me to.
Re: (Score:2)
So you come on a site that about News for Nerds and you think it's an insult when you call him nerd. But you go ahead and try and assault me because of the glasses I choose to wear. I say try because your attempt would be laughable and in the end the assault charges would be the least of your concerns. Don't worry though I hear broken jaws heal quickly.
Re:Doesn't Matter (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
With people like you around it's no wonder. You have added nothing to the debate except to insult someone you don't even know.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So why not a version with a Ray Charles type sunglasses frame. Plenty of room for extra battery size in the arms and the oversize dark lenses could completely camouflage the fact that there is a camera and display behind the lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Make the lens dark with translucent solar cells.
Google made that rule (Score:3)
ORLY? Who made that rule?
Google did, through design choices.
Look at it [bing.net]. When not wearing, are you going to:
1) Put in pocket with keys
2) Put in pocket with phone.
3) Put in backpack with books.
Look at any image showing the whole thing. It doesn't even fold up like sunglasses so you cannot use a case. It would not fit in a pocket, and you'd be an idiot to do so anyway as it looks really fragile.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if you can unclip it from the frame, but if so, it would fit nicely in my pocket protector.
Even if you could do that (100% chance the answer is no because of the way it attaches to both the front and sides of the frames) where would you put the frames themselves? Leave them on? That would be even less acceptable to people than simply wearing the "dead" glasses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Such a low id
Au contraire, my id is quite active and often in control.
^
Ha, Freudian rimshot, where the cymbal hit is replaced by your mother.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello, generally pigiron, I've also heard that generally people make poor financial decisions and generally are out of shape. Any other generalizations which apply only to you which you would like to discuss?
Re: (Score:3)
You replied to the wrong post. I never used the word "generally." In fact I gave a "particular" counter-example. Learn to read.
I responded to the correct post, yours. A 'particular counter-example' might mean something if the person you were responding to didn't literally use the term 'generally'.
See, when someone makes a statement, "You generally don't find humans on the Moon." It doesn't add anything to the conversation to say, "But Buzz Aldrin was there!"
Generally, those sorts of conversations occur bet
Re: (Score:2)
The comparison with Segway isn't really fair, given it wasn't really "new" (wheeled transportation has been pretty common for awhile). Wearable computing, OTOH, is breaking into some uncharted territory and has a lot of potential for interesting/innovative stuff that we really haven't seen before.
I don't really understand the massive backlash of hate Glass seems to be getting. Maybe it's because it's Google, and they're not really being too secretive about it, so it's in our faces more than standard R&D
Re: (Score:2)
The uniqueness is "wearable" + "computing"; If monocles overlayed dynamic information, then you'd be right. Segways combined wheeled transportation with gyros, which in the end doesn't provide any additional functionality; stationary stability doesn't add much to personal transportation.
It opens the door for virtually placing that information in the real world, something that hasn't b
They aren't even that good at cloud (Score:3)
Although the parent is rather obviously trolling, Google has a bit to learn about marketing. They are after all the brainiacs that launch social hubs by generating massive publicity and intrest for it, then letting people in only slowly so that by the time most people can actually use it, the hype has completely died off and the early birds have left because the places were deserted.
Google Glass has a simple answer for both power and battery life and price and reception. It is called a wire, the kind of wi
Re: (Score:3)