Sony To Release Google Glass Competitor 76
jfruh writes: With Google retooling its Glass offering, Sony appears to have jumped into the breach to offer an Android-compatible wearable face-computer. The developer edition of SmartEyeglass will be available in March for $840, with a commercial release planned for 2016. The device must be manipulated with a separate, wired controller unit that houses a microphone, speakers and an NFC module.
Comes with DRM (Score:1)
And ads. But you should be able to manage everything by blacking them out by a magic marker. Presto!
Re: (Score:3)
I hear it installs a rootkit in your eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
"I know! Let's compete with a non-product, technology PoC that has no proven market, PLUS a high-degree of resistance and hostility by prospective customers!"
"That's why you're the boss, J.T. and why you make the big dollars."
In Before... (Score:3)
In Before the Jokes about UMD, Betamax, and Minidisc.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Meh. I was fooled into buying one of their Vaio flip tops, which looked pretty cool in the store. I've been subject to such delights as
- The machine's flagship feature, (the flip top) is incredibly fragile; it's already broken twice under what can only be described as light, occasional use
- Shit video drivers. It crashes on wake up about 1/3 of the time. I used to put up with that from Linux (like ten years ago), but this is on the factory installed hardware/software combos.
- Wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about Walkman?
And now I'm not joking... that device was as big a cultural shift as the smartphone.
Why not reuse the name? It's their IP.
It shows an introspective, penitent, and confident Sony looking into its past to claim its future.
The ad campaign could feature Blade Runner-esque and William Gibson style "jacking in" and all that great early 1980s cyberpunk culture.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
ahh! they already did repurpose the name, thanks for the info
Making same mistakes (Score:4, Interesting)
Exclusivity, not unfounded "privacy" concerns (Score:1)
The exclusivity is what really turned people off about it, not the "privacy" concerns that came up.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You need a camera to identify what the user is looking at! Image recognition is sort key for any form of useful augmented reality. Otherwise you are just showing notifications from your phone and a stupid floating HUD.
Re: (Score:1)
There's something I don't understand about these people's strategy: why aren't they suspecting it when they don't see any weird glasses?
I wear a hat (and still this time of year, a jacket) when I'm out on the street, or when I'm in a bar, or in other places where your shapely-assed wife might be walking away from me. Nobody ever spontaneously punches me without provocation. I could ver
Re: (Score:2)
So WTF is the deal with singling out the conspicuously worn cameras?
It might have something to do with privacy laws that apply stricter scrutiny to pictures from hidden cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
So I see you, hear you and remember what you said and did and that is OK but I can prove it, is not. What are you really trying to say, you want to reserve the very questionable right to lie?
Smart glasses are really all about leaving that smart phone in your pocket, not having to take it out, of it being far more functional with vastly improved screen real estate.
When it comes to advertising wonks of course the idea is not to jam in ads just anywhere in view space, that will get banned in short order,
Re: (Score:2)
Bad idea, people hate that.
No. Vocal slashdot users hate that. The vast majority of people seem to be either intrigued by the concept, or campaigning against it to generate free newspaper advertising (i.e. Australian bar which made the news after it advertised that Google Glass is not permitted despite as far as I can tell no Glass products ever making it into this country, or cinemas banning it because of "privacy" despite it not having the battery life to live through a feature length recording session.).
Rootkits, hacks - just the brand to trust (Score:1)
> The Internet-connected SmartEyeglass
Just the brand to trust with not just the wearer's privacy, but of everyone's in vicinity. What could go wrong?
Glassholes weren't geeky looking enough... (Score:4, Interesting)
So Sony added a wired controller?! Because, yeah, nothing is sexier than wearing something on your head with wires coming off it.
Re: (Score:2)
So Sony added a wired controller?! Because, yeah, nothing is sexier than wearing something on your head with wires coming off it.
First thing I was thinking of too. Not sure which technical decade Sony was thrown back into recently, but they kind of missed the mark here with wireless NFC technology paired with a wired "remote".
Re: (Score:2)
>So Sony added a wired controller?! Because, yeah, nothing is sexier than wearing something on your head with wires coming off it.
Not sexy, but healthy! You see, eyeglasses are worn on the head. (Most) human heads house a brain, which is a delicate and (usually) very complicated biological computer that runs on extremely low voltages. A radio frequency emitter in close promixity of brain acts like a kind of neuron-jammer and possibly a potent source for migraines. I think BT headspeaker users are silly for that very reason and I use IR based wireless headphones for TV, but of course IR is not good for faster data comms.
So, a consumer who chooses to use a newer more robust wireless technology (BT) and suffers zero side effects from it's usage (even over years of use), they are somehow deemed "silly" to you?
Perhaps the only thing that is silly is the amount of FUD you're trying to spread here. Even if it held some level of valid concern for public health, it's going to be one hell of an effort to convince the FCC to start banning wireless protocols that are as prevalent as BT/WiFi are today.
