
Intel made smart glasses that look normal - dphnx
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/5/16966530/intel-vaunt-smart-glasses-announced-ar-video
======
nogridbag
Despite all the negativity around Google Glasses' camera, that was actually
the best feature. You could really capture some great moments directly from
your eye's perspective at the wink of an eye. My mother recently passed and
out of all the photos and videos, my favorite was a 10 second video of me
handing her flowers shot from Google Glasses. It looks like she's staring
right back into my soul.

I have a three month old daughter now and I find myself fumbling about with my
phone trying to take photos of her. Just last night I dropped my Pixel phone
while trying to capture a photo of her. Phone is fine, but she wasn't too
happy with the loud noise of my phone hitting the wood floor :) I kind of miss
Google Glasses simply for the camera feature.

Instead of a minimal heads up display, I would much rather have a minimal
wearable camera without all the extra functionality Google Glasses offered.
Google Clips seems to be an alternative hands-free camera with different pros
and cons (+I can be in the photo. -Can't capture the same type of photos from
my eye viewpoint).

~~~
mjlangiii
Just my two cents; I'm a father of 4 and I'm okay with not capturing those
moments on film. And I mean that in two senses. One, I'm fine using my very
imperfect memory to recall special moments and two, because of the logistical
problems with grabbing the camera I'm not willing to risk missing out being
fully in the moment. The occasionally photograph from an event or time period
seems sufficient to conjure up the feelings from that time.

Regarding an always on camera - I'll second other comments in warning there
are just so many concerns with abuse, I don't see how to get around those.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
I hate that I lost it, will have to spend an afternoon on the internet achive,
But these are so tired. It's the _exact_ same things people were spouting when
phones started to have cameras. That came, and it turned out, having a quality
camera you take with you is pretty cool and the end of the world didn't
happen. Button cameras have existed for literally decades, if someone wants to
take discrete pictures of you the means are there and it's a hell of a lot
less awkward than staring at someone while your HUD camera grabs them.

A heads up display with no way of taking in data from the outside world is
gimped to the point of uselessness and I think you really need to sit down and
logic through the "concerns of abuse". There's no opportunity for privacy
violation that isn't easier with another form of tech; at least Ive never
heard one that sounds remotely plausible.

~~~
cryptoz
> That came, and it turned out, having a quality camera you take with you is
> pretty cool and the end of the world didn't happen.

It's a _little_ early to say that, given that we're talking about things that
take 50 years to transpire. You're telling people right now, in the midst of
the smartphone explosion, that it's all said and done and over - you won't
regret it at any point in your life, you'll always be glad of that smartphone,
etc. But you don't know that yet.

And I will say that for some people it has already happened. I have missed
countless things in the last 10 years because I was looking for my phone to
take a picture. Events that happened and I never witnessed them to even get a
memory of, just because I was looking down for my phone.

I already regret having the camera nearby but not quite ready to go for the
last 10 years. Your examples are already wrong, and actually quite offensive
in your tone, suggesting that you know better than everyone and that you know
how everyone will feel in 50 years.

The concerns are real and justified, even if you personally don't share them.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
So it's your phone's fault you've "missed experiences". I have to say, I've
never heard that one.

Obviously no one can take away anyone's concern; however it's a larger leap to
say all concerns are justified. I really don't understand your point, 50 years
seems incredibly arbitrary. The smart phone explosion has come and gone; 95%
of adults in the US have a cellphone and 77% have a smartphone[0]. Next to
none of today's tech even existed 50 years ago can we not comment on any
technological progress? I am nearly certain opinions will change over the next
quarter century, and not in the way the luddites predict.

[0] [http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-
sheet/mobile/](http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/)

~~~
cryptoz
> So it's your phone's fault you've "missed experiences".

I did not say that, don't twist my words like that. It is my fault I missed
the experiences - I was busy looking for my phone.

> The smart phone explosion has come and gone; 95% of adults in the US have a
> cellphone and 77% have a smartphone

Sounds like we're at the start of people having smartphones. I don't see how
you look at those numbers and think it's gone. The explosion and cultural
changes are just starting, as backed up by those numbers.

> Next to none of today's tech even existed 50 years ago can we not comment on
> any technological progress?

I'm not sure where you got this. Of course we can comment on technological
progress. But it's ridiculous to talk about the smartphone explosion and its
societal effects like its the distance past. This stuff is happening now,
nothing is "settled" or "said and done". It's all starting, really.

------
y0ghur7_xxx
This is actually something I would like to wear. It's like normal glasses, I
am not recording videos of the people around me, and it could show me relevant
information when needed without looking at my phone. I can think of a few use
cases this could cover, in a very elegant way.

The nice thing is, that they are completely "invisible" for other people
around me.

~~~
jclardy
I do think they are cool and could be useful, but not to the point of making
someone that doesn't wear glasses want to wear them.

