Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

The Ups and Downs of Wearable Computing 65

Posted by Hemos from the it's-a-hard-knock-life-for-me dept.
Flood writes "The Washington Post has a front page story today about Xybernaut, billed as one of wearable computing's 'pioneers'. Interesting bit about the ups and downs of starting a cutting-edge company. " Wearable computing is something that will definitely come - but I still don't have a good feel for when. What do you folks think?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Ups and Downs of Wearable Computing More

The Ups and Downs of Wearable Computing

Comments Filter:
  • I've worked with Xybernaut and their unit. So some feedback from someone who's actually used it, here. . .
    • Cost Agreed, currently too high. I've heard the Xybernaut folks are working with some large hardware outfit, to improve producibility and bring costs down. A smart move. . .
    • The Look isn't all that bad. If the unit required a whole vest-full of stuff, that'd be one thing, but currently, it's a waist unit, maybe 4" x 6" x 1"-1" thick, a headset with headphones, mike, and viewer, and an optional wrist-mounted KB unit. There's likely more, but that is what **I** have played with to date...
    • Useability: Well, it runs Win9x. . . .controlled by mouse (part of the waist unit) or via voice. It's basically a Wintel box, at least as currently shipped. . . The real question is, is speech recognition to the point where it would hit 99% + reliability without previous system training for the user, other than perhaps reading one paragraph to initialize. . .
    • OS Well, it comes with Win9x. Which means it will run Linux, FreeBSD, or Solaris, at least. Drivers may be an issue here, but not insurmountable. . .
    • Availability You can buy it now from the website. That's for starters. This is still pretty much specialist gear for now. . . I agree with another poster, if you could get the display to look like a pair of RayBans or those Arnold Schwarzenegger Terminator sunglasses (Revo's ???), you'd likely have a hit. . . .
  • If a pen required you to adjust the way you work to use it, you wouldn't use a pen. ally, In fact, people WERE required to adjust their work habits to accomodate pens. They had to acquire an ink well, pen tips, and go through some form of training to "write with a pen". This is assuming that they were literate in the first place. There is a common theme in many of my posts: New technology (and each material invention that results) is only SO accomodating. Any adopters (early or late) of any tool must spend time, often a significant portion of their lives, to learn to use that tool, and often must make outstanding sacrifices to do so as well.
  • Yea, i probably should know, its just sounds like one of those recent buzwords.

    Is a vetical market a niche market, or otherwise specialist market.

    Is there a horizontal market?

    Seriously... ive wondered abotu it for a while, didnt know who to ask
  • Prof. Steve Mann [wearcomp.org] at the University of Toronto has been doing this stuff since the late 70's. His display is a lot nicer (sunglasses). Most of the system is woven into the lining of a jacket. He actually wears it everywehere.
  • I think wearable computers are an just an example of the kinds of things that are going to happen in the next 10 or so years and that have been happening in the last 2 or 3; specifically a movement from computers as desktop troll boxes used as a specific seperate appliance to a fully integrated tool used in all household and day to day activities.
    Already in the US, we've seen the internet take computers from the homes of only geeks+dorks to a widespread upper-mid class consumer item. The influence of this has led to such goofy looking contraptions as the imac and other (in the case of the imac successful) attempts to appeal to ordinary consumer culture as opposed to the nitty gritty tastes of geeks.
    This will have two effects; a new appliance used only for gathering information and the proliferation of low powered networked computers (LPNC's "LupNicks" teehee!) in major household appliances.
    The informational appliances could turn out to be clothing, probably some piece of eyewear connected to a internet box connected via radio waves to my household LAN then to the net. I imagine these would have to be voice controlled.
    As for the household appliances, computerization would vary according to need. I suspect that each appliance would connect to one's household LAN again via radio waves for the purpose of supplying access to various sensor registers in the device; my fridge would have sensors for eggs + 40oz bottles of malt liquor. When a register reaches a certain value, some script is run (ie: emailing local stores for more eggs/beer).
    These devices will become popular when a) cheap and b) sexy and appealing over TV.

    -gaffney
  • Everyone talks about wearables as though its just another thing you are going to have to carry with you wherever you go. I don't see it this way at all. I already carry a cell phone, a pager, a PDA, and a laptop with me wherever I go. With the backpack it all fits in, thats 10kg of junk that follows me like a cyberaddiction. Imagine replacing ALL of that with a simple, 2kg wearable; replacing all of those things with one device (with GPS and TV/Radio thrown in) would be incredible...
  • If a wearable computer device becomes the norm in the future, isn't it possible that people will come to rely on them for everything?

    Sure, we all "rely" on our computers, but what happens when the computer starts to become- our long and short term memory? Our friends? Our signals when to eat, drink, all because we have come to depend on them for everything!?

    Is this possible?
  • Whoever builds the first main stream whereable, I sure hope they have the sense to make it Laser Tag ready. (Sensors on the front/back/head/shoulders, etc).
  • Just because they hold a patent doesn't mean they have to hoard it... they are free to license it to other companies, thus promoting market growth. Lots of companies license their patents, it is just part of doing business.
    ---
  • Maybe we aren't ready for wearables yet, but it seems to me, a big step toward that is decent voice recognition software.