Hell, your damn toaster and micr
Re: (Score:2)
The issue I have with the design, isn't the wire, but the fact the frames are so huge and obvious.
If we were to have normal looking glasses, with a low profile wire, that went to a bulker piece of electronics it wouldn't be so bad. You can have that wire hidden by your ear and hairline.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem I have with the design, is the whole stupid idea that you buy it at some retail outlet. Let's get some far more realistic custom design fitting and make sure that each pair specifically suits that individual user, even the frame, let alone the lenses. The only place the glasses should be sold is at an optometrist and they should be properly fitted and adjusted to that specific user, otherwise problems will result with any real extended use.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, yeah, nothing is sexier than wearing something on your head with wires coming off it.
I know, right? When I first saw the girl in this photo [shutterstock.com] I thought, I'd totally hook up with her. Then I saw that wire coming off of her headphones...
Well, that and my wife and that I'm probably older than her father. But that wire was definitely the deciding factor for me.
so... (Score:3)
They are competing against a product that essentially never made it out of public beta?
Maybe they will actually win this time.
Maybe not.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's plan to "force" companies to waste R&D resources? Last one with money in the bank wins!
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, nothing from Google ever makes it out of public beta.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Japan would tolerate it. I don't really have any idea how far they've moved towards total surveillance, but I'd be shocked if their cities weren't packed full of clever cameras.
Sony has made a lot of stuff they have little intention of selling outside of Japan.
There are fairly compelling business uses for something like glass. Many of them require a camera. I don't think they think they're going to sell a lot of these.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Google Glass was never sold to the public... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, all they need to do is put them on a store shelf ;)
No thanks (Score:2)
The last time I worked on a brand new Sony laptop, it was clear that Sony considered the laptop to be nothing more than a delivery vehicle for it's entertainment products. There was so much Sony crapware on the machine that, out of the box, it wasn't even usable until I uninstalled the majority of the junk.
I anticipate that Sony will force you to watch a movie trailer every time you turn it on, and won't let you use it until you've watched the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the default state for all new laptops. Effectively this is their 'pre usable' mode of operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Now this is the right way to do it (Score:1)
Proper artificial reality. Although it's in monochrome, it actually has the ability to interact with most of your field of view... That means cool things like translating the sign you're reading or actually showing you which way to go. It's basically the entire opposite of what google glass was, which was the equivalent of putting your phone on a stick and gluing it to your head.
Even monochrome low resolution, it's a great start.
heh (Score:1)
I have to say...
Every Sony product has weird connections, proprietary software and locked in usage, won't work with anything else, and makes Apple look like a BSD licensed product.
And, of course, the cost.
What's the point?
Or, for once, is Sony going to make it an open platform, with standardized connectors, and cheaper than everyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is too long, let me summarize it for you:
Fuck Sony and their overpriced shit.
And that is my genuine opinion, it's not sarcasm.
Technology is more important than implementation.. (Score:2)
This is fundamentally different than Google Glass with the eyepiece. Although the implementation is not ideal (it only projects green/yellow), it is the technology behind this design that is important. The ability to project directly on the lenses means that there are no external components that identify the wearer as any different than anyone else. Given time to shrink down and to eliminate the puck you have a device that
In a world seeking alpha ... (Score:2)
So it is going to push weirdo glasses with cameras without the a history of "not being evil". With a wired handheld
Re: (Score:2)
This is the company that has four different screens on it's DEV-50 digital binoculars straight from the lawyer's desk (Watch what you are doing, Don't run into things, You might get dizzy, You're gonna die) that you have to click through EVERY time you use the damn things. I can't wait to see what idiot warnings these things will come with.
And, if it's like any other Sony product aside from their cameras, they will never update the firmware, fix anything that breaks or even acknowledge that they made it on
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they did help build the 'sue your users into oblivion' business model that became ever so popular. That counts right?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I actually found a use for a smart watch the other day. Dominos pizza (at least the aussie version) app supports them to show how long your pizza/food is taking to cook and be delivered.
hey sony (Score:1)
not a competitor! (Score:2)
google glass is no longer being sold, [bbc.com] so there is literally no competition between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Glass ***in its current, pre-product form*** has stopped ***being offered at an insane price to beta testers***. That is FAR from saying glass is done being sold; it just means it isn't being sold *yet*.
Google did not spend all that money, and throw the head of Nest on the project only to stop competing in that space.
$840 (Score:2)
$840 dollars from Samsung translates roughly into $1600 from your optician.
motorcycle HUD (Score:3, Interesting)
Google had glasshole so.. (Score:2)
sounds like microsoft kin (Score:1)
Sony Segway competitor? (Score:1)
SmartSpex (Score:1)
Shoulda used more alliteration. #missedOpportunity
The Perfect Name! (Score:3, Funny)
Why this will fail... (Score:1)