My main problem is what does it give me over wearing a smart watch? The only
thing I can think of is being slightly more discreet and the "gesture" not
being rude to activate when you are in company. That is something I found out
quickly when I started wearing an Apple Watch - even if you are just checking
a text message it appears you are checking the time and want to leave. Since
then I have greatly cut down on notifications going to my watch, and have even
fewer that even ping on my phone.

To me, having a camera on it is what would make it compelling, but at the same
time make it creepy. Say being able show driving directions overlaid on the
actual road, versus some floating text. Or you sit down at a desk with just a
keyboard and mouse and your "displays" are only shown in your field of view -
and you can customize, move and resize them as you wish.

~~~
nathan_long
> you sit down at a desk with just a keyboard and mouse and your "displays"
> are only shown in your field of view - and you can customize, move and
> resize them as you wish

This. I don't wear glasses and don't like the idea of walking around with
notifications floating around my eyes.

But a set of monitors that fill my field of vision and fit in my pocket sounds
awesome.

~~~
klibertp
From what I understand (I'd love to be wrong here) we have currently no AR or
VR technology which could conceivably be used to work with a lot of text. The
resolution is not there and it's possible that it won't ever be.

Which is a damn shame, because I'd sell my kidney for the ability to work with
two decently sized (virtual) displays from my couch or in the garden...

~~~
d0lph
I'm intrigued by the 'possibly never will be' part, any references or reading
on that?

~~~
rtkwe
I can answer a little. It's a problem of the conjunction of providing enough
resolution that the screen is useful while having a large enough viewing
angle. If I want to replicate the screen for my Surface Book, 3kx2k, at normal
working distance that screen takes up about 1/5th of my working vision (that
being the area my glasses cover which is a majority of my whole field of view
and as much as I could expect of a non-contacts AR solution). So to render
that screen and be able to place it inside the normal working field of view
any AR glasses would need to have a resolution of about 5-6x whatever screen
you want to duplicate, and this number gets worse as we talk about replicating
TV screens which are further away and thus need even higher resolution to look
the same.

It's a problem of being able to pack that many pixels onto the tiny screen
area of a glasses based AR solution and then being able to process and render
that in a mobile form factor. It's a hard problem to solve to say the least.

------
nradov
I think there's definitely a market for endurance athletes. Runners and
cyclists would like to see time, speed, distance, cadence, power output,
navigation, etc without having to look down at a wristwatch or bike computer.
Those people are accustomed to spending a lot on sports equipment. There are
existing products like the Everysight Raptor and Garmin Varia View but they're
bulky or goofy looking or obstruct vision, so Intel has plenty of space to
offer a better alternative.

~~~
QasimK
I agree in general that it would be useful in these situations.

As someone who wears glasses, I find it impossible to run with them because of
the movement or them just falling off. Are people who wear glasses able to run
with them - am I doing something wrong?

~~~
Jemmeh
At the gym I don't really need it on the machines. Treadmill is flat,
ellpitical removes bounce. But if I'm sprinting outside they can start to
slide.

Get a strap for your glasses and have it pulled fairly tight to your head.
They are cheap. One similar to this. It needs to be the correct shape for your
glasses frame so it's probably best to go to a real store and try a few straps
in person.

[https://www.amazon.com/Peeper-Keepers-Eyeglass-Retainer-
Hold...](https://www.amazon.com/Peeper-Keepers-Eyeglass-Retainer-
Holder/dp/B002UL6XKS)

------
maltalex
Good for Intel.

This might just be the start of a new, big, market at a time when they
desperately need to diversify their sources of revenue. Seeing them achieve
that through in-house innovation as opposed to copying (or buying) competing
products would be great.

------
erikj
I'm disappointed that "programming for Vaunt will involve JavaScript". We're
stuck with this horribly designed language on the web because browsers don't
run anything else (natively), and there is a strong trend in the field to
replace it, either with compilation of saner languages to JS or with
WebAssembly. We don't need to infect another nascent market with this
atrocity, let it die.

~~~
xab9
Just get over it. Either JS will kill every other language or webassembly will
save us. Place your bets.

~~~
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg
False dichotomy

------
gnicholas
Interesting that they chose red as the display color. One of the co-creators
of Google Glass said that they initially all thought red would be good, but
after trying different colors the consensus was that it was terrible. This was
because there wasn't enough contrast with the background environment.

