Google Glass and CAP uses

[Eclipse]

I guess profit share don't mean as much as market share. I guess history will tell.

Yeah - this is why the iDevices costs 2-3x's what it should.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/08/apple-rewards-finance-chief-with-69m-pay-in-2012-highest-of-any-cfo
That and with subsidies consumers don't really know what they are paying for the devices.  Those are coming to an end as well.
There are many considerations when choosing technology, and cost is certainly one of them, just not in the way this works.  Profiteering in a price-sensitive
consumer market has killed more then one company in recent times.  Marketshare and ecosystem (both of which Apple certainly has plenty of right now)
are what sustains a company in leaner times or when they make major mistakes.  Rim and MS would have never survived their mistakes
had it not been for the large market share, which is currently no longer "up", for either company.

When Google Glass (or similar devices) can provide augmented reality via the darknet, everyone will want them.

This popped this morning.  Honestly, I had assumed that Glass already incorporated some AR features.  Without them, I don't see the point,
and there are already a number of phone apps which can do this now.  I can't imagine this isn't on the whiteboard.  If Glass doesn't do it,
someone else will.  I want to check your Whuffie when I meet you!
http://vr-zone.com/articles/its-not-just-gps--google-glass-contains-the-full-range-of-sensors-found-in-smartphones/19966.html

[whatevah]

I can see a few uses for all sorts of public-safety type people... instant mapping and logging for SAR and military type people, detailed street and interior mapping for police/fire/ems (fire department could preload floor plans of highrises and have a huge advantage navigating through smoke), hands-free event logging for the same group (for me, imagine timestamp logging medication administration in the field while both hands are occupied), maybe showing an ER doctor injuries via video chat so they know exactly what to expect for a trauma patient (probably only happen once a year, but it'd be cool...).  So many potential uses...

I'm looking forward to them, I'll probably buy a set if they go public.

[Al Sayre]

First Bluetooth earpieces, now eyepieces.  Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated... 

[jimmydeanno]

I guess profit share don't mean as much as market share. I guess history will tell.

Yeah - this is why the iDevices costs 2-3x's what it should.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/08/apple-rewards-finance-chief-with-69m-pay-in-2012-highest-of-any-cfo
That and with subsidies consumers don't really know what they are paying for the devices.  Those are coming to an end as well.
There are many considerations when choosing technology, and cost is certainly one of them, just not in the way this works.  Profiteering in a price-sensitive
consumer market has killed more then one company in recent times.  Marketshare and ecosystem (both of which Apple certainly has plenty of right now)
are what sustains a company in leaner times or when they make major mistakes.  Rim and MS would have never survived their mistakes
had it not been for the large market share, which is currently no longer "up", for either company.

When Google Glass (or similar devices) can provide augmented reality via the darknet, everyone will want them.

This popped this morning.  Honestly, I had assumed that Glass already incorporated some AR features.  Without them, I don't see the point,
and there are already a number of phone apps which can do this now.  I can't imagine this isn't on the whiteboard.  If Glass doesn't do it,
someone else will.  I want to check your Whuffie when I meet you!
http://vr-zone.com/articles/its-not-just-gps--google-glass-contains-the-full-range-of-sensors-found-in-smartphones/19966.html

No wonder we can't balance the federal budget...

By keeping two-thirds of Apple's holdings outside the United States, Oppenheimer saved the company billions in corporate tax payments.

Apple's financial chief also architected the company's recent bond offering, which will allow it to avoid $9.2 billion in taxes by borrowing against its cash position instead of repatriating its overseas holdings.

[Eclipse]

^ We were discussing this very issue the other day, Apple is literally the poster child for the problem,
overpriced, boutique products made with cheap, 2nd world labor, shielding tax money in offshore accounts,
monstrously compensated executives, etc., etc.,

Meanwhile, what do you see most of the OWS activists and world-saving hipsters using?

Hilarious.

[Spaceman3750]

Last time I looked the only Android devices worth owning cost as much or more than my $200 iPhone. I like it because it works intuitively and reliably. I don't really care about having the latest quad core processor on my phone, I do like having an interface that makes sense to me and a phone not made out of plastic (even though I wrap my glass one up in plastic cases ). But that is me, and I certainly respect that my ways aren't for everyone and don't bash others (unlike some).

I think I'm also missing the part where anyone besides business phone manufacturers (Palm, RIM still isn't there) were making a touchscreen smart phone, especially for the masses. Not sure that "Apple ripped off the other manufacturers" is valid when comparing to companies that, until Apple created the consumer smartphone market, were still making flip-phones and sliders.

That said, I like the concept of Google Glass, and will probably own one if the price comes down enough, even just for geek cred. That is, as long as they have enough foresight to make it iOS compatible.

