

How The First Google Glass Commercial Should Have Gone - radley
http://phandroid.com/2012/07/25/this-is-how-the-first-google-glass-commercial-should-have-went/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

======
tikhonj
I suspect that would just have set the bar too high. Unrealistic expectations
are not good for devices in really early stages.

I think the presentation at Google IO was perfect: it was something obviously
completely achievable _now_ with the _exact_ technology they had. And it was
pretty cool.

~~~
Heinleinian
In general, tech companies probably shouldn't do any preview videos at all --
they should just show a product demo when it's ready.

I do think a video like the one described in the link could be done in a way
that it was clearly so far in the future that everyone would know it was an
imagination thing, like the concept cars at auto shows, that could turn into a
real product in 5-10 years. And it would be worthwhile to get people thinking
about augmented reality. But those kind of far-off concept promotions are
really hard to do well.

------
vibrunazo
While I agree with most comments that most of these are unrealistic and gives
the impression the artist does not understand the technology. The football
idea is actually pretty good, viable and not even too hard to build with
current tools. That sounds exactly the kind of use case that should be better
exploited with glass apps. Constantly streaming information when you don't
want to be distracted by taking your phone off. A phone app to use in a
stadium wouldn't be too useful. But on your glass it changes everything. There
are many similar situations where there's opportunity for glass apps that
didn't have too much appeal on the phone. Developers take note.

~~~
Newky
I'm not really sure I see the advantage of the glasses over an ordinary
smartphone for the stadium scenario. I am not missing anything by doing it on
the phone due to the fact that the augmented reality of the replay is already
taking up most of my vision.

For me, the jogging scenario of a heads up display makes the glasses very
appealing to me as I would love to see a heads up of how my jog is going and
distance to go etc.

~~~
manmal
It's not possible with an ordinary smartphone, because you certainly won't
hold up the device all the time to capture the game as video.

I think most of those scenarios are well doable, and they surely can be well
encapsulated as modules (apps).

~~~
Newky
My idea with the smartphone is that if the content is available why not just
stream it rather than have it as an augmented reality experience. In every way
I see the phone being a more whole and fulfilling experience in this case.

------
hkmurakami
I completely disagree with the hand gestures. Just having users accept wearing
Glass is enough of a challenge without insinuating that the UI will require
you to look like you're doing panotomimes in public.

And this is coming from someone who is _dying_ to buy Google Glass! (mainly
for the hands-free camera feature)

~~~
jrockway
_And this is coming from someone who is dying to buy Google Glass!_

I want one for the same reason, but if you just want a head-mounted camera to
record your life, that's already a thing:

<http://gopro.com/>

Apparently quite popular with cyclists.

~~~
tikhonj
I see cameras like that all the time when skiing. Snowboarders seem to use
them more than skiers, but maybe I'm just biased :P.

I think it would actually be pretty cool assuming you ski somewhere
interesting.

~~~
richardw
I have one for mountain biking, mostly for scenery shots or fast downhills.
It's tough to see that as exciting once you've seen this video, though:

<http://vimeo.com/38063361>

(Edit: that's the best proximity flying (wingsuit) video I've seen. Best use
of GoPro cameras ever!)

------
__wl
The design by the OP is not bound by limitation in technologies. There is a
gap between what is doable with current technology and what is conceivable
with imagination.

This valve article has explained why a See-Through AR, like Glass, cannot
render opaque color overlay. [http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-
wont-see-hard-...](http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see-
hard-ar-anytime-soon/)

~~~
publicfig
Thanks for that article! I'd always wondered how AR technologies like "Glass"
were going to be able to represent darker colors than what is there, and I
guess I should have considered the fact that they won't!

------
greendestiny
I think this explicitly not what the vision of Google Glass is. This is sort
of the greatest hits of Augmented Reality that have never really worked.

------
fchollet
Integrating virtual objects into the environment of the wearer is far beyond
what Google Glass will be able to do when it gets released.

This kind of AR is not yet a well solved problem for complex images with a
static background, and it gets exponentially more difficult with an
unpredictably dynamic background.

Not to mention that the display technology that gGlass uses only allows for
displaying semi-transparent objects, as I understand it.

------
realize
This is clearly more advanced than what Google is aiming for immediately, but
is the direction that makes this technology exciting, and is what it should
mature into once feasible.