It sounds like Intel's tech is fundamentally different—they paint your retina
with a laser—and this may make the background issue irrelevant. And it was
certainly part of the safety pitch, which was that this is a very low-powered
laser. If it had blue or green in it they couldn't make this claim.

~~~
fermienrico
>> Google Glass said that they initially all thought red would be good, but
after trying different colors the consensus was that it was terrible

They should have looked at a larger sample size. Red is used in rangefinder
viewfinders for over 30+ years. Leica M240 has red and white as options. Red
is by far the best from all standpoints - contrast, legibility and
versatility.

Red dot sights are used in firearms and they are also by far superior to any
other color.

I am doubtful of Google engineers and whether they put enough thought into
exploring colors by using a larger sample size or cross checking different
industries.

------
athenot
I really like how much effort they put in to make things as natural and
unintruive as possible.

The article mentionned there's no interaction yet; I wonder if they could
track eyeball movement and use eye blinks for clicking. (Someone else
mentionned a ring as an input device which is also an excellent idea.)

------
marcus_holmes
I want these, and then I want an app on them that will tell me if the person
standing directly in front of me is on my LinkedIn/Facebook, and if so, what
their name is and what they do.

~~~
tomtoise
That'd be quite the technological feat considering they don't currently have
cameras built in.

~~~
remir
The Facebook app already know where you are. If both you and the other person
have the Fb app, then I'm sure this feature could be implemented relatively
easily.

------
jotm
I don't see the point of these overpriced smartwatches and glasses that can
barely do one thing (display notifications), but I want my future full AR/VR
glasses, so I'm glad the early adopters pay for it.

Right now, what I'd want is a very simple, slim, long-lasting watch that would
notify me of emails, messages, phone calls and notifications based on their
origin (business account, work account, personal, random). It doesn't even
need a display, different vibration modes and LED's would do fine.

~~~
jgrahamc
I didn't until I bought an Apple Watch and now I wear it every day and find it
a very useful accessory.

~~~
grk
I'm curious, what is it useful for? I've been thinking of getting one since it
came out, but can't really imagine what I'd use it for after the coolness of
the new gadget wears off.

~~~
criddell
I'm thinking of getting one for a single application - Drafts.

It's basically a take-a-note app. You talk to the watch, it records and
transcribes your message, storing it in an application that's similar to an
email client. At the end of my day I would open my inbox and process my notes.

I've also been getting into time tracking and I think there are some apps for
starting and stopping timers from the watch.

~~~
saagarjha
Not to burst your bubble or anything, but as an Apple Watch user I've found
that apps on the watch are nothing like you would have hoped: they're slow and
limited. I'm not saying that Apple Watch isn't _useful_ –I'm just saying that
in my experience, its value comes from things other than apps.

~~~
criddell
This review on YouTube:

[https://youtu.be/SzZjAMOnPtk?t=240](https://youtu.be/SzZjAMOnPtk?t=240)

Shows the watch app starting in about a second or two.

------
lev99
Did anyone get tech specs on the display?

How many characters can it display at once? One line or multiple lines? What's
the resolution? Are images supported?

I don't think a monochrome device will sell, but the display is (to me) by far
the most interesting development here.

~~~
mojomark
It's in the article: It's a monochrome Virtual Retinal Display (VRD), powered
by a monochrome VCSEL light source and MEMS scanner. The resolution of the
image is 400X100 pixels.

------
JoeAltmaier
Surveillance will become ubiquitous. There's no plausible scenario where it
doesn't, right? Can't legislate it away once the sensors/cameras become
unnoticeably small.

So we'll need new social norms to control what people share about what they
learn. E.g. we already don't mention what we hear from behind bathroom doors
in polite company. We'll need rules so that people can continue to operate as
humans in this new paradigm.

------
pi-squared
Yeah, right - "no one will use it for every tweet notification, it will only
provide contextual information" \- it will be used for whatever people want to
use it and we know what people want to use it for (porn).

~~~
mynameisvlad
It's a monochrome display. Pretty hard to use it for porn.

~~~
klibertp
> Pretty hard to use it for porn.

It's not hard, it's an innate characteristic of porn. It's the inverse of rule
36 - as long as a communication channel exists, it will be used for porn, no
matter how inconvenient it might be. Also, playing it straight, someone will
have a fetish for porn over that channel, no way around it.

------
bencollier49
My immediate thought was "burn-in".

~~~
sumnulu
Projects inverse image of every other notification, problem solved EyeSaver
(TM)

------
bsaul
Oh yeah, that swipe gesture looks so natural...

Now in addition to people talking out loud alone on the streets, people
checking their notifications on their watch and phones at dinner, we'll have
people looking at your teeth doing weird eye and head motions when you talk to
them...

~~~
lj3
I can't help but think wearable computers aren't going to become viable until
we further refine brain computer interfaces.

~~~
syshum
I cant help but to think of the dystopia that will come from further
refinement of brain computer interfaces

~~~
bjpirt
Not sure why this comment is being downvoted - seems like a perfectly valid
concern, particularly if you've read Rainbows End by Verner Vinge

~~~
syshum
Most people on HN believe that technology will only ever improve society, with
very limited negative effects that can be mitigated or eliminated with more
technology.

