x86’d: How PC architecture could push Nintendo out of the next gen

 x86'd: how PC architecture might be pushing Nintendo out of the next gen

It didn’t take long for console warriors, fanboys and a brutal media to take aim at Nintendo’s Wii U. The fledgling system was relentlessly teased for its name (seemingly even sillier than that of its predecessor) and a list of specifications certain to be outdone by its competitors. The device’s novel tablet controller stayed judgment for a short time, but it didn’t last long — a weak launch lineup, a slow operating system and software delays soured an already judgmental community.

Wii U detractors eventually climbed atop their soapboxes to issue their final verdicts: Nintendo is doomed. A premature prophecy, perhaps, but one that became increasingly difficult to argue with: diminishing sales and third-party desertion set a negative tone for the Wii U’s future. Dedicated fans (this editor among them) quickly fell into a defensive position, dismissing EA’s abandonment of the platform with promises of Nintendo’s own first-party wonders. Optimism reigns supreme. Still, with both Microsoft and Sony’s cards on the table, it’s clear that Nintendo is about to take another hit.

Filed under: ,

Comments

Editorial: Google confuses magic with middling as it steps into music streaming

DNP Editorial Google confuses magic with middling as it steps into music streaming

First of all: that name. Google Play Music All Access. Perhaps Google’s presenters realized, as they were driving to the I/O keynote, that they had forgotten to name the new music-streaming service, and came up with that clunker backstage.

Unique? Magical? It’s easy to dismiss those claims within minutes of signing up.

Jump to the keynote, where Chris Yerga described All Access as “a uniquely Google approach to a subscription service,” and remarked, “Here’s where the magic starts.” Unique? Magical? It’s easy to dismiss those claims within minutes of signing up. Prosaic and useful, yes; unique and magical, no. All Access is nowhere near an innovation. The major ecosystem companies, each of which started with groundbreaking technical development, now seem to fashion their business destinies on buttressing their networks with products innovated elsewhere, plugging holes to sway existing users from drifting out of the system. It’s not a new story, but always a sad one.

Filed under: , , ,

Comments

Does Tim Cook Need to Do A Better Job of Publicly Asserting Himself?

Apple CEO Tim Cook is an interesting person. He marched his way to the top of Apple’s corporate ladder through hard work and an uncommon intelligence that Steve Jobs, one of the most highly respected chief executives in history, respected. Tim Cook was able to earn the job that countless people around the globe would love to have. And he did it with grace and respect for his predecessor.

apple_ceo_tim_cook

But since his tenure as Apple’s chief executive, Cook has done little to be like his predecessor. Cook doesn’t like to gloat about the current state of affairs at Apple, and design is not necessarily something that he thinks constantly about. When he holds keynote addresses or events for the press, Cook is content to offer up only some information, and then leave the big product announcements to his executives.

Even in his calls with investors or interviews with the media, Cook plays a downplayed rule, deciding to allow his company’s strong performance to do the talking. It’s a significant departure from his predecessor’s tack, and something that has taken some getting used to for the millions of Apple fans around the globe.

But given Apple’s recent troubles and the fact that Samsung and Google are increasingly causing trouble for Cook, might it be a good time for some change? Apple might still be the most important technology company in the world, but it’s in no way the dominating presence that it once was. And much of that seems to be due to Cook’s leadership.

“That’s not to say Cook is not a good leader”

Now, that’s not to say that Tim Cook is not a good leader. As we’ve seen in recent quarters, Apple’s sales and profit figures are hitting new heights, and his shareholders appear to be happy with his performance. But since Cook took over, Apple has lost something. The things that made the company so compelling in the first place are now a shadow of their former selves. And it might have everything to do with who is sitting in the CEO’s chair.

The problem is, Tim Cook doesn’t have the charisma or the attitude that Steve Jobs had. Part of Apple’s success was due to Jobs willingly telling anyone that would listen that his company was best. And when given the chance to show off the latest and greatest product, it was Jobs who captivated audiences, not his executives.

Tim Cook’s more subdued role might prove to be a mistake in the grand scheme of things. Apple seems to be a company that needs to have a chip on its shoulder. And Cook is lacking that certain chip.