    Does anyone have any feeling for any decent voice recog. software that runs in linux? If there were some usable software/libraries around, it would be interesting to hack out a voice recog. interface for xmms. :) Or maybe something that would read /. headlines to me in the morning while I am getting ready to head to work.

    Heh. Maybe andover could market a wearable wearable that displays the /. headlines over one eye. That way you can be half as efficient at work. (:

  • Laptops won't die anytime soon. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As long as keyboards remain the most efficient means of computer input, laptops will still be around.

    I suspect now that the laptop screens have expanded out to 14-15 inches, we will see two things happen to that market: 1) laptop screens will start to drop in price so that within 5 years we will see the $500 laptop, 2) resolution of the LCDs will increase towards 300dpi for the high end models.

    Hopefully within 5 years we will have decent wireless connectivity everywhere, but I'm not holding my breath. www.ricochet.net looks the most promising, but they haven't expanded their coverage noticeably in the past 3-4 years.
  • And as to valuing leisure time, consider this: when our company IPOs, you'll be sitting in the office
    waiting for them to fax you the shareholder agreements so you can sign and fax them back. I, on the
    other hand, will be on the beach spending the IPO dough drinking mai tais while I wait for my fax.
    Then, while you are valuing your leisure time sitting by the phone hoping I'll call you back with the
    dinner plans, I'll have turned my phone off.

    uhhh.... you bet.
  • For the same reason I refuse to wear a beeper or cellular phone.

    When I am at work, I work, when I am not... I do not. I highly value my leisure time.

  • and ill get something put in there someday, as long as it's not running windoze.

    Or maybe a nice little fishtank with a robotic fish swimming around. cute.
    2nd post? ble

  • wearable timeframe (Score:3)

    by HeraldMage ( 50053 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @05:43AM (#1623777) Homepage

    Given what I've seen of wearable computing so far, and with other technologies, such as the embedded chips that can be used by a "smart" building to tell where you are and whether you are authorized to enter certain rooms, I would guess that useful, wearable computing would really hit its stride in another two to three years. Maybe five at the outside.

    Of course, this begs the Faustian question, just because you *can* wear a computer, should you? or would you want to? I think my cell phone is a big enough "leash" already, would I want to wear a computer to fix problems even when I'm not at work? No...

    Besides, I'd much rather just have the Aura workstation [poetictech.com] desk...

  • What did the Post do to make Netscape 4.7 lay the company info box over the top of the article? I want to avoid causing the same mess..
  • I've stuck my head in a demo unit(admittedly, almost a year ago), and been very unimpressed. The displays are a bit dificult to read, and somewhat intrusive. Until they get some higher quality display technology, wearable computing will sit where pen-computing sat for a while. But look a all of us with our Palm Pilots now... it took a re-application of the technology.

    Xybernaut should be careful, or their computer will go the way of the Apple Newton.

    One more small thing: Batteries need to get cheaper and smaller. Oooo, maybe fuel cells?
  • I've worked out a very crude rule-of-thumb, for technology. There seems to be a significant shift in usage, direction and development, every 10 years.

    So, by simply working out when a particular phase started, you can work out when the next phase will become dominant, simply by adding one decade.

    This -is- only a crude guesstimate, but it works, with only a small margin of error, for the development of the radio, computers, virtual reality, and a few other technologies I've tested it against.

    I've also developed a crude set of labels, to describe the different phases, for new technologies:

    1. Laboratory Research stage
    2. Scientific/Academic Applications
    3. "Garage"/Hobbyist Development
    4. Early Public Versions
    5. Generally Usable Public Versions
  • Wearables have the potential to safe alot of work and lives in the future, but as of yet I have not seen any convincing advancements to make it anywhere near mainstream viability.


    I agree the prospects of wearables are amazing, as was VR back in the early ninties, but both still have a way to go before they can be applied real world situations at affordable prices.


    bain

  • It will become a reality when any large computer company, like Apple or IBM realize that there really is a market for these things, and they move from the R&D dept. to Marketing.

    So far the only real product I've seen that fits that description is the one from IBM a while back.

    Note that no other MAJOR-BRAND-NAME (other than IBM, who will need a year to release theirs) computer manufacturer sees a market for it yet. I guess that means it will be a while.

  • Wearable Computing's Future (Score:4)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @06:02AM (#1623783) Homepage
    Wearable computers will take off when you don't look like a hardcore geek using one.

    Before you jump on me, keep in mind I am a hardcore geek [doxpara.com] , so I'm allowed to say stuff like that.

    You can't ask most people to have some kind of crazy display contraption(and watch--they'll call it almost exactly that) over their eye. They'll run in fear. The display form factor that the market will adopt en masse(there's some serious pent-up demand for this) are Sunglass Displays. When Ray-Ban can sell you a monitor, believe me, the marketing machines will go into their own peculiar form of orgiastic frenzy faster than you can ask what kind of coca-leaf derived substance the Patent Office was respirating at the time it gave Xybernaut its rather interesting portfolio.