Over all they see any negative effects (both current and future) caused by
technological advancement to be a technological problem that can be eliminated

In their minds the dystopian worlds depicted in scifi and fantasy just simply
can not happen, "we will not allow it"

~~~
grzm
> _" Most people on HN believe that technology will only ever improve society,
> with very limited negative effects that can be mitigated or eliminated with
> more technology."_

I think it's safe to say that there are people who are enthusiastic about the
promises of technology and those who are concerned about how it can be used,
and likely significant overlap of those two groups. The likelihood of making
an error when making sweeping generalizations about the constituency of HN (or
anything else, for that matter) is pretty much guaranteed to miss the mark for
a large subset of the population.

Your comment upthread likewise is very general and unsubstantive, and comes
off as flip, for that matter. I suspect that has more to do with why your
comment was down voted than about your particular concerns or position: after
all, the comment doesn't say much. Granted, the comment you're replying to
doesn't have a whole lot either, but that isn't an excuse for commenting
poorly oneself. Dig in. Share specific thoughts or concerns you have. Help
move the conversation in a constructive direction.

~~~
syshum
>>Dig in. Share specific thoughts or concerns you have. Help move the
conversation in a constructive direction.

I have, most substantive comments get higher levels of down votes so why
bother.

HN has become a echo chamber and if you push to hard against the echo chamber
you just get banned.

~~~
grzm
Yeah, I can imagine that's frustrating. Is it something you actually want to
take some action on? Do you want to help make HN a better place? Please don't
take that as accusatory: it takes effort to be constructive, and each person
has to make a decision whether or not that's worth the effort. If it's not (or
perhaps at least not right now), it may not worth commenting at all: as you
say, your comments have been attracting downvotes regardless.

If you think it _is_ worth the effort, then I'd ask you to take a step back
and see if there may be ways you can change how you're commenting:
Communication is a many way street, involving all parties involved. The only
one you have control over however, is yourself, so really the only thing you
_can_ do.

You mention "push[ing] hard against the echo chamber", so it sounds like you
_are_ interested in making HN a better place. I definitely think it's
important to figure out ways to have constructive conversations about
difficult topics. I also think there are ways of going about this that
actively work _against_ that. It's really important to keep in mind normal
human psychology and behavior.

Unconstructive complaining is very unlikely to move the needle in a positive
direction. It adds to the noise and degrades the overall atmosphere.
Commenting on the internet is hard: it's low bandwidth compared to many other
forms we're used to: we don't have the benefit of intonation or body language.
On a diverse forum, we can't rely on a common background in which to place
what we're saying. It sometimes feels like there are more ways it can go
_wrong_ than to go _right_.

So extra time and care is important, particularly if you're interested in
discussing contentious issues. When things go wrong, it's really important to
take a step back and see how you might have contributed to the situation, and,
even if you think you didn't do anything wrong, to look at what you can do to
actively prevent whatever went wrong in the future.

It's perhaps trite, but I think it often can be summed up in "it's not what
you say, it's how you say it", with the corollary that as the topic becomes
more contentious, it's even more important to take care in how you say it.

I hope you _do_ choose to look at ways you might change how you comment to
have the effect you want, to make HN the place you want it to be. HN is a
community and how each member chooses to contribute makes HN what it is. We
can each help make it the place we want it to be by how we participate: how we
comment, vote, and submit.

~~~
syshum
My biggest problem with HN commenting is the rate limiting, if you get too
many down votes other people can respond but you are barred from responding,
any attempt get met with "you are posting to fast"

I honestly do not care about the down voting, I do care about being
silenced... That is what is frustrating to not be able to respond to people. I
understand the rationality behind the rate limiting but personally I find it
to be an affront to free speech.

HN actively works against controversial conversations and promotes the echo
chamber by the way the moderate and implement commenting.

~~~
grzm
I'll sign off after this, as it's not clear to me whether I'm being effective.

I'm going to take a step back and look at the behavior you're describing. I'm
going to use as a starting point that the moderators penalize behavior, not
position.†

* Member begins commenting in a way that's unconstructive.

* Mods rate-limit the member, in an effort to limit the opportunities the member has to continue to post unconstructively.

* Member feels this is limiting their ability to respond.

It _is_ limiting the member's ability to respond, but the member has shown
that they're responses aren't, on balance, constructive. They aren't
completely banned from responding, and in your case, you're aware you're rate-
limited. That _should_ make each comment you _can_ post more valuable to you,
and an opportunity to take extra care in each comment you post. It's human
nature to react negatively to restrictions, so I can understand it's
frustrating.

However, it's frustrating to many members who _do_ mostly follow the
guidelines and post in the spirit of the sight to have conversations degrade
due to repeated behavior of a minority of members. You acknowledge the
rationality behind rate limiting, and feel frustrated when it's applied to
you. That's human nature, and understandable as well. It's on all of us to
work against our more destructive tendencies, and help each other in doing so.
"Better angels of our nature", and all that. (That's why I'm taking the time
to write these comments, by the way.)

And the mods do lift rate limits. It doesn't need to be a permanent condition.
Contact them via the contact link in the footer and see if there's something
you can do. I encourage you to do so.

\---

† If you don't subscribe to this, I think your options are to limit your
discussions to non-contentious topics, or to stop commenting all together.
You're unlikely to change how the mods moderate HN by behaving in a way they
consider destructive. Continuing to comment in ways you're aware are against
the guidelines or you believe the mods are going to react poorly to is very
likely going to get you banned eventually, with frustration all around.