The truth is, Apple is slipping. The company that was once the only dominant force in several markets is looking like one of a few competitors. Apple doesn’t appear to have the same air about it that it once did. And that might be due to Tim Cook’s desire to be, well, less Steve Jobs-like. But if you ask me, he needs to be more like Steve Jobs.


Does Tim Cook Need to Do A Better Job of Publicly Asserting Himself? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Google+ and Glass just got the upgrade for lifelogging everything

If you’re still laughing at Google+, and at Google Glass, then it might be time to stop; Google has just shown that they’re its next route to digitally understanding everything about you, and it slipped that through in the guise of a simple photo gallery tool. Highlights is one of the few dozen new features Google+ gained as of I/O this past week, sifting through your auto-uploads and flagging up the best of them. Ostensibly it’s a bit of a gimmick, but make no mistake: Highlights is at the core of how Google will address the Brave New World of Wearables and the torrent of data that world will involve. And by the end of it, Google is going to know you and your experiences even better than you know them yourself.

Google Glass headset

Lifelogging isn’t new – Microsoft Research’s Gordon Bell, for instance, has been sporting a wearable camera and tracking his life digitally since the early-2000s – but its component parts are finally coalescing into something the mainstream could handle. Cheap camera technology – sufficiently power-frugal to run all day, but still with sufficiently high resolution and bracketed with sensor data like location – has met plentiful cloud storage to handle the masses of photos and video.

More importantly, the public interest in recording and sharing memorable moments has flourished over the past few years, with Facebook over-sharing going from an embarrassment to commonplace, and Twitter and Tumblr evolving into stream-of-consciousness. For better or for worse, an event or occasion isn’t quite real enough for us unless we’re telling somebody else about it, preferably with the photos to prove it.

Into that arrives Glass. It’s not the only wearable project, and in fact it’s not even trying to immediately document your every movement, conversation, and activity. Out of the box, Glass doesn’t actually work as a lifelogger, at least not automatically. However, it hasn’t taken long before Explorer Edition users have tweaked the wearable to grant it those perpetual-memory skills, though we need to wait for Google’s part of the puzzle before we see the true shift take place.

Kickstarter project Memoto, which raised over half a million dollars for its wearable lifelogging camera that fires off two frames a minute all day, every day, isn’t really a hardware challenge – though the startup might disagree with that somewhat, given the slight delays caused by squeezing power-efficient camera tech into a tiny little geek-pendant – but a software one. The issue isn’t one of taking photos, or of storing them: it’s of then organizing them in a way that’s anywhere near manageable for the wearer.

memoto_camera

Think about your last set of holiday photos. You probably took many more than you did in the days of traditional film cameras. Maybe you synchronized them with iPhoto, or uploaded them to a Dropbox or Picasa gallery. Perhaps they went on Facebook, either sorted through or – more likely, maybe – simply dumped en-masse. How many times have you looked through them, or shown them to somebody else?

Now, imagine having a whole day’s worth of photos to deal with. We’ll be conservative and assume you’re sleeping for eight hours – lucky you – and maybe have a couple of hours “privacy” time during which you’re showering, getting changed, or otherwise not camera-ready. Fourteen hours when you could be wearing your Memoto, then, or some other camera: 840 minutes, or 1,680 individual photos. In the course of a week, you’ve snapped 11,760 shots.

“By the end of the year you’ve got over four million photos”

By the end of the year, you’ve got over four million of them. Sure, plenty of them will be of the same thing, or blurry because you were running across the road at the time, or too dark to make out details. Many, many of them will just be plain dull. But they’ll all be there, sitting in the cloud waiting to be looked at.

Nobody is going to sift through four million photos. And so the really clever thing the Memoto team is working on is the relevance processing all of those images are fed through. The exact details of the algorithm haven’t been confirmed – in fact it’s still something of a work-in-progress, and likely will be even when the first units start shipping out to Kickstarter backers – but it takes into account the location each image was taken at (there’s geotagging for each shot), the direction you’re facing, what interesting things are in the frame, and more.