    In the mean time--and here's where I expect the CIA-derived organization to eventually move towards--we're almost assured to see some form of wristwatch display come into popularity. At first, it'll be rather clunky, but with the assistance of engineers from one of the design/engineering fusion multinationals(er, Sony) some very intriguing designs should come through. The combination of a small microphone/bone-amplified miniature speaker that clips behind one's ear and displays that integrate with whatever modality you're presently in(a watch for on foot, your car's HUD when driving along, etc.) will bring wearable computing into its place as one of the Next Big Things of the 21st Century.

    The fact that lots of servers will need to be sold to meet the need of all those wireless wearable clients will mean shockingly high levels of hype from companies like Sun. But to go out on a limb here, VA Linux may end up making the biggest killing--anyone listening to Linus lately knows he's fallen head over heels for the embedded environment. The amount of press that millions of Linux/Transmeta wearables will create should generate significant corporate interest in Linux servers to match.

    You can thank(or blame) this one on Microsoft for their "Windows Clients means you should have Windows Servers" marketing point.

    Comments?

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

  • IMHO, wearable computing is a long way off. Humans are to distracted by these sorts of things and inevitably someone will try to drive and surf the internet at the same time and pay more attention to the display then where they are going. Cell phones are enough of a problem. I'm not against the concept. I just think the reality is a bit skewed.

  • Law enforcement uses? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It seems like police agency's could use this to help identify people. The heads up display shown in the picture on the website could display a persons record/picture quickly if it had a wireless link to a mainframe. Maybe the camera mounted on the side could be used as night vision/infrared in the eyepeice? Would make it harder for people to hide at night.

  • Wearable issues (Score:3)

    by dkh2 ( 29130 ) <`moc.hctIstiTyMoDyhW' `ta' `2hkd'> on Monday October 11, 1999 @06:12AM (#1623786) Homepage
    Before wearables become commonplace a number of things are going to have to happen. Among them:
    • Cost Reduction Needed: I can't see anybody paying the really big bucks en masse for toys like this. Neat stuff, too costly.
    • The Look: Yeah, like I'm going to volunteer to walk around a corporate complex looking like The Borg.
    • Useability: Yes, there are apps for these things now but it still looks like every hardware version runs it's own versions of everything.
    • OS?: Will it run my favorite OS or am I going to be stuck with some proprietary hack job? Can I write and/or load my own apps later?
    • Availability:I see these things in the press all the time. I have yet to see them in retail to any degree worth mentioning.
    Resolve these issues and you have something that can survive the marketplace.

    "If you build it they will come."

    --

  • I would love to have a wearable...and I hope to see them come to fruition somewhere in the next 7 to 10 years...especially with companies like Motorola with embedded systems getting into fitting a mainstream OS (like Linux) into smaller devices, I don't beleive x86 is the future as you might gather.

    One drawback for me personally is the display system. Most solutions use a head mounted display that lays over one eye and let's you continue in a normal fashion using the other for the real world. I lost an eye many years ago so using one of those is not an option for me. Maybe the proliferation of semi-transparent devices like the Sony VR glasses would be able to do the trick.

    On a closing note...the size and power are very close...we need more work on the human interface.

    ...Spooker

  • Not to sound stupid... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why do you even carry all of that?

    I would refuse to take all of that around with me. Cellphones are annoyingly addicting and I hate people who talk while driving, in a store, or anywhere except where you usually use a phone. Frankly, most people don't want to hear your conversations.

    I think the whole reason everyone wants a wearable computer is because they believe that they need to be connected all the time. Things can wait. Technology doesn't help me much except for maybe Ebay. Wow.
  • I think as long as the thing looks good, people will start wearing them. In the age we live in, people aren't so afraid of looking like a geek.. in fact, laptops are now seen as stylish.

    Why would something that you wear be any different? It just has to look cool, and people will do it.

    I was just thinking of the intro video to Civ:CTP, the scientist in the alien embryo lab was wearing some futuristic looking glasses. They were colored, and they looked really cool.

    Just make me a display in some glasses that I can take off as easily as reading glasses. Given a technology boost, they could even be used with a wireless link. (Bluetooth?) Then you wouldn't have some funky pack on your belt.. just some spec's that are indiscernable from normal glasses.


  • While I don't think wearable computing is yet ready for the mass market, I do believe that there should be tremendious interest in specialized markets such as military, law enforcement, rescue/fire teams, construction, transportation, etc... When you combine this technology with other technology such as GPS, mass databases, or Millivisions technology, (Active (radar) millimeter wave imaging systems which are able to "see through" most wall materials)(Millimeter wave radar imaging systems can be made extremely sensitive to movement, even to the level of detecting heartbeats.), the potential wearable computing applications/devices are staggering. If you think about combining these two technologies, the possiblities and applications should be of high interest to military, and law enforcement. Military recon patrols would have the ability to recon and determine exact locations and enemy equipment. Swat teams, would have the same ability. In a different area, research and exploration, I would think that if you could uplink these wearable computers with massive specialized databases, that exploration in the jungle or other places for new and exotic plant life or otherwise, becomes easier and more productive, as the plants, what they are and their location can be cataloged, or looked up against a master database. In construction, the forman could check the site against the blueprints, structural defects (see millivision above), etc...Like I said, IMHO, the possibilities of wearable computing when you combine it with other technologies is staggering. I'll stop here, I could go on for quite a while...
  • I'm all for wearable computers... someday. Right now, it's still the equivelent to having an electronic snuggie.
  • If I were to wear on of those and walk around in my city, I'm sure people would point fingers at me and grin, laugh, applaud. Strange, they might do the same if I'm on campus as well. Also they might keep away from me (you know how the media portray's crackers.. and how it assoicates such things as these with the likes of those?)

