News RSS



First Post

I am really psyched about this!!!!!

Face vs. Wrist

It all starts with physical location, or what real-estate the devices occupy on the user’s body:

iWatch: The wrist is an easy target, as it has been the home of technological advancements from the beginning of the wristwatch era, c. 1920 and peaking during the digital watch revolution in the 1970s. Many people are used to wearing technology on their wrists.

It is easy to imagine that by the time we see the iWatch 3gs, it specs will surpass even the best of today’s smartphones. But in all its glory, the iWatch is really just moving the tech from your pocket to your wrist, with a smaller display. Or, in a less ambitious scenario, the smartwatch is merely a satellite hub to your existing smartphone, showing filtered notifications as needed, with a limited touch surface with which to interact.

Plus, you will still have to pull up your sleeve to see the display. (On the other hand, it's not obtrusive when not in use.)

Google Glass: Putting technology on your face is a much bigger cultural hurdle. For Glass to succeed, humans will need to get used to wearing a computer on their face - and to looking at and interacting with other people who have computers on their face.

Google Glass, however, doesn’t just shift the location of the phone screen: instead it offers a completely new computing paradigm.

The unique benefits of smartglass include

  • True hands-free computing
  • Low-profile camera that records true first person PoV video/stills
  • Head tracking (it knows where you are looking)
  • Private audio (via bone conduction)
  • Private viewing of information

None of these benefits can be realized with even the most most sophisticated smartwatch. In short, Google Glass affords a far more intimate connection to the infosphere than any other wearable tech, short of implants.

(See also Why Google Glass Is Far More Important Than Any Smartwatch.)



Full article →

Wesley Reid April 24, 2013 0 tags (show) Add a comment