[Al Sayre]

I haven't been paying much attention to it, and I haven't seen this question addressed yet, so I'm wondering how it will work for us folks who normally wear prescription glasses.  Will I have to get prescription google glasses?  Will they have some other type of gadget that hooks on my existing pair?  It would seem that without an answer to this question they are excluding a large population of potential users.  After all, a lot of us geeks wear glasses...

[Luis R. Ramos]

This application gone amok, we will have people wearing those glasses while walking and driving.

After that the glasses will have a camera and a bell to warn those users about things in front of them.

When do you think streets and cars will be fitted with electronic devices that will drive cars automatically, slowing or accelerating automatically to "optimize distance between cars" and stopping cars if there is danger of an accident?

Flyer

[Eclipse]

Last time I looked the only Android devices worth owning cost as much or more than my $200 iPhone.

Time to look again.  As you say, if you want a phablet (which frankly those things are ridiculous to use as phones), then yes, however in pretty much every other
space but iOS you have choices that don't turn you into a criminal for the privilege of spending 2-3x's what you should for the device.

Android devices can run any software the user chooses and use any carrier they choose.  Further, the largest Android OEM actually encourages hacking and
3rd party operating systems, vs. locking users into draconian DRM, single-threaded app stores, and non-standard accessories.  Micro-USB?  Nah, we'd prefer to
charge $30 for a $4 cable.  Think different indeed.

I like it because it works intuitively and reliably.

Intuitively?  Only if you exclusively use iOS products.  Reliably?  Yes.  And that's their saving grace, but it's not because they are "better", it's because of the
limitations imposed by the manufacturer and developer(s).  iOS products "do what they do", and quite literally nothing else.  The average user just turns it
on and never thinks about it, but as someone who has spent literally hours trying to wrangle an iDevice into doing things that an Android would do as a matter
of course (like load a huge presentation), I can tell you, they ain't "better".

I haven't been paying much attention to it, and I haven't seen this question addressed yet, so I'm wondering how it will work for us folks who normally wear prescription glasses.  Will I have to get prescription google glasses?  Will they have some other type of gadget that hooks on my existing pair?  It would seem that without an answer to this question they are excluding a large population of potential users.  After all, a lot of us geeks wear glasses...

The assumption and discussion is that there will be a version adapted to attaching to prescription eyewear - there are non-trivial issues of disruptive reflectivity, and
focal point of the display. Your eyes aren't supposed to really recognize or "see" your glasses.  I personally think it is more likely to go in the direction of making the
prescription lens itself a transparent display - that tech already exists today.

[Eclipse]

When do you think streets and cars will be fitted with electronic devices that will drive cars automatically, slowing or accelerating automatically to "optimize distance between cars" and stopping cars if there is danger of an accident?

By 2050.

[Storm Chaser]

^ We were discussing this very issue the other day, Apple is literally the poster child for the problem,
overpriced, boutique products made with cheap, 2nd world labor, shielding tax money in offshore accounts,
monstrously compensated executives, etc., etc.,

Meanwhile, what do you see most of the OWS activists and world-saving hipsters using?

Hilarious.

Not that I'm trying to start an Apple discussion here, but how is Apple different from any other company? They all manufacture their products with virtually the same "2nd world labor". They all find creative ways to avoid paying more taxes than they have to (BTW, people do the same). They all have offshore accounts. How is Apple any different? And why should they be held to a different standard?

I work in the computer industry (not with Apple or any related products) and can tell you that one of the things that is killing the PC industry is the razor-thin margins due to their commoditization. Prices are so competitive that many companies are not making money. The same is happening with mobile. With the exception of Samsung, most Android handset and tablet manufacturers are barely making any money.

You don't have to buy Apple products if you think they're crap, or too expensive, or too closed, or whatever your reasons are (that's the beauty of free market). But just because they happen to be making money, that doesn't make them the 'evil empire'. They're just a company, albeit one with lots of cash, but just a company. They're on top now; they may not be tomorrow... just like many other companies.

EDITED FOR SPELLING

[Eclipse]

Not that I'm trying to start an Apple discussion here, but how is Apple different from any other company? They all manufacture their products with virtually the same "2nd world labor".

Because they portend to be different, and the majority of their users have an un-entitled arrogance that come mostly from not understanding the question.
Apple products are great for users and a nightmare for IT folks.

Their draconian policies and systems stifle creativity and their "we invented everything" attitude is costing the industry billions of dollars and making lawyers rich.
The lightning connector is a perfect example - Apple says this was needed to save space on their every shrinking devices, but there's a not small segment of people who believe
this was more about the millions of $1 cables that apples wasn't making any money on - so, re-engineer the cable so it has a superfluous chip in it, and then you can start waiving
DMCA suits at people who knock them off.  This at a time when less people then ever need to synch their devices with a PC, but when there's a huge market for replacement
devices and cables.  Micro USB, the industry standard, wasn't good enough?