    Sure, it's very cool and i'd really like to have a one of those babies. But, I dont see myself going over to the local (insert computer store) and buying one of those. Why not? Well, this is suposed to be wearables. But how wearble is something that blocks you field of view and restricts your moments. Making you look like something out of a borge infestation. Ha. I thinl the bill gates logo on /. is better than one of these babies.

    What do I suggest? Well clean, nicely concealed wearbles. How about incooperating them into sun glasses (insert fav movie where you saw this -- matrix type looks fine too), make it wireless. We dont need a camera (at least I dont, that's what I have eyes for, unless the camera is for something else), plus that camera looking too borgish (not that they arent cool). Wearables are trying to do too many things, start small.. make just a display and a nice pad (5 key -- keyboards .. very cool) based input device, or maybe a ring (you wear it on your finger), interface. Much like a mouse, with handwriting recognition (using something like graffitte). Now that would be cool. I'm sure that wouldnt make these devices that expensive. And yes, later on you can upgrade and put a camera if you like.

    What kind of power supply does these use? If we have a low power CPU (no we dont need an Alpha for something like this, even a lowly pentium 66 would do, cause if I use a wearable, it would more or less be like an x-terminal for me.. or a vnc terminal). There has been a lot of advances in mechanical power generation (you know those watchers that you shake and gets recharged), I think that would be the best source of power for these babies. Since you'd be walking around, and when your walking these would be recharging. Voice interfaces are weak as well and take too much CPU/power. Bat's are fine.

    Enjoy
    --
  • seems to be alot of fuss over the stylish aspect of this wearable comp stuff. It won't get stylish until people NEED, understand and can afford it. Just look how long it took these geniuses to figure out that "putty" wasn't an incredibly enthralling color for a system, but now with the internet being pounded into everones skull, everyone needs a computer of some sort. Now we have transparently opaque colored cnc machined laptops, printers cases and monitors aptly to be bought for your daughter because they might just look good next to that nsync poster in her room! As soon as it becomes a "neccassary" item of day to day life (trendy?) its goin nowhere outside of the poultry industry(mentioned by someone else around here) As far as giving these things to the police, don't they have enough power as it is, give it to fire rescue, emts, hell, give it to the military, fine, but not the police...wearables will arrive when people want them to arrive, once there is a sufficient demand for it, project time is nil, they'll have something crafty in 6 months if consumers want it. personally, i think they need a killer app for it, a uh...life program? something that covers the gamut of an average day. I wouldn't worry about wearables looking cool, when they do hit the market, with 2k and all, you'll be a geek without them! "i don't feel safe with all these cops around"
  • A wearable with both a text recognition system for simple navigational commands and a one handed dvorak or some other one handed configuration place handily on your thigh somewhere would suit me. I could surf the net vocally and if I needed to take some notes or something I could just put my hand on my thigh or whereever it is and touch type while walking or whatever. For this to be small enough for me to actually wear it'd have to weigh 1kg. I don't care what it looks like.
    - traser

  • "Wearable" versus "Hands-free" (Score:5)

    by Ledge Kindred ( 82988 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @06:15AM (#1623799)
    I hate talking on the telephone. While I'm on the phone, I can't do very much. Even with a cordless phone, I've still got one half of my total number of hands dedicated to doing nothing but holding the phone up by my head. Rather irritating, IMHO.

    I just bought myself a $100 hands-free cordless phone by GE. It's got a little headset like you see The Friendly Time-Life Operators using on those TV commercials, and a little "brick" with a phonepad and a battery in it that you clip to your waistband/belt and a cord that runs between the two. I thought when I bought it that it would be a novelty at best, but, because I am now able to do other things while I'm on the phone, like water my plants, feed the fish, vaccuum the living room, wash dishes, or whatever, it really makes a tremendous difference for me; when I have to sit in a chair and hold the phone against the side of my head, I get bored/antsy quickly and just want to hang up so I can do something with my hands.

    I don't specifically want "wearable" computing, but I would love to have hands-free computing. If I could be in the back yard watering the plants, or taking care of my fish, or playing with my boa constrictor, or doing just about anything else "interesting" while I'm having to fire off half a dozen boring-but-job-related replies to half a dozen boring-but-job-related EMails, the people who communicate with me would probably get a lot more communication from me.

