Google Glass: Would you pay a mere $299 to plop one on your brow? A researcher at Taiwan's largest private market research firm is of the considered opinion that when Google Glass goes on sale to the public, it will be sold for the low, low price of $299. At a Taipei seminar on wearable devices, Jason Tsai of the Topology Research Institute told reporters of his estimate, based on the bill …
Tinfoil commandos who claim they will attack "Glasses" wearers are fun. They are either:
+ Little people hiding behind a keyboard in their parents basement
+ Lying on the pavement, screaming in pain after they attack the wrong glasses wearer and get a demonstration in self defense
Their stupidity is clearly shown by the fact that NOBODY gave a damn when I walked through various citiies with a DSLR on my chest (That can do movies AND WIFI streaming AND with a battery grip has better endurance) and a smartphone in my hand (that could show pictures/control the DSLR). Not to mention that unit has better capabilities. So if someone wants to spy on your totally uninteresting life - there are better tools than glasses and no one cares/sees them
But a walking around with a camera already sends out a social signal that everyone else can interpret.
You like to take photographs of stuff and that's fine.
Glasses are not for taking photographs - at least not because you "like to take photographs" - but they're a more ominous omni-tool.
Until they have some socially defined role to fill in the lives of the people wandering about be-spectacled there is going to be awkwardness.
Especially since they come from Google - #1 slurper (not counting the NSA) of personal information. I don't mind Google slurping data on people who use their products (although I'm always a little un-enthused when having to write to gmails), but with glasses they're going to wind up being able to slurp data on people who specifically do not use Google products.
I could see some form of glasses coming in handy. I would not want some that are connected to the web though. Give it a small card that I can load some map-info onto and record video and pictures onto, and let it remain offline. That might be a product I'd consider not having to try and hide from when I see it (or politely ask the person to stare elsewhere)
@Eguro
Yes, that "touri special" (Camera on chest, smartie in hand) sends out a signal that everyone can interpret. Just like the scene in "Machete" with the two guards discussing that "nobody sees/checks/doubts the Mexican".
In both cases the signal can be (and in case of Machete was :) ) wrong. It is easy to use that misconception against people and spy on them, broadcast live etc. with the touri special setup. Your camera and controller (smartphone) become invisible because they are "normal". You can even lug around and use a lot more and better observation/spy equipment that way without anyone complaining.
And that is a "less than 1000€ / do it yourself" setup. Now imagine a "real spy". Heck even the tech available legally through a short web search is a lot smaller and less obvious than glass.
@mmeier
You are right of course. There's plenty of gear available for covertly spying on folks.
I however believe that the word covertly tells us most of the story. The reason people could respond negatively to glasses would be that they don't actually like random people video-taping or photographing them - hence covertly.
Now sure, you might take a picture of a giant church and I might happen to be in front of said church. That's not a problem for most. The problem arises when you and (let's say) 5% of people are (more or less) randomly taking pictures/videos and sending those of to God knows where. Suddenly it becomes hard to know where or when I wont be recorded, who might wind up with said recordings, and what reason there is for those recordings being kept except "money for Google".
And yes - the gov (especially UK gov) is recording lots and lots on CCTV. This might be over the top - and surely is a conversation that could/should be had. The CCTV however at least has other reasons than some corporation making money off of innocent bystanders (lack of better term?).
Like I said - a non-internet version would be much more appreciated, at least by me.
"Good luck avoiding this tech...." You seem to believe this tech is just so gosh-darn and unbelievably necessary that we just won't be able to survive without it. Sorry, this is not mobile phones 2.0, or the new wristwatch. Wearable tech has been around for decades, and even projector glasses are not new. Sorry if it bursts your hype-bubble but I simply don't see why even a tiny fraction of nerds will pay out for these, let alone average Joes. And that is not just my opinion, that's from talking to other nerds and IT folk who are the prime target market. If you want to pretend uptake is "inevitable" then please do supply some coherent reasoning to back up your belief.
@Matt Bryant
I presume he meant "Good luck avoiding it.."
As in even if you don't buy one you're still being filmed/recorded by the people you pass each day who HAVE bought one. That's what I took it to mean, not that we won't be able to resist, but that enough people will buy them that walking around your average town/city you'll pass in front of a fair few.
Fair credit to you, but for anyone with an android phone, using gmail and with location services enabled, I don't see much more information heading in Google's direction.