That way, you get the best of both worlds, or at least in theory. “All photos are stored and organized for you,” Memoto promises. “None are deleted, but the best ones are more visible.”

As Memoto sees it, that all amounts to about thirty frames per day. Thirty potentially review-worthy shots out of more than sixteen-hundred. Now, there’s no way of knowing quite how well the system will actually operate, and we’re bound to miss out some gems and have out attention drawn to some duffers, but make no mistake: we need this layer of abstraction if lifelogging is to be more than just a boon for those selling hard-drives.

For a while, Google didn’t seem to have given managing the extra photos from wearables like Glass much consideration. In fact, the first evidence of photo sharing – automatically uploading to Google+, and being posted out with the generic #throughglass tag – was one of the more half-baked of the company’s implementations. That all changed, though, at I/O this week.

Google+ is the glue for Google’s ecosystem – what I call the “context ecosystem” – not least Glass; you may not want to use it as a social network, replacing or augmenting Facebook and Twitter, but if you want Google services or hardware you’re going to end up a Google+ user on some level. The new Highlights feature in Google+ is the key to unlocking Glass’ usefulness as a lifelogger.

“The Highlights tab helps you find photos you’ll want to share by automatically curating the images you upload to Google+ photos” Google explained. “Highlights works by de-emphasizing duplicates, blurry images, and poor exposures while focusing on pictures with the people you care about, landmarks, and other positive attributes.”

For the moment, for most users, Highlights is a way of quickly cutting out duplicated shots. Take three or four pictures of your kids in the park, just to make sure they were all looking at the camera at the right time? Google+ Highlights will make sure you only see one, not all of the nearly-identical frames. No need to delete the others, just – as Gmail taught us with achive-not-delete email, a privilege of copious space and effective search – hide them from regular sight.

google-plus_highlights

As the flow of photos into Google+ turns into a torrent, fueled not least by wearables, those vague “other positive attributes” Google mentions will become most important, however. Highlights is going to become not only a curator of your galleries, but of how you reminisce; how you look back on what you did, where you did it, and who you did it with.

Google can already identify buildings, and locations, and people. It knows who your friends are. Factor in Events, and the communal photo sharing feature, and that will help Google+ fill in even more of the gaps. If it knows you were with your best friend, and your best friend was in Paris at the time, and what a number of famous Parisian landmarks look like, it’ll be able to do a pretty good job at piecing together a curated “holiday memories” album that’s probably more detailed than your own recollection of the trip.

“The comfort levels reported at I/O show this is not just old- versus new-school”

If you’re clenching various parts of your anatomy over fears about privacy, you’re probably right to. Even with only about 2,000 Glass Explorer Edition headsets made, the degree of controversy over what the rights and responsibilities around having photos taken in public and in private are is already exponentially greater. Those at Google I/O this past week are undoubtedly a tech-savvy, open-minded bunch, but the range of comfort levels reported about being in the Glass gaze is a telling sign that there’s more to this than just old-school versus new-school.

Google Glass in box

The discussion is going to be broader than Google, of course – a Memoto camera is arguably more discrete, clipped to your coat or shirt, and it’s almost certainly not going to be the last wearable camera – but how the companies involved process the data created is likely to be the biggest factor, and Google has a track-record of giving privacy advocates sleepless nights.

If Glass – and wearables along with lifelogging in general – is to succeed, however, this is a discussion that will have to be settled. We’re not talking about “how okay” it is for your email account to talk to your calendar account. If the EU decides there should be a clear division between those in the name of user privacy, then you might have to manually create appointments based on email conversations; if the huge and inevitable rush of photos and video that wearables will facilitate aren’t addressed, then Glass and its ilk will stumble and fail. Our new digital brain needs permission to work its magic, but we’re still in the early days of seeing just how magical that might be.


Google+ and Glass just got the upgrade for lifelogging everything is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Editorial: Let Google be a little evil

Editorial Let Google be a little evil

Google’s lawyers visited the Second Circuit Court of Appeals last week for a polite conversation with three judges and attorneys from the Authors Guild. You remember — the book-scanning thing? Yes, the case is 7 years old and still unresolved. The Circuit Court is just a way station in a longer journey — at issue is whether the Authors Guild’s class action suit should be broken apart, forcing authors and publishers to confront Google individually.