    It would be nice if I could use this same equipment while I was at the mall to see if I could find a better price online for this nice DVD I'm looking at, or bring it with me to the grocery store so I can review my shopping list (or keep it with me when I'm not at the grocery store, so I can add to my shopping list when I think of something, instead of when I'm near my shopping list), that would be even better. But for me, the hands-free operation is more desirable.

    And I don't mean something like the Palm Pilot. I find it's data input "capabilities" (i.e. Graffiti [sp?] and the fact that input has to happen effectively one letter at a time in that little square) extremely irritating at best and nearly useless in general.

    Ideally I would like voice recognition, but barring that, some sort of very durable keyboard is the next best solution. I think most geeks can probably type a lot faster than they can write. I want something specifically designed for hands-free or nearly-hands-off operation - I don't want to have to hold it in one hand and type with the other to be able to use it, which also disqualifies all those wince boxes out there.

    It has to have the same conveniences as my new phone -- I have to be able to make use of it while being mobile and having both hands free. Even if I have to use one hand to type to respond to EMail, it needs to be mostly hands-off.

    -=-=-=-=-

  • Right on. If the Xybernaut stuff didn't look so blasted klunky, I'm sure there would be more of a market for this sort of thing.

    If a pen required you to adjust the way you work to use it, you wouldn't use a pen.

    If they could make the Xybernaut less intrusive, the same bunch of people that rushed out to buy palms at first would be rushing out to buy Xybernauts, if they could get a good price point, say $1500-2000US. I'd be tempted, but I don't think I'd ever take the thing off. 8)

  • Between pagers, cellphones, email, and PDAs I'm already a little more connected than I really want to be. Disconnecting enhances independent intelligence.

    I've seen the Borg. I don't really want to be one.
  • Wearable computing is already being used in the industry. Oddly enough, in the poultry industry (who'd of thunk?). At Georgia Tech for example, there is a huge building dedicated to manufacturing problems which includes a chicken processing line sim. The use here is that inspectors need to be able to view all the chickens coming down the line, and keep track of their condition without dealing with paper and what not in their plastic suits. Another use is in the field of construction, where it can be used by a surveyor to view the lines drawn up overlayed on the surface itself. I think that this sort of computing will be driven by mundane and practical solutions like these rather than the personal computing. and by the way, the Xybernaut is a knock off of research prototypes built :P.

  • Newman believes other such smart devices, though, will soon move toward the wearable
    area, where he thinks he can fend off competitors because of several patents his company
    holds. One of these patents covers a computer that is worn, has a display and that a user
    navigates by voice.

    Somehow, I don't think that patent is going to
    stand for long.

    I wonder if finding an instance of this
    "invention" in a science fiction movie would
    be enough to prove it's obvious.

    Alex.

  • !!! (Score:2)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 )
    If you want my opinion - wearable computing won't happen until two things come true: the system is made as unobtrusive as a walkman, and they find some way to make a stylish eyepiece (instead of making you look like the Borg).

    Even then, as with anything technology, it will be adopted out of necessity. Some of the early markets right now are surveyors - who need mobile computing to call up blueprints, do some trig/other math. I can see how mobile computing might be useful for law enforcement. You could switch to infra-red, or ultraviolet while in pursuit of a suspect. You could call up a 3d "overhead-map" of the nearby neighborhood, and see the location of other squad cars relative to your location (and the location of the suspect). Alittle too 'cheezy' perhaps, but I can see it happening. Alot of officers literally work in the dark. People who drive for a living, like truck drivers or bus drivers, who could use augmented reality to see, for example, warnings of an accident ahead, and arrows pointing to an alternate route, or maybe overlay the route they should take.

    But for some things, it's obviously pointless - home computing, for example. The eyepiece may allow a much bigger 'virtual screen', but I suspect when people get home, they'd rather not be wearing a dozen peripherals. :) That's my $0.02

    --

  • Wearable computing is a reality today.

    While a beeper isn't clothes to the same extent that a tee shirt is, it is definitely an accessory designed to be placed on the body(not unlike a belt) with computational characteristics. The fact that it can't run Linux doesn't mean it's not a computer.

    Not to mention the latest few years of techno-watches with IR links and onboard RAM or the proliferation of cell phones with screens and net access(particularly in Scandanavia and Japan).

    Wearable computing is in the evolution stage; the revolution was made 20 years ago with the first digital beepers.

  • check out mit's site too
    http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/
  • I think the real problem is input. Little pen pads, wrist keyboards, twiddlers, etc. are slow, clumsy, ugly, and bulky. Some sort of good subvocal input seems like the best choice (short of wiring the thing directly to your brain), but I haven't seen anything like that in the real world.

    --

  • Given what I've seen of wearable computing so far, and with other technologies, such as the embedded chips that can be used by a "smart" building to tell where you are and whether you are authorized to enter certain rooms, I would guess that useful, wearable computing would really hit its stride in another two to three years. Maybe five at the outside.

    I suspect things like this are where it will really start to take off - then the world around us is designed for interaction with it.



    I could see machines being designed with mini transmitters to inform a wearable of it's location and orientation - imagine a car mechanic with a wearable that would allow them to see every detail of the car without opening up a thing, being able to see whatever parts were relevant, and the best method for accessing those parts. Where the machine would hold all the technical data and dispense it instantly right over top of the real view.