Certainly a sub $300 price point will be a lot more palatable for the masses, and may well spur rapid adoption. I think it could be exciting to see what apps developers can come up with - much like in like the first few years of iOS.
The price point will also set a bar for other wearable tech. Apple will of course charge some sort of premium, but it will be viewed against the cost of Google Glass and will possibly limit what they can get away with (assuming the mentioned price is accurate).
"Until you can control what data goes where"
Google are The Borg. That's never going to happen..
That's exactly what I mean - you can't run a device that personal without controlling it. Android would not suffice. You need some "Get the fuck off my lawn" flavour of linux or something that does the job but doesn't leak.
How interesting. I'm sure some people baulked at the idea of carrying a phone with them all the time too.
The whole "it looks dorky" argument is really pretty dumb. In large metropolitan centres like London/New York/LA/Tokyo, people wear far weirder things every day. It looks dumb people walking around with masks on their faces but they still do it. Half the T-shirts with slogans on look dumb. Punk haircuts, tattoos on faces and most body piercings strike me as idiotic but people don't really care what I think.
How interesting. I'm sure some people baulked at the idea of carrying a phone with them all the time too.
I don't think that was ever the case, or maybe for some vanishingly small value of "some".
Baulked at some of the people waffling obnoxiously into those early bricks perhaps, but then that's still the case.
Always thinking of others, I share the feeling. But nightmares can come true! What happens if YOU are the lone nerd!!! Given the current appreciation of privacy and style, that reality could come to be. With you laughing lonely, they would lock you up for being a lunatic because you show some sort of emotion.
I find hard to believe that the hordes of people who still wear glasses are so unhappy about them, considering how contact lenses and laser surgeries are cheap and available. There are people whose eyes cannot be fixed by these, but they are a small minority.
Personally, I prefer to have glasses than contacts, and I did not bother with laser surgery so far, even though my slight near-sightedness would be easily fixed.
Wrote :- "I find hard to believe that the hordes of people who still wear glasses are so unhappy about them"
Yes, but they are the people who already wear glasses. Getting people who don't need tham to start wearing them unless they really need to is different matter. Don't you remember when you first needed them? I thought it was the end of the world.
These days I wear contacts and do not know how anybody can stand glasses when contacts are an option. A minute each morning to put them in, and like a miracle my sight is perfect with no clobber around my head, peripheral vision and all. They are even cheaper.
"Personally, I prefer to have glasses than contacts"
Does not sounds like you do much practical work. I'm currently digging a cable trench in the hot weather. Glasses would be constantly obscuring with dripping sweat (sorry about the detail) and sliding off when I look down. Ever worked under a car with glasses ? - constantly being ripped off your face by exhaust brackets etc. And in the rain ...
@Nuke
I am one of those persons who dislike contacts. Tried them a few times, disliked the feeling, disliked the installation process. Back to good quality glasses. And a "sport glass" for certain work.
Now granted, last time I dug trenches we where using Badgers instead of shovels :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Pionierpanzer_Dachs_%282008%29.jpg
A lot of people cannot wear contacts (I can't, I wear tri-focals) and surgery does not fix everything, let alone being able to afford it.
By the end of the day, the back of ears are sore and so is the bridge of my nose. Not to mention the pain in the ass of keeping them clean every 5 minutes.
Pay to wear glasses I don't absolutely need? Oh HELL NO!
"Most people who wear glasses would pay NOT to wear them...." Worse for Google, most of the people that do wear glasses daily and would therefore be a target market CANNOT become Glassholes because they cannot wear prescription lenses and Google Glass sets at the same time, not unless they switch to contacts. And then there is also developments in LEDs set into contacts (http://io9.com/5861725/engineers-have-created-an-led-display-you-can-wear-like-a-contact-lens), which - when they develop to a marketable product - will remove the main problem of being a Glasshole, the dorky headset.
>>Most people who wear glasses would pay NOT to wear them.
Clearly they wouldn't, otherwise LASIK would be far more common. Any professional working person can afford laser treatment if they really want to... I did because I really was prepared to pay not to wear glasses, but most people are not.
Compare with smartphones. They've existed for over a decade, since well before the iPhone became the first smartphone that non-geeks wanted to own (I don't count Blackberry because its non-geek owners didn't use it as a smartphone, but merely as a phone that let them access their email on the go and/or send text messages for free)
I really don't see Google Glass becoming something that regular people want to own, like how they do an iPhone or Galaxy. Could they sell a few million if it becomes a hot geek toy? Sure. But expect regular folk to look at wearers funny in the same way they probably did back a decade ago at people using a Nokia Communicator to ssh into their home server.