~~~
syshum
>>>I'll sign off after this, as it's not clear to me whether I'm being
effective.

I hope not, I believe this is a decent conversation. I understand your point,
and yes some of my comments are flippant and oneliners, I personally believe
those kind of comments are relevant and constructive as well. hell the last
election was won with bumper Sticker rhetoric. Not everything needs to be a
dissertation

I seems to me that I am the one being ineffective, as it seem you have come to
the impression that I understand my comments would be downvoted and/or that I
know my comment is "nonconstructive" and have chosen to post them anyway. This
is not true, my original comment that started this was a parody of the comment
I replied to, i did not add more because the original comment did not have any
additional substance. They made a statement of fact backed by no data, and I
made a statement of fact backed by no data. The political bias of HN lead to
my comment, which IMO has clear historical reasons for being true prediction,
Was downvoted multiple times whereas the parent comment gets up voted. [My
comment as since rebounded and is now in the Positive, it was in a negative
when this conversation started]

Your claim however is the downvotes are not motivated by politics or
disagreement but instead because the community believes it was a
unconstrictive comment. this is the basis of our disagreement and resulting
conversation.

>>>Member begins commenting in a way that's unconstructive.

That is a big assumption, that downvotes == unconstrctive. when more often
downvotes == unpopular or against the mainstream view.

Contrary to every web sites attempts and goal down votes are used by users to
express disagreement. So if a person disagrees with a post regardless of it
substantive value to the conversation it they will down vote it. So to assume
a heavily down voted comment is unconstructive is a terrible, and flawed
assumption to make

Also I Pretty sure on HN rate limiting is an automated not manual process. If
I am wrong on that then may opinion would shift to the moderators which I will
not comment on as that seems to be instant ban here...

>>>You acknowledge the rationality behind rate limiting, and feel frustrated
when it's applied to you

I understand the logic they applied when creating it. To limit spam, flame
wars, etc. I do not agree with that logic and believe it a failed and overly
aggressive policy. If anything it should be thread not user based, meaning the
thread should be rate limited instead of the user...

>>>Continuing to comment in ways you're aware are against the guidelines or
you believe the mods are going to react poorly to is very likely going to get
you banned eventually, with frustration all around.

Well technically speaking any comment is "against the guidelines" if is deemed
so by the moderators, HN guidelines like most sites are written is such an
overly broad manner as to include anything and nothing at the same time, all
dependent upon the mods subjective opinion and personal bias. This is not just
a problem on HN but every websites anymore as the political landscape gets
more polarized and people start creating echo chambers for themselves, and HN
is a political echo chamber even if it attempts to claim an apolitical stance.

>>>I think your options are to limit your discussions to non-contentious
topics, or to stop commenting all together.

Where politics meets technology is where my interest lies. No topic I am
interested in non-contentious. I desire to advocate using technology to
advance individual freedom, and guard against using technology to create or
aid Authoritarian societies filled with surveillance, censorship, and tyranny.
As the technology industry in general along with HN moves more and more away
from Individualism and more towards Authoritarianism my views seem to
considered "destructive" even though 5 or 10 years ago they would not have
been. I desire to see HN and society in general shift away from this
Authoritarian censorship culture and more towards Individualism and free
speech. I simply can not self censor to the point where I only comment on
apolitical topics as that will only allow the echo chamber to fester.

~~~
grzm
A point of clarification:

When I describe moderator action, I'm speaking specifically of action by HN
admins, who are able to rate-limit. As I understand it, downvotes on their own
do not result in rate-limiting. I can understand why you may have misread
this, as the conversation started out discussing downvotes, and while I was
careful in the language I chose, I didn't point out that I was also excluding
downvotes from my last comment.

I did so for a couple of reasons: you brought up rate-limiting and banning,
which are actions only a mod can take, or change; downvotes are by far the
action of HN members, and as such, much harder to categorize systematically.
People downvote for all kinds of reasons, and not everyone agrees on how
downvotes should be handled, and why they were given in any particular
instance. A distinct impression I have is that often people view downvotes as
disagreement, when they could just as easily be interpreted as a downvote for
an unsubstantive or uncivil comment. And I believe that a disagreement couched
in a civil and substantive way is much less likely to receive a downvote than
one that is rude, snarky, and unsubstantive. You'll note a recurring theme
here: it's more often than not what you say, but how you say it. You mention
parody: parody is really difficult, and while I appreciate the wit of those
who are able to wield it, most are not able to do so in a manner that's
enlightening, and the misses hurt discourse much more than the rare win helps.

There's not a lot else I have to say with respect to the rest of what you've
commented here. I think I've addressed most of it, if not specifically, in a
way that's pretty easy to derive given other things I've commented. Operating
from a position of defense and opposition does not lend itself to good faith
and moving forward. Some games are played to win, and some are played to keep
playing: and conversation, particularly on contentious topics, is most
definitely the latter.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
Paradoxically, the biggest selling point for me is that they're not produced
by Google.

