Hasta La Gadget!

The candid snapshot of Google exec Sergey Brin, riding the subway on a $2.25 fare while sporting a Glass prototype worth thousands of dollars, has reignited questions around ubiquitous computing. That sighting of Brin is a timely one. Not only is Google’s Glass Foundry developer schedule kicking off at the end of January, but several other wearables projects have reached milestones this month; Vuzix brought out prototypes of its Glass rival a few weeks back, while Kickstarter success Memoto applied some extra-sensor balm to the sting of an unexpected hardware delay today.

As each project tracks toward release, however, the ecosystem of more straightforward body-worn gadgetry such as activity monitors like Jawbone’s UP picks up for what’s predicted to be a bumper year of sales. Still, among sensor ubiquity and the specter of power paucity, the fledgling wearables industry hasn’t apparently decided whether it’ll face this brave new augmented world hand-in-hand, or jealously guarding its data.

[Original Sergey Brin image via Noah Zerkin]

Project Glass and Memoto both take photos, but otherwise they come at the wearables space in a very different way. The Google headset shoots stills and video on-demand, but isn’t – as far as we know – intended for permanent streaming. Memoto’s camera, however, is intended as a life-logging tool, periodically snapping shots and tagging them with location and direction; earlier today, the team behind the project confirmed there’d now be a digital compass in there too. Other wearables take their own routes to your wrist, jacket lapel, or elsewhere on the body, such as UP or other digital activity monitors.

Though the ethos may be different, much of the hardware is the same. Headset, wearable camera, and wrist-born pedometer-on-steroids all have motion sensors; both Glass and Memoto have digital compasses, and GPS. There’s a huge degree of overlap, even more when you factor in that most users of wearables will also be carrying a smartphone, with its own battery of sensors and radios.

So, with Memoto’s new-found digital compass, how does its hardware differ from that of an UP, or Fitbit’s Flex? All three have the ability to monitor patterns of movement and figure out if you’re running, or walking, or sleeping; all that’s missing is the software to do the crunching of that data on the camera. Why should tomorrow’s wearables enthusiast carry two, or three, or more accelerometers and magnetometers, when the data from one is sufficient?

Of course, sharing sensors is only one element of what convergence demands: there’s a bigger compromise to be made, when fewer gadgets perform more tasks. Battery life continues to be the bane of the consumer electronics world, and that headache is only going to be magnified when it comes to body-worn technology. A hefty smartphone with a big screen and a 3,000mAh+ battery might be acceptable in your jacket pocket, but a power pack of that size simply isn’t going to fly when you’re wearing it on the side of your head.

“The Personal Area Network is inescapable”

In many ways, then, the PAN – or Personal Area Network – is inescapable. The early iterations of wearables are naively insular in their approach: they try to do everything themselves, with little reliance and few expectations of the other gadgetry on your person. Take, for example, Vuzix’s Smart Glasses M100, a prototype of which we played with at CES earlier this month. Inside the chunky headset there’s a full Android computer, with all the connectivity you’d expect from a reasonably recent smartphone, bar the cellular data.

That makes for a wearable with impressive standalone abilities, but also one that’s greedy for power. Vuzix’s headline estimate is up to eight hours of “typical use”; however, what’s “typical” in the manufacturer’s opinion is sporadic activation summing just two hours in total, or even half that if you want to use both display and camera. All that despite the fact that your smartphone – which you’ll probably need anyway, since Vuzix supplies a remote control app to more easily navigate the M100′s apps – has a processor, battery, radios, sensors, and other hardware already.

Bluetooth 4.0, the most power-frugal iteration of the technology, may go some way to popularizing PANs. Still, that’s just the virtual cable: the glaring omission is any sort of wearables standardization, which would allow your eyepiece from manufacturer X to output the information from smartphone Y, having called upon sensors Za, Zb, and Zc dotted around your body (not to mention in spread around the ecosystem around you).

Predictions have it that the wearables market will explode over the next 4-5 years, albeit beginning with more humble tech like activity tracking bracelets, but building to Glass-style headsets once the technology gets in line with affordable pricing. That may well be the case, but it will take more than slick hardware and project execs that drink the Kool-Aid to motivate the industry. We’ve put up with silo’d ecosystems in smartphones, and stomached it in tablets, but if wearables are to succeed the consumer electronics industry will need to set aside its appetite for insularity and embrace openness in augmentation.

Will Wearables Fuel – or Fracture – Convergence? is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

This week we’re hearing a lot of talk about how the upcoming Graph Search inside Facebook will be un-privatizing us once again – let’s talk about why that’s not true. In a report in Ars Technica they note how once Graph Search is turned on for the masses, information you’d previously had hidden from search results will become public. There’s also a post on Quartz citing a segment in the Facebook Privacy Policy which interprets a “hiding from timeline” note as Facebook admitting it wont hide anything no matter how hard you try – that’s simply not true.