Glass doesn't have any killer app that will make a regular person want to own one. Perhaps that will change, but if so it won't be the 1.0 version, it will be some future version, perhaps not made by Google at all, that crosses that divide.
Personally I wouldn't pay for the Google Glass, not would I wear it. What is most worrying though, is that there will be some twats that will pay and I want to know how to avoid being "recorded" by them.
I never really cared about this thing called "privacy", but recently I feel that is becoming very important.
Google is becoming synonymous with everything that I hate about "commercialism"....
" I wouldn't pay for the Google Glass, not would I wear it" At least not until they ... see through women's clothing....."
How about an app to assess her build and pick a matching nude model from a database to superimpose? Would need an option not to go below size 8 or above 16, or whatever your taste.
Google Glass is a brilliant idea and a fantastic progression of existing technology and ideas, but it won't go mainstream. Not at least for five years.
Sure it looks fantastic and breathtaking when you've got people wearing it skydiving into the conference centre while broadcasting it on Google hangouts or someone going around a BMX course or just walking around the beaches of California... If you are in London are you going to wear them on the tube? You'd have to be awfully naive to wear them on public transport and in certain places.
Beauty of a mobile phone is you are holding it or you can put it away in an inside pocket or whatever. Damn sight harder to take anyway than some glasses which are resting on their lugs...
Apple and Samsung seem to be taking the watch route at least you can hide that with a sleeve.
Look, I have this problem called presbyopia. It comes with age and I need ever increasing magnification in my glasses to see anything "up close" (or get longer arms as my father used to say). Given that the device is mere fractions of an inch from my aged eyeball, can I really see it or will I get a fuzzy image that is useless.
Time will tell, but right now is the +2.25 glasses at Costco!
christ, It's not like you have to have it stapled to your head FFS.
I have a pair of MOD Lives. Pretty similar spec wise.
I wrote software for them to allow me to use them flying my paraglider and paramotor - speed, alti, wind speed, etc.
Google glass offers similar benefits for certain applications/activities.
No one is forcing you to wear it 24 hours a day.
How many luddites hang out on a tech site.
I can really really see how these things could sell like hot cakes. They will get more and more inconspicuous as well, to the point where they won't be much different to any current designer specs. There are SO many use cases it beggars belief. $299 though - still seems high for the BOM involved.
Imagine walking into a bar or coffee house in, say, London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiif with your google glasses perched on your nose. You take a cool look round the room and order your choice of liquid to refresh yourself.. You take a bar stool and admire yourself in the mirror behind the bar and note an old fart glaring at you, with several others queuing up behind him.
The old fart (it's a Luddite named 'Me') then says the magical words "Have you registed as a data controller under the 1998 Data Protection Act? You do know that it's a criminal act under Section 21.1 to collect data without registration, don't you?"
"You have, that's good. Now, under the same Act, please produce any data that you have collected on me. I.e. anything that can identify me from any data that you have collected. What security have you in place to stop unauthorised personnel accessing that data?"
The E.U.'s Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, 1984 is something that I crop up during the conversation too.
And then the ensuing fight will be recorded on a dozen different smartphones and uploaded to youtube, followed by the police turning up reviewing CCTV of the area to establish what happened and potentially just for kicks requesting from the telcos a list of mobiles in the area so they can work out who to question.
All in all your best of staying home with the battery removed from your cellphone, google glass will just be the most visible threat to privacy, not the only one, and quite possibly not the most serious.
Of course you'd also be talking utter bollocks, have you even read the Act? Section 36 of the Act has a specific exemption for domestic purposes "Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III." In any case, photographs and videos are not personal data under the act unless stored with other personally identifiable information. This is why there is plenty of public filming and photography with and without the permission of those filmed (e.g. Border Force, Police, Camera, Action! etc).
The only likely legal basis that could cause somebody to be forced to stop filming is if the landlord of the pub asked them to stop or had "no filming/no photography" signs up, then they could of course be asked to leave private property. There is a good guidance from the ICO's Office on photography at http://www.ico.org.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/taking_photos_v3.0_final.pdf.