~~~
maltalex
There's nothing paradoxical about that.

Google products come with visible and invisible strings; this, at least for
now, doesn't.

~~~
esquivalience
At least, not visible ones.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
If it helps, think Intel NUC vs. ChromeBox.

------
epmaybe
I watched the Verge video this morning where they tried to explain how the
hologram projector works, but I am still confused. How can it ensure a sharp
image shining directly through your own intraocular lens (not the glasses
themselves) to the retina? If you have a "longer" or "shorter" eyeball the
light ray's focus point will not be on the retina itself.

~~~
defterGoose
Laser light is "coherent" both spatially and temporally. Spatial coherence
allows the beam to be "collimated", which basically just means that it looks
like a cylinder and not a cone. That's why you can shine a laser at the moon
and see the spot; most of the energy from the laser makes it to the same
place, bounces back to your eyes, and you get a bright spot. Shining a
flashlight doesn't work because the light spreads out too much. Technically
some of the light still gets to the moon and back to your eyes, it's just
below the threshold of your eye's ability to distinguish differences in
brightness.

For the glasses, the laser is probably being scanned using a mems mirror (like
how a DLP tv works, sorta), and modulated in brightness periodically to create
the pixels. Since there's only one "point" of contact between your lens and
the beam, the lens doesn't distort the beam like it would an image. That's
where the idea of focus comes in. If you were looking at a photograph with
your eye, there would be many sources and colors of light. Since the lens
refracts incoming light based on direction, position, and color, your lens'
job is to make sure the "pixels" of the photograph stay spatially organized
with respect to each other. That's what being in focus means. And since the
laser has only one color and one direction, all that light stays together and
makes a nice dot on your retina. The only thing left to do is make a
correction to the overall distortion pattern your lens introduces ,which is
similar for pretty much everyone. Same reason you need to add barrel
distortion before sending video to an HMD. I think that's what they were
showing with that "warping" red image of the glasses' display.

~~~
epmaybe
Thank you for the explanation! I had figured that laser light was indeed
different than normal light rays, but couldn't remember my undergrad optics to
explain why.

------
erikpukinskis
Special things start to happen with retinal projection + bufferless,
clockless, stochastic rendering of signed distance fields.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Key:

bufferless - Don't wait for an image, just stream pixels as fast as you find
them

clockless - No world "ticks", the world is an append-only log of "percepts"¹
which can be projected onto any time.

stochastic - Don't wait for certainty about a pixel, just push out the most
probable ones first

signed distance field - Afformentioned "percepts" don't have well defined
boundaries like a polygon, instead "fields" centered on a point describe how
light moves around them. Any two fields can be trivially summed, so you can
ignore most of a scene when searching for a specific pixel near a small number
of local fields.

Together they allow you to supply the eyes with nearly zero-latency data with
arbitrarily low computing power.

¹ _As an aside, there is evidence humans don 't see a "now" tick either, we
perceive "fields out of time" directly, log them, and interpolate their
relationship to "now" thereafter, such that we feel that we are "seeing"
something which our eyes have already stopped reporting about. Thus SDFs and
clockless rendering are a natural fit and map well to human perception._

------
asah
I would be excited if these can display charts, graphs, pictures and video --
stuff that's too detailed for a smart watch and Alexa can't speak out loud.

I was just learning how to make a "Julia Child" omelette and would've loved to
have her technique (<5 secs!) on repeat while I perform the maneuver.

------
jpalomaki
Gestures might be needed for some cases, but there are many situations when
you could just use the smartphone as the control device. Often I do have one
hand available, but the problem using a smartphone is that it requires me to
stare at the screen. For example walking in the city, driving the car.

------
tritium

      Q. Hey, this won't just try to show me 
         more Twitter bullshit, will it?
    
      A. No, no, no! Heh heh! It will show you
         Yelp bullshit. Much better, yes?
    
      Q. Ah... so the advertising will finally 
         be the kind we all yearn for?
    
      A. Yessssss!
    

Wow. Thanks guys.

------
Tade0
> “You can ignore people more efficiently that way.”

They should really have a chat with my SO. She can always tell if someone is
paying attention.

I think squinting is a pretty natural gesture that could be used for
controlling this device. That is - if it's feasible to make it so.

------
manmal
I‘m not sure I would want these. Shining a laser (even though it will be safe
and well tested) right into my eyes seems a bit.. risky. I presume the laser
will be controlled by its own microcontroller, well tested and „unhackable“..
but still, if we can learn anything from Spectre, it’s that inconspicuous
system parts can open a security hole. Burning holes into a retina is quickly
done given the right amount of power.

There’s also the thing that blue light accelerates retina cell death.. I‘d
rather wait for some long term studies before putting these on.