The note that this talk all comes from is in an update to the Facebook Privacy Policy made public on December 11h, 2012. This update notes some specifications and clarifications on how the Facebook Timeline works since basically everyone in the Facebook universe is now up and running with that interface. Have a peek and see what you make of it:

“When you hide things on your timeline, like posts or connections, it means those things will not appear on your timeline. But, remember, anyone in the audience of those posts or who can see a connection may still see it elsewhere, like on someone else’s timeline or in search results. You can also delete or change the audience of content you post.” – Facebook Privacy Policy as sited by Quartz

Both Ars and Quartz refer back to a phone interview done between Nick Bilton and Facebook’s Sam Lessin in which Lessin said that “one-single digit percentage of users” had worked with Facebook’s original ability to “hide themselves on Facebook’s search.” Because 1% of Facebook’s users is somewhere in the tens of millions of people, the one single fantasy “hide me” button’s disappearance became the main subject.

In fact, you are still able to hide yourself from Facebook search, and not just by deleting your account entirely (which is always an option, of course). What you’re able to do right this minute – aside from the collection of Privacy assurances and how-to demos given by Facebook earlier this week – is to go to your Privacy Settings and Tools tab and check it out: “Who can see my stuff?” and “Who can look me up?” the both of them.

You can change “Who can see your future posts” to “Only Me”, go to your Activity Log and cut out everyone on everything you’ve ever done, and “Limit The Audience for Old Posts on Your Timeline” with a single button – that’s limited to your Friends, mind you. You can update “Who can look be up” from “Everyone” to Friends only, and you can un-check “Let other search engines link to your timeline.” If you do all of these things (however inconvenient it is to do several tasks here instead of just one), your visibility will indeed be limited to those you’ve connected to as Friends on Facebook. Make it work!

Lack of Facebook “hide from search results” no reason to panic is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Facebook may refuse to deliver what the rumor-mill wants – an own-brand smartphone to take on the iPhone – but that’s not to say it isn’t following a cuckoo-style mobile strategy, progressively infesting handsets from other vendors. The company’s new free voice calling service, quietly revealed in the aftermath of the Facebook Graph Search announcement, is the latest in a growing suite of mobile products that, while lacking the eye-catching appeal of a glossy slab of hardware, nonetheless shows that the social network finally has a mobile strategy.

Before the free voice calls, there was voice messaging in the Facebook mobile app, and before that Poke, which sends time-limited text, photo, and video messages that auto-destruct and warn users if the recipient attempts to save them. Dubbed Facebook’s “sexting app” it had an early stumble after being found to secretly cache concent, though the social site did quickly move to patch the bug.

Then there was Nearby, a Foursquare-style location service, and just ahead of that Photo Sync, to make it even easier to suck photos from your phone to your Facebook gallery. That’s not to mention Facebook’s $1bn grab of Instagram, despite the fact that it had just pushed out its own Camera app which replicated most of the features of its expensive acquisition.

Facebook is seldom first to offer each mobile feature. Poke was the most obviously “inspired” product, closely following in the footsteps of earlier app Snapchat, but Google has been offering free voice calls in the US for some years now, through its Gmail voice system. (That Google deal has again been extended, now covering 2013.) Facebook Camera’s similarity to Instagram and Facebook Messenger’s overlap with the huge number of IM apps – whether iMessage, GChat, WhatsApp, or even good old fashioned SMS – hardly portray the social site as the most innovative of companies.

“Facebook isn’t some naive, cash-strapped startup”

Then again, arguably it doesn’t need to be. Facebook isn’t some naive, cash-strapped startup desperate for attention and users; it’s a multi-billion dollar business with a vast user-base much of which, despite periodic outcry and calls for mass defection, shows high degrees of addiction.

Where its been struggling is in making the most of its mobile users. That’s not the same as acquiring mobile users – in fact, Facebook has plenty already, it just hasn’t been too hot at extracting some sort of financial return from them. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has fingered commerce as one potential option, but right now everything about Facebook’s mobile suite reeks of lock-in – making users keep using Facebook, and for an increasing proportion of their everyday mobile activities – rather than revolution.

Viewed in those terms, spreading itself across the common applications regularly demanded of a smartphone (calls, messaging, photo and video sharing) makes perfect sense for Facebook. A mobile commerce push would fit in with that nicely, though we can maybe excuse Facebook for not being there yet: few manufacturers, vendors, or carriers have got commerce quite right yet.

What Graph Search might do for Facebook’s mobile strategy, however, is give it an all-important injection of context. Your friends and family are arguably the best recommendation engine you know, and if they don’t know the answers themselves, they may very well have “Liked” the sites, reviews, and other sources that do. Context is another area no company has nailed so far, though Google Now is perhaps one of the better approaches we’ve seen.