I think there should be a specific criminal offence for misstating the Data Protection Act, which along with the Health and Safety at Work Act seems to be used by pettifogging bureaucrat and "concerned citizens" to try and trample on perfectly legal activities that they don't like.
"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III." I"
Well that seems nice and clear.
Except it's not, is it?
Because Google will be storing and processing that data.
They are not doing it for "domestic use," are you , Mr AC?
At which point I tell you to move out the way of my teamviewer window, because, as I care nothing for you, I have in fact not recorded any video or even still images of you.
I would at that point however, for the purposes of crime prevention, (and feeling justifiably threatened by some strange old guy ranting and mumbling about something he clearly has little understanding of) BEGIN recording in order to retain evidence which may be required, in the event you decide to get violent, to prosecute you. And as part of initiating such a recording I would be required to voice-activate the recording function, alerting you, and anyone else, that a recording was taking place. Such recording alerts are already required in smart devices, Glass merely makes that alert even more obvious.
Troglodyte.
I believe along the lines of your comment that facial recognition has already been banned in the UK (EU?). This is a shame as this seemed about the most useful possible feature for Glass..... you look at somebody and their name & FB profile (relationship status, etc) pops up. Apparently this is not allowed (I seem to recall!).
regarding: "screen floating about 3m away", I would be very interested in the physics of this neat trick. Anyone care to explain?!
The use of face-recognition software in public places bloody well should be banned, so if it has been that's a ban I fully support.
Suppose you're walking down the street and your Glass films me at a politically incorrect rally, or walking into an adult bookshop, for example. The face-recognition software identifies me, even if I'm not known to you, and sends the info back to Google/Facebook for processing. My mother has already posted dozens of pictures of me on Facebook without my consent so Facebook already has a face-recognition profile on me, like it or not. Next, Google/Facebook notifies everyone on my contact list that I'm where you saw me, or at the very least notes it down in some database for later use when I need a security clearance or police check done.
That's the kind of shit face-recognition software is capable of, whether or not it yet does it. It's the most invasive technological violation of personal liberty yet created. Without it, cameras are just image recorders, that require a human to take the time to look at the images to determine if I was anywhere in particular. That degree of labour introduces reasonable odds that someone inimical to me can't easily identify me or be able to track my movements.
But with it, every net-connected camera becomes an automated remote identification device, constantly updating any relevant database with a running update on all my actions and movements, the result of which I have to live in the constant awareness of my every movement being tracked by people who don't necessarily have my well-being at heart.
if it sounds like I'm being paranoid, I have every right to be. The "liberal" supporters of political correctness are known for viciously demanding the ruination of anyone who doesn't kowtow to their PC worldview: the purveyors of "tolerance" are hypocritically the most sanctimoniously intolerant bigots this side of the Taliban. And I'm an active supporter of Men's Rights Australia, A Voice For Men, and the Campaign Against Political Correctness, amongst others. I've had hate mail and death threats from these same "pro-tolerance" PC bigots for publicly supporting these organisations. It's noteworthy that while the media is screaming about "trolls" and cops are arresting those who threaten and abuse high-profile feminists, nobody's doing anything about the harassment and abuse dished out by their supporters to anyone who dares to contradict them. The number of downvotes I'll probably cop for this paragraph alone will illustrate the principle quite adequately, I believe.
Is it any wonder, in the face of the hysterical PC self-righteousness that pervades society these days, that its accompaniment by such invasive technology poses such a danger?
No, bloody right face-recognition software should be banned. I wish they'd ban it here in Australia too.
A good, non-Android dependend AR set/HUD - sure why not. Has tons of uses like connecting to the Win8 tablet pc in by attache case and showing me the mails using a PAN based low powered/long endurance technology. Or talking with my DSLR for a "remote viewfinder". Or with the nav programm showing me route information in car, on bike, on foot....
I do not need a "broadcast to the Datenkrake" option or other power guzzlers nor much computing power there. But a good pair of augmented reality glasses - sure.
How about an app that takes the video feed from the camera and, taking into account a person's prescription, adjusts it so that they only appear to be wearing Google Glass? That way they get an enhanced display that also corrects vision. This would require a version that can overlay a full view instead of the small menu the current Glass uses but I know I'd be willing to pay for such a thing and it would be a very legitimate use. No video would be stored locally as it would just be fed to the display like a graphics card to a monitor. Perhaps I'm looking to a future version due to resolution and capabilities along with battery life implications but it would appeal to me more than it puts me off for privacy issues. Why? I'd be in control of when I wear it just as I am with glasses.