And their profiteering attitude keeps them behind the curve on just about everything - right now they are trying to "invent" Pandora, which, you know, already exists
in about 100 different forms, but their own system is being held back because they are trying to pay the licensing companies next to nothing in comparison to existing services.

Etc., etc.

I agree, hardware, like film cameras and telecom, is not a place you want to be heavily invested.

I never said they were evil, just annoying, and as you say, literally no different then the companies that for years they railed against as evil.

They have become what they have beheld, and now that the cult of personality is over, are likely to become that in more ways then one.

[Storm Chaser]

I never said they were evil, just annoying, and as you say, literally no different then the companies that for years they railed against as evil.

They have become what they have beheld, and not that the cult of personality is over, are likely to become that in more ways then one.

That's what happens when companies get on top. It happened to Microsoft. It's happening to Google, Amazon, Facebook, Walmart and many others. Apple happens to be more visible. I buy products from all of them. They're also all annoying at times.

[Eclipse]

They're also all annoying at times.

Pretty much.

[a2capt]

I'm not sure what level of command this is coming from, but the word in handed down from CAWG is that since "Both state and federal law prohibit audio and visual recording without permission." that they have instituted a ban on Google Glass.

The perception is "the device is always recording" otherwise, "why wear it" if you're not recording.

My question is how is this any different from CCTV cameras installed in buildings, members using GoPro's, Camera phones, camcorders, etc.  The roaming PAO at various activities. The only actual difference is where the camera is being held.

I'd like to see them make informed decisions, not knee-jerk reactionary decisions.

[Eclipse]

"Both state and federal law prohibit audio and visual recording without permission."

I hope they didn't actually say that, because that is an oversimplificaiton at best.

As you say, for some bizarre reason people seem to think Glass is a recording device.  it has that function, but its main use is as
an information display and access device.

They key is who "they" are, and how the ban is written (or isn't).  Interesting that the state where this is most prevalent, and
should be the most benevolent to new tech, is California.

I suppose it says something that the groups looking to turn us into cybrgs live side-by-side with people trying to shut off the system.

[JeffDG]

I'm not sure what level of command this is coming from, but the word in handed down from CAWG is that since "Both state and federal law prohibit audio and visual recording without permission." that they have instituted a ban on Google Glass.

The perception is "the device is always recording" otherwise, "why wear it" if you're not recording.

My question is how is this any different from CCTV cameras installed in buildings, members using GoPro's, Camera phones, camcorders, etc.  The roaming PAO at various activities. The only actual difference is where the camera is being held.

I'd like to see them make informed decisions, not knee-jerk reactionary decisions.

I'm almost certain that's false as a matter of federal law, and the same in most states.  Most states are "one party consent" jurisdictions, which means that a conversation may be recorded so long as one party consents to it.  Presumably a Glass user would consent to such, and as such the recording would be legal in any of those states. 

That said, CA is an "all party" consent state.

[a2capt]

Be it as it may:

If that is the bonafide reason, then -every single camera- needs to be banned. They are -all- capable of video recording.
After all, since there is no SME on site, and since things are open to interpretation, why not err on the side of caution and just keep all of it away, since many more cameras are capable of recording A/V nowadays. Or how about "is a photo a recording of a nanosecond in time?

Ludicrous? You bet.

Think about it. ;-)

[JeffDG]

Be it as it may:

If that is the bonafide reason, then -every single camera- needs to be banned. They are -all- capable of video recording.
After all, since there is no SME on site, and since things are open to interpretation, why not err on the side of caution and just keep all of it away, since many more cameras are capable of recording A/V nowadays. Or how about "is a photo a recording of a nanosecond in time?

Ludicrous? You bet.

Think about it. ;-)

Actually, ever notice that most security cams are video only?

The laws on this are generally wiretap laws, and as such, ban audio recording only.

[a2capt]

I'd check that.
I've installed so many of those Costco type DVR setups. A whole lot of them do audio too. I realize, you said "most", but I think it's actually gone the other direction. Whether it's enabled or not, is a different story.

What I need to see is what the official supplement says, but if what I was cc'ed is the actual text, then I don't see any other way to interpret it than a knee-jerk reaction.

After all, if they're relying on "people don't know if it's recording", then whats better? A camera that's plainly out in the open, that is plainly visible, and by virtue that it's screen content is visible to anyone forward of the device, or a hidden camera? 

A camera on your head just because it's smaller isn't any different than mounting a GoPro on a head band, except that one is blatantly obvious and the other much less so. 

If we're going to branch off on "well, it's not obvious", then neither is the phone in the hand being held at your side. Ban those, too. Since they could be used in the same way.