    Or for a doctor, being able to set it up so that it would highlight the relevant organs to the surgery they are performing, along with listing anything they have to be especially careful of, and reminding them of every detail.

    The big question is - which will come first? Will we start designing our environment to interact with wearables, and then watch the industry grow? Or the other way around?

    Regardless, until we can enhance our brains and body, wearables will eventually be the best method for allowing us to do more, do it faster, and do it better.
    ---

  • There will be no set time when wearables suddenly appear. There will be an evolution that we'll hardly notice. Even now, wearable displays don't need to make us look like Borg drones. For a substantially less clunky look, try the homepage of The MicroOptical Corporation [microopticalcorp.com]. Eventually such displays are likely to disappear into contact lenses. As for input devices, basic voice recognition will be nice but not good enough. Other alternatives may be transparent fingernail clip-ons, subvocalization recognition, and other more arcane but equally invisible and quiet input devices. This will happen in less than two decades, though it may not be mainstreamed by then. Eventually, the technology could become so enmeshed in daily life that doing without it may be as frustrating and potentially futile as trying to live without a credit card or an automobile in the States today. For example, you may need such displays just to find the price of a product in a supermarket or to upload road directions from the AAA. You'll probably be able to turn the display off and on with the same ease and frequency that we currently hit our television mute buttons. I imagine there'll be all sort of social implications of wearables. For example, augmented and virtual reality displays may allow telecommuting to become the dominant way of "getting to work." This may make balancing home and work life easier, though it's also bound to blur the lines even more than they're blurred today. Many people may be able to work for nearly any company in the world without ever relocating. This could potentially strengthen communities and extended families while weakening national governments. Such devices may even carry miniature cameras that allow others to see what we're seeing. Adolescents, of course, might love this because it would enhance the feeling that they're in some sort of virtual hangout. On the other hand, you've got to wonder what happens to our notion of privacy if such technology becomes commonplace. Suddenly everybody's posturing like they're on MTV all the time. It's fun and slightly spooky to think about. Truly mobile and invisible computing is going to change the world in ways that PCs never could. Cyberspace and real space will be linked in an embrace that will forever change our conceptions of reality.
  • Hi all: I'm a long time listener, first time poster. :) Alot of people seem justifiably wary about wearable computers being another digital 'leash', like pagers/cell phones are already. IMHO: I think there's a fundamental concept which has been ignored here: central to the concept of wearables is that it is within your personal space, and intended to empower users, not companies. Having a wearable shouldn't mean you're at the beck and call of your employer 24/7. My feeling is that that's just a leftover from a horribly corporate/profit centred view of computing and the internet we're being fed daily. What I would hope to see is an understanding that contacting someone via their wearable is like contacting them on the phone: most employers have their employee's home numbers, but won't call about work related stuff on weekends or holidays or sick days (though I admit, this view may be a bit out of date or naivete, but it seems fair to me - if this isn't the case, then you've already got the problem without the wearable). Besides - as long as you run a 'free' OS, just set yourself up to bounce emails from work on the weekends. Its your computer - NOT your employers!
  • OK. I've been watched the Mozilla.
    But when will we get the Netscape Communicator 5.0?
    Isn't it ready yet?
  • But they say specifically in their article that they plan to maintain their market niche by defending their patent. That's what worries me.

    ----
    We all take pink lemonade for granted.
  • I would truely hate to live in a society that would treat technology as something so important in their lives that they need to turn themselves into virtual cyborgs to just have more of it.

  • Wearable computers will be the best invention since peanut butter, I would love to be able to fit in because I was part of the collective, then we could make fun of the nonnects (non connected)!!