We're a bit more reserved in the UK compared to the US. Plus there's a lot of people who are quiet and introverted who don't like to make a lot of noise. So using a device that requires you to be a blabber mouth to use it isn't really very useful.
Yes, you can touch the touchpad on the side as well, but then what is the use of the device then? may as well be prodding a phone.
Pricing them out of the market is a terrible, terrible thing - what will the dorks here wear instead?
Their thick black glasses with no lenses have been in fashion for a whole few years now and things are threatening to go stale real soon now.
Google's slimline wire frame with cool sort-of-single lens will bring their street fashion cred up there with those who have every apple accessory known to mankind.
Imagine you bump into someone who is filming absolutely everything, all of the time. All conversations with friends, all passing strangers... hours and hours of shit.
That someone would be very odd indeed. And annoying. And invasive. And rude.
Packaging all the tech to be this person in a tiny frame stuck on your face is not cool, and neither is it cool to be able to record people you're talking to without them even knowing if you are or not. As they'll just assume you are. And you probably will be so you can show your fellow Glasshole friends all the funny films you've made of people without their knowing.
Back in the day people had cameras, and then film cameras and then video cameras and use them on holidays, events ans social gatherings.
And generally people cringed at the prospect of going around to them to look at this stuff, which might be borderline interesting.
So this seems to multiply the a***hole factor by about a 1000.
Can I think of useful things to do with a HMD/camera combination hooked up to a package with internet access and substantial storage. Yes I can. Will I be getting one off Google to do so? F**k no.
I'll leave the data fetishists to their fetish.
Remember when twatsticks, sorry, bluetooth earpieces, were going to be the next big thing?
But. apart from a few self important people, (always loudly "doing dealz") no one wears them because, well because they look a complete self important twat
These Google things will go the same way.
I will eat my hat... and my glasses, if this takes off. Apart from a few US west coast techno-fashionistas, most everyone one else on the planet would feel like a complete and utter dickhead wearing these glasses. I just don't see it being derigeur in Doncaster anytime soon. And failing that I can see a social backlash against wearers derived from privacy issues - shops, organisations and individuals asking the wearer to remove them.
This is not the same as the introduction of the mobile phone, smart phone, tablet etc. It's a Sinclair C5.
And at $299 I would buy a set. The GPS screen alone is worth it for me but also the data display from your phone. I envisage wearing these while on my motorcycle. Heads up GPS.... Done. Then add to that text message scrolling! Brilliant. I would restrict it down so I only got a display from a limited number of senders - ie my wife. But to get the text message - "are you ok - You're not answering your phone" text message and being able to stop make a call and then keep her happy / not panicking - thats worth $300...
Frankly, I am really concerned that widespread availability of such devices will push the society (even further) into the abyss of total surveillance.
A "real spy" is engaged in targeted surveillance. It is a concern to the target, but typically the spy is highly unlikely to be interested in "incidentals" (beyond identifying them as such) or in splashing the "product" all over the interwebs. Paparazzi are much worse, but still are a plague of a limited scope (not that it is a great consolation of their targets). A tourist with a DSLR is typically conspicuous in what he points the lens at, and it is much more likely to be a cathedral than anything else. Even teenage girls with an iDevice don't go around snapping pics of everyone in the street because they realize it is (at present) considered rude.
As far as I understand, a "glasshole" can snap pics without anyone noticing, and publish them on the web without limitation. Just imagine if this becomes commonplace and acceptable. That would be a societal shift that I am very hesitant to welcome. To me it sounds like the gap between targeted intelligence gathering by security services (which I don't mind and consider important) and wholesale surveillance and indiscriminate slurping of everybody's communications (something I tend to associate with "internal security services" of not very nice countries I don't want to live in). I don't think that whether surveillance is done by "government agents" or "lots of other people" matters very much. The various not-so-nice internal security services tend to use lots of busybody informants. I may be a hopeless idealist, but I don't want wholesale information gathering and storing - regardless on whose behalf - become an acceptable activity in a society I am a member of.
I can do any of those things with my Smartphone. It's just not on my face.
If you think having these perched on your face is less conspicuous than someone pointing and shooting with a smartphone then fair enough. Personally though I think you'd notice this before you'd notice someone doing the "fake-texting-but-filming" routine.