Google is going to win this thing eventually. If that makes Google evil, it is a necessary evil.

The bigger question is about the lawfulness of Google’s digital library quest, and the legitimacy of the Guild’s copyright charges and request for damages. There are points of similarity to the music industry’s litigation saga. And major differences. Google is going to win this thing eventually. If that makes Google evil, it is a necessary evil.

Filed under: ,

Comments

The Gadget Inside Me

I am not entirely human. All of the parts of a human being are inside me, but I have a few extra bits as well, not so much floating around as firmly secured in place. In some spots, these nonhuman bits hold me together. In other spots… well, that’s a different story.

I have a couple gadgets inside of me. One was forced on me; the other I chose. I made the choice in much the same way you’d choose a computer. I tried to future-proof myself. I chose an option that I could upgrade later. In the end, I made a decision that was not entirely rational, but rather based on passion and branding and aesthetics over performance. Like I said, just like a computer.

star_wars_lukes_hand

I’ll start with my leg, because it’s easier for me to talk about. I broke my ankle a few years ago. I was walking the dog on a very, very cold night in Newton, Mass, and the sidewalk all around the block was a track of ice fit for a speed skater. I took a bad step and slipped off the curb, and my tibia rotated wrong and crashed into my fibula, snapping it in multiple spots. I fell to the ground immediately, and that’s when I learned a couple things about myself.

First, I learned that I do indeed have a high tolerance for pain, something I’d always suspected but never bothered to prove. When the paramedics arrived to put me on a stretcher, they asked me to rate my pain on a scale of one to ten. I gave it a six. The worst pain I’ve ever felt, by the way, is a cracked tooth, which is about an 8, and it’s a great story, but for another time.

The second thing I learned about myself is that my body is capable of destroying itself with hardly any intervention from my mind. When they lifted me into the ambulance, with my foot askance and twisted, I asked if there was any possibility I could have dislocated it, instead of a break.

The paramedic told me: “well, anything you can locate you can dislocate.” But it was obviously broken.

“I bought a carbon fiber walking stick. It made the suffering more palatable”

I had titanium installed. The x-ray is awesome. I have an erector set in my leg, with screws holding me together. There’s no chance it can break again, I’m part fighter jet down there. I couldn’t walk for four months, and I was in pain and using a cane for another 2 months. I had an awesome rolling aid instead of crutches called a Roll-A-Bout. I highly recommend it if you break your ankle. I was faster on that rollabout than I ever was on both feet. When I needed a cane, I bought a high-tech, carbon fiber walking stick with spring loaded shocks and other features only useful for orienteering and nature photography. It made the suffering more palatable.

Now my only limitation is that I can’t stand on my tiptoe on that leg. When I tell people this they look at me like I’m telling them the old joke about the guy who breaks his hands and says to the doctor: “Doc, will I be able to play the piano when I’m healed?” The doctor says “Sure,” to which the patient replies “That’s great, because I could never play before.”

See, I’m a big guy. When people are meeting me for the first time, I’ll sometimes tell them to look for the biggest guy in the room, and that’s probably me. For the six months I was recovering from my broken ankle, nobody explicitly said it, but I know that my size must have been the reason such a shallow fall caused such a horrible injury. I’m not a 6’2″ basketball player jumping eight feet in the air to block a shot. I’m a six foot schlub who slipped off a sidewalk walking a 40 pound dog.

This brings me to the other gadget inside me. I have a device implanted in me called a lap-band. It’s like an inflatable donut . . . mmm, donuts . . . wrapped around my stomach. It makes my stomach smaller, and divides it into a small portion up top and the rest down below. This is supposed to be a weight loss surgery. You fill the donut with saline and it expands, contracting your stomach. Then, you eat less.

If you don’t eat less, you throw up. That’s actually a feature of the lap-band. It’s supposed to make you throw up. Also, because of where it’s located, higher up than your normal stomach, a full stomach actually feels more like choking on something at the bottom of your throat.