There’s plenty that’s been said about the importance of controlling the hardware and the software you offer, if you want to succeed in today’s mobile market. That, we’re told, is what gives Samsung sleepless nights over Android, gives Apple its edge with the tight integration of iOS and iPhone, and what Nokia has sacrificed in throwing in with Microsoft and Windows Phone. Is it not more important, though, to own the users themselves? To have a platform considered so essential, so integral to their everyday lives, that users shape their device and service shopping lists on the basis of who supports it?

Facebook could still screw up: the mobile industry moves fast, and while that makes for interesting times both as a consumer and a company, there’s little space for second-chances if you get it wrong. For all spreading itself across dozens of apps, numerous services, and a handful of platforms might not satisfy in the gut like a Facebook phone might, though, like the cuckoo chick stealing warmth, food, and ultimately attention in a foreign nest, a strategy based on mobile inclusion is just what Facebook needs.

Is every phone the Facebook phone? is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Last month not long after the Sandy Hook tragedy in which a gunman went on an execution-style killing spree through several kindergarten classrooms with at least one assault rifle, the National Rifle Association held a press conference in which they suggested violent video games were the reason why such an event took place in the USA. That was back on the 21st of December, and this week (actually yesterday) they’ve released a violent video game by the name of NRA: Practice Range. This game is recommended for users ages 4 and up, supporting safe gun use by way of tips and hints on what to do out on the range if your gun jams.

This app is made for those who wish to fire large guns at targets in a virtual reality range, devoid of non-mechanized life. The NRA also has two other mobile games, one of them called NRA: Varmint Hunter, the other called NRA: Gun Club. This app is not meant to suggest you take your assault rifle and use it for anything other than target practice, while the Varmint Hunter app certainly is.

NOTE: This article is a column, which means in this case that the opinions included are not necessarily shared by the whole of SlashGear or its associated brands.

Of course when NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre spoke back on December 21st (as quoted from GeekoSystem) about violent video games was certainly not meant to apply to their own NRA-branded app releases:

“There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt, and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against its own people. Through vicious violent video games, with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat, and Splatterhouse.” – NRA CEO LaPierre

You can download the full collection of NRA gun-firing apps from your favorite app store today. You’ll be able to test out your favorite “true-to-life firearms” as they say in-app, and will be able to destroy countless targets with great ease. You’ll become a better marksman in no time and you’ll be able to compare your high scores to your friends with Game Center integration.

Let us know what you think about this release from the NRA. Are they going against their talk just last month about the evils of violent video games? Are they going the correct route with a video game that promotes the firing of heavy firearms in a safe manner? What do you make of this whole situation?

NRA releases assault rifle app after blasting violent video games for Sandy Hook is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

The Consumer Electronics Show is boring; it’s too big; and for the most part, few companies are able to get their products into the spotlight for long enough to actually impress many customers.

And yet, CES is a necessary evil. Like it or not, the show is what the industry needs to ensure that the average non-Apple company can actually get some attention in a world dominated by the iPhone maker.

In some ways, the technology industry has become a sad place. Apple’s success has tossed all other companies in its growing shadow, and those firms can only hope to come out when the iPhone maker isn’t looking. Each year around this year, such an event happens.

CES is the opportunity that small vendors and even large companies like LG, Dish, and so many others, need to finally communicate their products to customers. For once, those companies can sit in front of a packed audience and show off their plans for the years. Better yet, they can get in touch with journalists, hold one-to-one meetings, and (hopefully) excite them into thinking that their latest inventions are the next big things in technology.

All of the rest of the year, things are much different for those companies. They’ll send out a press release here and there and typically receive a story or two. If they’re lucky, the average consumer will pay attention long enough to find out when the product will launch and how much it costs. If they’re really lucky, those companies might even be able to get the consumer out of their home and into the store to try the product out. And if they’re really, really lucky, those folks might just buy the respective device.

That’s the world that Apple, Microsoft, and Google has created. The big three are garnering all of the attention in the technology industry, and just about anything they have to say is newsworthy. All other companies are hoping to fill in the ever-smaller gaps that line up around them.

“CES levels the playing field”

CES, though, levels the playing field. Apple is nowhere to be seen at the show, and Google and Microsoft hardly have a presence. CES, therefore, is open to smaller or less important companies that want to share off their wares while the giants are off working on products that will steal the world’s attention all the other days of the year.

That’s precisely why CES should not – and cannot – be shuttered. As big and annoying as it is, the show serves a very important purpose in the technology industry. And without CES, it’s hard to see how companies will be able to get their products out there and into our increasingly busy lives.

So, perhaps we should have a little patience with CES. Sure, it’s not what it used to be and there are increasingly boring aspects to it, but it’s an important event, nonetheless. And we can’t discount that.

Find all of our CES 2013 news at our CES Hub!

Why CES Is A Necessary Evil is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.