~~~
driverdan
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's unsafe. From the
description it sounds like the laser is incapable of a high enough output to
damage your eyes.

~~~
manmal
In that case, only my 2nd concern would hold - potential unforseeable long
term effects. I‘ll pass the beta invite on that one.

------
sdrothrock
> Using a Vaunt display is unlike anything else I’ve tried. It projects a
> rectangle of red text and icons down in the lower right of your visual
> field.

Interesting choice of location -- I would have thought it would be better to
put it somewhere above the normal field of view, as most people tend to look
up when thinking and trying to recall something. The kind of information smart
glasses offer seems like it could be more naturally accessed that way.

------
myrandomcomment
So the tech geek in my wants to love these things. It is so SciFi future-y. I
just cannot see using them.

1\. I paid to have my eyes fixed so I do not need glasses. 2\. I am not sure
what value any of this brings. I have not see the killer app..

That being said there is an irrational part of me that wants to hold out for
the in eyeball version of this. The real issue is the killer app, now that I
think about it, is the brain interface where you can think about they
information you want and have it come up. Until then...well.

------
anotherevan
I think this looks awesome. The only problem is I have two pairs of glasses -
one for reading/computer and one for everything else - so I'll need two of
them.

If I was them, I would add a bone conduction speaker in the stem so it can
give you audible information as well.

I also like the ring input device another commenter mentioned.[1]

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16308730](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16308730)

~~~
earenndil
> If I was them, I would add a bone conduction speaker in the stem so it can
> give you audible information as well.

It would probably be too heavy, part of their 'non-intrusiveness' goal is to
make it be very light.

~~~
anotherevan
Yeah, maybe. Hopefully they'll get the miniaturisation down enough to include
it in version two!

------
vadimberman
Wearables are one area where not having feature bloat means a MUCH better
product.

Battery life, normal temperature, reliability vs a gimmick that 1 out of a
1,000 users will want.

------
sebringj
I can picture using this with a voice interface w/ full screen transparent
overlay toggle for navigating the world. Eye-swiping seems too difficult.
Couple that with sensing where your hands are and you could manipulate 3d
interfaces with gestures. People talking to themselves on a Jawbone was weird
enough. Now they'll be full skitso where everyone's a talking mime with their
own personal minority report / terminator UI.

------
rland
I can't help but think of how much more productive a factory worker or
repairman would be with these glasses, if it were possible to display
instructions, dimensions, parts of a reference manual, etc...

The first successful business in the "glasses with HUD" space will be one that
targets businesses which manufacture complex things using human beings.

~~~
trisimix
If you can display it on that tiny ass screen you could probably just program
a machine to do it. Sounds like a business that wouldnt last long.

~~~
riekus
A machine that walks into a hotel to service an elevator?

------
dlokshin
Interesting marketing choice that all of the images are of the actual glasses,
and none of the images are of what your eyes see.

~~~
hbosch
From the description it sounds incredibly difficult to photograph or represent
the UI in an accurate way.

------
walterbell
_> Intel intends to attract investors who can contribute to the business with
strong sales channels, industry or design expertise, rather than financial
backers._

Luxottica-Essilor? They own global eyeglass distribution, both offline and
online. They can take the Android market. Apple’s glasses are supposedly a
couple of years away.

------
2muchcoffeeman
These are only normal if you enjoy keeping up with the latest fashions.

I don’t like huge thick rimmed glasses and I never will.

~~~
adrianmonk
Whether it fits your personal style has no bearing at all on whether it's
normal. I don't like v-neck shirts, so personally I never wear them, but
they're definitely normal.

------
kazinator
Knowing Intel, project will be canned in a year or two; back to x86 chips and
related peripherals.

------
aurizon
Intel is a dyed in the wool monopolist, which will mean the high cost will bar
widespread acceptance

------
adultSwim
When can I actually buy a pair? How much will they cost?

This is the kind of product I would be really interested in using. I was sad
when Google Glass died after pushback in the Bay Area.

------
pavlov
Basically the Pebble of AR.

Since Intel doesn’t productize themselves, I wonder who Intel will find to
build and sell it. Traditional PC companies don’t seem like a great fit, but I
have a feeling the launch partners will be companies like Asus anyway.

------
bravo22
"holographic grading" should really be "holographic grating".

------
yohann305
where can we sign-up? I googled _vaunt_ and first thing that comes up is a bra
company, NSFW: [https://sneakyvaunt.com/](https://sneakyvaunt.com/)

------
senectus1
give me a small ring on my finger to control it and I'll buy a pair.