    What is it with Americans that they absolutely venerate all technology before actually thinking about it's social and psychological implications? Everyone seems to believe that technology can by itself solve all of the world's problems without any effort on our part.
    I'm not a Luddite or some eco-nut tree hugger but I am a living creature made of biological components, a bunch of water, and some sarcarm. I was reading through posts where people want bionic implants as-seen-on-TV where they could pull up web pages displayed in front of them seemingly in thin air and their refridgerator would automatically order them beer, networks that connect your brain in some way to everyone else on the planet, virtual lives existing entirely in a medium made up of microscopic transistors and electrical impulses. What kind of life is that? The whole reason humans didn't end up like giant fungus colonies is because nature figured it was probably better for organisms to exist independantly to be more distributed and therefore more versatile in a non-static environment (this is not to discount the obvious intelligence of giant fungus colonies or their ability to survive and adapt). The world would be totally fucked over if a majority of all humans' grey matter was linked in a giant network. No privacy, no individualism, nothing but a giant collective, sounds Borg-like to me. Do you really want your thoughts broadcast for everyone else to hear along with theirs invading your brain in an endless cacophony? There would be such a complete social disaster if everyone was linked in a giant collective mass mind, all prejudice would be open faced and thoughts could never be hidden from anyone. Some neurohack breaks your brains neat little firewall and downloads some of your thoughts, oh shit you were thinking some naughty thoughts about your new neighbour. What kind of neuroterrorism would exist on that kind of network, a neo-Nazi group decides to launch a mental kraut dog at some Zionists hanging out together in a virtual cafe. Also don't forget the "morally superior" thought police that will pop up everywhere. Besides the problems with people on the network what about people not on it? I'm going to have to cave in to all my moral and philosophical beliefs just to carry on a conversation with someone by logging onto the network? Are robots going to be designed to take care of the humans that sit in giant stadiums filled with neurointerlinks etrophying while they experience their own private universe?
    More prudent to the conversation of wearable technology, how good of an idea is it really? Do I want Jonny Jerkoff downloading some porn while he drives his SUV down the street behind me or maybe try to carry on a conversation with someone who's totally engrossed in the Real Audio stream they alone are privy to? No I don't. First come clipon computers and then Pentium watches that can do everything but tell time. Eventually it will lead to implants that connect directly to your brain. These kind of technologies aren't going to solve any problems, only create an nth amount more. Even now people are addicted to their pages and cell phones, jumping at the chance to answer them only to expose the side of their head to a nice little batch of microwaves that would love nothing more that fuddle with your cells' DNA. Has no one ever read Fahrenheit 451? The other night I went for a walk around my neighborhood and there was an almost universal glow coming out of the living room windows. No outside lights on any of the houses (save for a few) yet the TV was on. I didn't see one reading lamp. As fast as my neurons work I drew a correlation between my neighborhood and that of the Pedestrian from Ray Bradbury's short story.
    Technology and innovation do have their places in our life but their place should not be that which we used to devote idols to and burn incense for. Our computers and so forth are supposed to be our tools, why have they become our masters?
  • I like your comments because they show a lot of the emotion that is going to surround wearables. There will be folk who hate them for the same reason some of us hate Microsoft: they threaten our sense of autonomy, control and personal power. And there will be those who become addicted to them, who feel they offer protection and security in a chaotic and potentially hostile world. There will be all sorts of debates and these will be good for us.

    I particularly like your comment that "the whole reason humans didn't end up like giant fungus colonies is because nature figured it was probably better for organisms to exist independantly to be more distributed and therefore more versatile in a non-static environment." Yes, there's much truth to this! But there's also truth to the fact that humans are amoung the most social creatures on the planet. We don't exist independantly; we constantly (hell, chronically) communicate via a plethora of strategies, from facial expressions to pheromones to cell phones, making significant and lasting impacts on one another's nerve centers. Wearables will make these links stronger. And if we ever decide to go the route of implants (and let's face it, somebody will), we're really going to need to discuss the evolutionary repercussions. Will this "Borg mind" reduce versatility, individuality, innovation, or even the chances of species surival? Even more importantly, will it damn our very souls to a Hell of our own creation?

  • Have you seen how much Xybernaut's stock (XYBR) has moved since this /. thread was posted (opened Monday at a little over 1 1/2 and topped 3 today)? Pretty soon you guys are going to have to worry about the SEC investigating you for market manipulation.
  • I can see where you're going with that logic:

    Late-70's: Apple markets the first successful personal computer. Don't see many of those anymore.

    Mid-80's: Apple markets the first successful GUI. Don't see that kind of thing anymore.

    Early 90's: Apple markets a pen-based palm-top called the Newton. That idea didn't take off either, now did it?


    Whatever.

  • Anyone notice that xybernaut claims a patent on "a computer you wear that has a head-mounted display and you can interact with by voice"? And they think that this patent will help them retain market share? Think about this for a moment-- the field of wearable applications and uses will explode in a couple of years. There's no way one company (Xybernaut) can cover the whole field by themselves. But if they start enforcing patent rights on the whole market ("We have a patent on wearable computing, you can't make one and sell it!") then the whole market will suffocate and die. This is classic Microsoftism, only it's being done by a company that can't possibly exploit any niche it does manage to retain.

    Did it occur to any of them that by encouraging other entrants into the market, they build the whole market for everyone? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

    Wearable computing will be huge in 2-5 years (depending on how quickly some of the current stumbling blocks are removed-- we need a high-quality eyeglass display, and much better voice recognition) and hopefully, if their intentions and track record are any indication, Xybernaut will not be around to enjoy it.

    ----
    We all take pink lemonade for granted.

  • "wearable" computing is already here (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've got "wearable" computing now. My Palm goes on my belt before my cellphone, and before my wallet goes into my pocket. It's become an auxiliary brain.

    Even so, I get ribbed about "wearing the utility belt" by co-workers. I need suspenders because the Palm, cellphone, pager, wallet, keys, and sundry items weigh my pants down so much.

    To me, "wearable" computing isn't about a heads-up display or voice input or looking like a Borg demo unit. It's about having computing power easily at hand anyplace I happen to be, without having to use a carry handle. Yes, it'd be nice to have voice input for many things... but a lot of the time, I'd rather use a pen or a keyboard. You can't dictate a drawing, and I can type faster than I can dictate or write. I'd rather learn Graffiti than wear a Power Glove all day.