Microsoft, in their perennial role of one playing catch-up, will surely produce a pair of internet-connected glasses.
I'm already smiling at the travesty they will produce — so heavy and thick to support the drive for Windows 8, with transparent tiles that obscure one's vision, obligatory and unwanted onenote integration and very, very expensive.
I've never really understood the hatred this concept gets around here. If it was all about not giving more data to Google, I could understand, that's a sensible worry, particularly lately. But most of the hatred is for the filming.
Lifelogging is hardly some new concept, its been around as a standard tech in SciFi for years, yet everyone here reacts like its something new and strange. Seriously, have none of you ever forgotten anything in your life? Can't remember where you left something, need to remember what someone said and can't? Just rewind the lifelog and find out. I've got a crap memory, so I'd use that a dozen times a day.
And as for all the stuff about beating up people wearing them...that's called assault and you go to jail for it if they catch you - and the guy you're assaulting will be videoing it for the police, by definition! Morons!
Probably the most weird part is the whole nerd-bashing angle. Really? On the Register? A tech news website where to comment on it all makes you a nerd by definition? Take a look in the mirror, people.
I am willing to bet that a) those complaining about Glass will be in minority when the public gets the chance to buy them. b) It will be popular.
I cite two examples of why (b) will be true and therefore why (a) will also, as a result, become true:
- When mobiles looked like bricks people still bought them. Now they are ubiquitous. I'm sure if we did a Usenet News search we'd find a "Why would anyone want to be seen talking into a brick".
- The public don't care about privacy. They think they do, but they don't. Look at Facebook. Look at Twitter. There may be the occasional concern about data privacy, but Joe Public, at the end of the day, wants convenience. That trumps privacy. Glass is convenience.
As the posting at the top said: "Good luck avoiding this tech". The Reg ("glassholes" - chiildish and doesn't move the debate forward) and some of you can diss this as much as you like, but it's inevitable. I'm not saying I'm a supporter - I'm just being a realist. Sitting in your armchair shouting at the screen won't change the course of things. And if Google stopped this tech, someone else will take over. If you want to stop it then perhaps you should be arguing against ubiquitous wifi - and maybe even the Internet itself.
'- When mobiles looked like bricks people still bought them. Now they are ubiquitous. I'm sure if we did a Usenet News search we'd find a "Why would anyone want to be seen talking into a brick".'
You are right - there was a definite backlash against mobiles when they first arrived - bankers and builders. But that soon disappeared when they got cheap enough so anyone could have one and they proved themselves to be the most convenient way of communicating - something innate to the human condition.
But these glasses are not the same. They go way beyond fulfilling the basic human need of communication. And the extra they provide is not worth looking a twat for. Its like Twitter - it fulfils the need to communicate - but in a way that only celebrities, wanna-be-celebrities and people with over inflated egos feel the need to use.
Until I started reading the comments here, I had no intention of buying Google glasses. But, have seen the unremitting negativity of the commenters here, I think I might have to give them a try. What a bunch of whining trogs you are!
I can see myself using them as a tourist, getting a quick run-down on the building I'm looking at - without needing to stop (blocking the pavement) to consult a guide book, or a guide app.
I can see myself using them to tell me what that constellation is.
I can see myself using them as a pedestrian satnav.
I can see myself using them to get menu/signage translations, on the hoof.
And I can see myself puttin them down, when their use is not appropriate. That's the bit most of you are missing.
I can see myself using them to tell me what that constellation is.
Just like that free app on the phone or, shock, what about using a star atlas?
I can see myself using them as a pedestrian satnav.
Oh dear. The number of walkers (have I spelt that correctly?) using satnav and then coming knocking on the cottage door, lost are far too many for mere co-indicence. Use a map and carry it in your head. Yes, that's it, use some mental effort it works. If sat nav is the answer then it must have been a bloody stupid question.
I can see myself using them to get menu/signage translations, on the hoof.
Yes, like we can't work out what the average road sign means when we're looking at the picture of a man trying to open an umbrella or there's one ahead of a pickpocket and an old man...
If these are justifications for this pointless application then I truly do despair.
-- I can see myself using them as a pedestrian satnav.
Just today it was reported that Mountain Rescue pulled a group of walkers off Snowdon who were using a phone satnav rather than a map.
Good luck with the Glass; at least your next of kin will get a good video clip of a Sea King coming down to collect your corpse.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