~~~
ddalex
Funny you should say that - when I was working @Intel I wrote a proposal for a
Bluetooth Low Power ring that provide a simple input device for headless
devices with 1 rotary input and one press input, sufficient to scroll and
click on items.

Another proposal I had was a bracelet that would sense capacitance changes in
the hand upon fingers touching each other; this way you could have a 12-key
"keyboard" on the phalanges of the non-opposable fingers (3 phalanges x 4
fingers) touch-able by the thumb.

Such technologies would require minimal power input and provide good
interaction with any headset; but at the time Intel were not interested in the
research needed to build a prototype.

~~~
kageneko
Speaking of ring interfaces, Ring [0] was a Kickstarter project that happened.
I seem to recall that it did ship but didn't actually work too well. I suspect
that your simpler interface would have been a lot more successful.

I think some of it depends on which finger you're targeting, too. Wearing it
on the index finger makes it easier to tap/push buttons using the thumb.

In my HCI class, we went over this paper [1] (2010). It has a wide variety of
always-available input and output and many of them would work well with these
glasses. My hardware crush is a Myo [2], although I don't know how well it
works. The videos of it look neat, at least :).

Also, I had the exact same idea for a hand interface as a project for my
Ubicomp class, but I didn't have the skills to do it. I ended up doing
research for "smart jewelry" instead :|

[0] [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1761670738/ring-
shortcu...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1761670738/ring-shortcut-
everything/posts)

[1] [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-
content/uploads/...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/FnT2011-AlwaysAvailable.pdf)

[2] [https://www.myo.com/](https://www.myo.com/)

~~~
grok2
I found this use of the Myo (to control the robotic arm of an amputee) really
cool -- it seems like they found a life-changing use for what might have ended
up a cool toy -- [http://developerblog.myo.com/meet-the-man-with-a-myo-
control...](http://developerblog.myo.com/meet-the-man-with-a-myo-controlled-
robotic-arm/) \-- not sure how perfectly it works though.

~~~
jetpacktuxedo
Probably not particularly well as the Myo band only detects a handful of super
basic gestures, and unless they have changed their stance in the past year or
two they refuse to expose the raw data to developers. This makes it impossible
to distinguish more than their predefined gestures.

------
clueless123
IMHO, Soon, smart glasses will be as ubiquitous as cellphones. We as humans
keep increasing our communications and multitasking. This item covers both.

------
moogly
Restaurant reviews, recipes, shopping lists. Yeah, I'll wait for something
more compelling I guess.

~~~
nradov
Well that's the point. Intel is releasing a developer preview in the hopes
that third parties will create something more compelling.

------
adultSwim
For me, real life ad-block is the killer app for AR.

------
floatboth
This will be the most useful for high school kids cheating at tests :D

------
TYPE_FASTER
It's interesting that this is on the front page at the same time as the
article about Apple. I would love a product with Apple quality that would
provide real value AR. Hope they make it happen.

------
navium
Hope this spectre doesn't meltdown.

------
ekblom
In a few years, we will all be wearing those VR-goggles that Wade Watts is
using in Ready Player One. Can't wait!

~~~
sethammons
I'm more interested in the augmented reality glasses in the Daemon and Freedom
books by Daniel Suarez. Those could be game changers.

------
trisimix
How much though?

------
adultSwim
Want!

------
nvus
Good news after bad news: meltdown and spectre.

------
crispytx
"uses retinal projection to put a display in your eyeball..."

That sounds awful! Like some shit from Black Mirror! Jesus, Fuck!

~~~
crispytx
I'd like to clarify, tech is great and all, but I don't want to become a
fucking cyborg. What the hell is wrong with these people?

~~~
sctb
Would you please start commenting civilly and substantively?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
crispytx
Did I say something offensive to cyborgs? My bad. Cyborgs are people too, well
sort of...

------
xedarius
They're waiting for you Gordon ... in the test chamber.

------
Uhhrrr
This will lead to all glasses wearers being treated with suspicion, until such
time as cameras are also readily available in shirt buttons and everything
else. At that point recording will become unavoidable and therefore
normalized.

~~~
ryanpetrich
The device under discussion does not have a camera.

~~~
Uhhrrr
Fair enough, but this tidbit from the article would still give people pause:

>no microphone (for now)