    As far as the idea of in-your-clothing wearable computing... if they can come up with something that will resist machine washing and drying in rough-and-tumble coin-op machines, with instructions as simple as "machine wash warm, tumble dry medium/perm. press" then they'll have something. Otherwise, who needs it? I'd rather have a good, highly portable computing device that can fit in a pocket or a belt case.

  • Where you'll see them first... (Score:4)

    by trims ( 10010 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @06:34AM (#1623821) Homepage

    I used to work at the MIT Media Lab [mit.edu] in direct conjunction with several of the pioneers of the field. I've listened to Thad [gatech.edu] pontificate on the various uses of them for almost 5 years now, so I've got a good idea where you're going to see them:

    • Places where the PDA is king right now, particularly in the vertically-integrated market. People like UPS and FedEx, inventory at warehouses/supermarkets/etc., airline checkins, etc. Alot of those places would greatly benefit from having more horsepower (and also a network connection).
    • Aids for the disabled. The current crop is good enough to do decent sign-language interpretation, and I'd expect wearbles would be a boon to people with limited sight or hearing, since they could use them to do amplification and/or enhancement.
    • The Military. The US Army is absolutely bonkers of this kind of stuff - it fits so nicely into their LandWarrior2000 concept of the fully-wired warrior.
    • As a replacement for the Laptop, which, let's face it, is a rather cruddy computer. I'd expect the laptop to get completely killed by the wearable within 5 years.
    • Specialty medical apps like surgeon's or ER doctor's aids (nothing like being able to look up all the possible drug interactions without taking your hands out of the GSW), or a link from the ER to the Ambulance crew.

    The big stumbling blocks to wearables right now are the displays (though take a look at the one Thad is wearing in the above picture) and battery life. I expect displays to be solved within 2 years at the outside, after which it's really simply a matter of production. The battery life is a harder issue, but it's being worked on too.

    I look at Xybernaut, and think that they are targeting the wrong market first - they're doing consumer applications, which I don't expect to be feasible for 4-6 years; instead, they should be focusing on the specialty and vertical markets, where the need and demand is NOW.

    Disclaimer - Thad is a personal friend of mine, and I think his shit is cool. So I might be biased.

    -Erik

  • I'm usually a world-class techno-geek when it comes to stuff like this, but I don't think it will actually move beyond niche markets until someone comes up with an interface that is as fast as a keyboard. I can clearly see the ability to download tons of stuff for viewing, I've just never seen anything remotely close to duplicating the input/response speed of a keyboard or even the pen-input grafitti system used by the Pilot. I saw one with a tiny keyboard wrapped around the forearm. NOT suitable for mainstream use, unless "mainstream use" is pretty much limited to receiving email/movies.
  • Take a look at the twiddler. with macro's it can be used to type at a pretty decent rate, and isn't hard to adjust to.

    http://www.handykey.com
  • Before i would ever wear a computer, i would have terminals everywhere. One in the car to calculate gas mileage, keep track of gas expenditures, etc. One on the fridge to tell me when i am low on something, and when the milk is bad (to avoid a reoccourance of this morning, ugh). This combined with a palm-pilot-like device (when i'm away, i.e. @ the grocery store) using some sort of unobtrusive authentication similar to a proximity card (which will be carried, not worn), coupled with wireless internet access and VPN, would be the way to go. I want to use the computer, not wear it. I get headaches if i look at a crt for too many consecutive hours, i want to be able to get away from the stuff easily.

    -Dan

  • First, some Wearable computing links:

    And now some opinons:

    Here are some obstacles to wearable computing by the masses

    1. Footprint (wearprint). The size of wearables are still prohibitive. Disclaimer: this statement is a massively erroneous generalization. As most people on wear-hard@haven.org will tell you, the size of your wearable greatly depends on your needs. Are you building a walking workstation or just a custom PDA? Can you get by with CLI or need a graphic window system? Do you need a visual display at all? Nevertheless, I'd say most usefull wearables would still result in prohibitively large (or prohibitively expensive to make small) systems. Prediction: wearables will catch on when they're as inobtrusive as a Sony Discman and a pair of Gargoyle sunglasses.
    2. Network. Computers in the future need to be connected (or able to connect) to the Net. Wearables pose some problems. Bandwidth. Need for a wireless infrastructure capable of supporting mobile devices. Fortunately, this nicely intersects with less-fringe technologies like laptops, PDAs and automotive computers
    3. Interface. Well, until traditional software and Web site developers start building with Accesability in mind, then you must have either a very custom software environment or a visual display and run a graphical windowing system. Input is another difficult matter. One of the most popular input devices is the Twiddler, a hand held chording keyboard. However, in some circumstances, keyboard input is innapropriate. Speech recognition requires a powerfull CPU. Gesture based input is still an area of reasearch. Brain or nerve input is still Science Fiction. Prediction: non-standard computing I/O will be only be practical when more mainstream networked devices with limited display capabilities abound, i.e. networked Palm Pilots or automobile PCs will drive things like non-visual accessibility and software supportive of speech recognition, etc..
    4. Mass Production. Wearables are very custom designed systems and often need to be built custom to the individual to be usefull.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close