What is really missing at the moment is a method of controlling the display.
Waving your hands in front of the camera is not an attractive option to me,
but there are other possibilities once the tech gets there that seem much more
seamless:

* Controls on the glasses themselves - not much better than waving hands.

* Some other sort of control device you can hold, like an apple remote with more buttons - could be very flexible, but again ties up your hands.

* A wearable device like a watch or wrist-band - could be quite unintrusive and should be possible fairly quickly.

* Embedded sensors on the body or the fingertips - obviously a way out but these could give great control simply by tapping on the leg or arm. Even typing is conceivable.

* Subvocalisation, sensors near the throat or head that can pick up subvocalised or whispered commands - speaking is pretty slow for control commands, but could be great for dictating messages.

* Brain control, sensors that can pick up thought patterns - this seems futuristic, but some advanced tech can already move a cursor and even dictate some words using this. Shouldn't be hard to choose from a HUD menu if designed well.

Ok, maybe I got carried away, but I'm pretty excited by what this sort of tech
will be like in 10 years, especially if we can use contacts instead of
glasses.

~~~
tresta
Personally I think that the control will be a mix of things, but the obvious
primary control system is using your eyes - there already exists technology
for having a computer mouse tracking your eyes, with gestures (e.g. extra long
stare) to click. It's mainly used for making it possible for paraplegics to
control computers at the moment.

The technique uses either a camera or a low-intensity laser directed at the
eyes to determine the direction of the users gaze, and then trigonometry to
determine where at the screen the user is looking.

[https://www.pcworld.com/article/47604/use_your_head_eye_cont...](https://www.pcworld.com/article/47604/use_your_head_eye_control_device_replaces_mouse.html)

~~~
realize
Yes, that _is_ one of the more obvious methods of control, whoops.

------
knotty66
I think it will be great for deaf / hearing impaired people. Just an arrow
pointing in the direction of the sound / speech + some text indicating a best
guess at what was said. Google's voice recognition is getting much better
recently.

------
Heinleinian
Exactly. It really is a shame that the true implications of augmented reality
got lost in all the Google glass mockery. Forget the text message pop-ups and
map overlays, that's all basically meaningless. Just a slightly easier to look
at version of what's already on your phone.

But this kind of continuous melding of real life with video game graphics? A
game-changer. Extrapolate it to everyone being able to see whatever they want
to see, all the time, and things start to get pretty crazy pretty fast. Highly
recommend Vernor Vinge's book Rainbows End for a full look at where this could
take us a few years from now.

------
dsirijus
There is high tendency to present Project Glass as primarily augmented reality
project. And that's ok, since AR (just the acronym alone) is getting a lot of
PR.

But high potential for the first instances of it don't lie there though but in
conveniently presented contextual information right in front of you.

I still don't like either speech or gesture control.

------
xyzzyb
The art class demo would be even better if the glasses took a photo of the
still life, applied a few artistic filters, and projected the line art to be
traced onto the blank page.

------
icebraining
As I said before, they should've integrated with something like Word Lens.
Admittedly, I'm not sure how well the app works in practice (I don't have a
supported phone), but from the videos it seems a great and very useful
implementation of real AR.

------
poundy
The hand gesture in front of the camera looks like the TED presentation by
Pranav Mistry on SixthSense technology
<http://www.pranavmistry.com/projects/sixthsense/> (pics)

~~~
Alterlife
Sadly, sixth sense vanished into the vaporware domain after the initial
fanfare. The project doesn't seem to be moving at all at this point.

<http://code.google.com/p/sixthsense/>

------
kleiba
THIS Is How The First Google Glass Commercial Should Have _Gone_...

------
flannell
Just noticed the AD BLOCK on the McDonalds advert on the road!

------
baby
The face recognition might really work in a near future and I can imagine
people in a far future wondering how we did it in our era to remember names.

------
Toshio
s/Should Have Went/Should Have Gone/

~~~
melling
This is one of those big mistakes that many people make. I said it for years
too. Once someone points it out and you take the time to correct yourself,
you'll notice it everywhere. Another one is "anyways."

~~~
tomelders
nothing wrong with "anyways".

It's just the English Language evolving as it always has done. Adding the 's'
doesn't change the intent of what you're trying to say. Went and Gone are two
different words with different meanings.

Dictionary's are records of how the language is being used at the time. They
are not instruction manuals.

~~~
merraksh
s/Dictionary's/Dictionaries/

~~~
tomelders
I'm going to blame auto correct

------
Devilboy
Maybe in 5 or 10 years yes.