Is it any wonder this device doesn’t work? It sounds like high-tech torture. In fact, the lap-band has a shockingly low success rate. 70% of people who get a lap-band fail to lose weight. Your body adjusts to it. Your body naturally learns how to make you more comfortable, and you resume your old, horrible habits again. When I got the band installed, I lost a bunch of weight, then it came back.

I had other options for surgery, but they all involved heavy cutting and removing massive parts of me that would never grow back. The lap-band is reversible. In fact, I’m having it removed soon. I’ve already had it replaced once with a newer, better model. Now I’m having it taken out altogether. Time to try something different.

When you make the decision to have this band removed, the doctors will exclaim that the lap-band has failed. The euphemism of this choice is not lost on me. Let’s be honest, the band didn’t fail. My body didn’t fail. They did exactly what they were supposed to. They succeeded. I failed the band. The psychology of my thinking and habits overcame my physiology. I am weak. I take the blame. I have failed myself.

Perhaps this is why I’m sensitive to the power that psychology has over our choices, especially when it comes to technology. Technology buying should be a completely rational decision. I need this, therefore I buy it. I do not need to do that, so I will not buy something that does that.

“We look down on the passionate, the irrational”

We look down on people who make decisions they cannot rationally explain. We justify our purchases after the fact with rational arguments. I bought this phone because I have large hands. I needed a 60-inch television because I could not read the text on screen. I bought this watch because it is high quality and it will last longer.

We look down on the passionate, the irrational. We look down on people like me whose psychology has failed them. You bought a device you cannot understand, and you are a failure for not learning how to use it. You bought something because your friends all had one, and it made you feel good when you bought it, but you are missing out on all the capabilities of this other thing, the thing I carry with me every day.

I failed my band. The problems I have, which I pretend to understand, and for which I am regularly judged by people who also believe they understand, defeated me. I let them win. I am weak. I am passionate and I give in to irrational urges and desire. I have failed.

One day we’re going to see the utter stupidity in this form of judgment. One day we will understand the true power our subconscious minds hold over us. We will stop blaming people, and hating people, for making decisions based on emotion and passion. We won’t blame them when they fail the gadget, when we realize they may never have had the power to succeed.


The Gadget Inside Me is written by Philip Berne & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Dear Apple: Where Is My Mac Pro?

As I sat here today thinking about what I should write for my latest column here on SlashGear, I was distracted. I didn’t look at the latest news, like I usually do, and I wasn’t particularly interested in anything in particular. My mind was entirely dominated by one thought: the computer I was about to write the column on.

As I write this, I’m working on a Mac Pro that I bought several years ago. At the time, the computer was state-of-the-art and capable of handling all kinds of tasks. For me, it was a perfect solution: it offered me the flexibility to run three monitors, had the power to handle some video editing, and was running OS X – an operating system, I believe, is superior to Windows.

mac_pro

But now years later, I’m lamenting my purchase of the Mac Pro. Although it’s still chugging along, it’s not working as well as it once did. And despite my best attempts to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of this supposedly high-end computer, it’s falling short on several fronts.

While all this has been going on, Apple has been launching new Macs at a torrid pace. Since my Mac Pro purchase, the company has launched two new Mac designs – the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro with Retina Display – and continued to update the iMac with outstanding design ideas. But it’s the Mac Pro that, save for a slight upgrade, has been ignored by Apple.

Now, I know that I’m not alone in wondering what is happening in Cupertino. Over the last few years, we’ve all been watching with baited breath as Apple hits the stage to unveil new Macs, hoping that a Mac Pro will be one of them. But each time, we’ve been disappointed. Apple’s customers have even e-mailed CEO Tim Cook to ask what in the world is going on. His response? Be patient.

“We’re watching friends running Windows do far more than we can”

Still, it’s hard for us to be patient. We’re watching our friends running Windows doing far more than we can with the Mac Pro. And it’s making us think twice about making the leap to a custom-built Windows desktop that, while not ideal, could actually deliver the enhanced power we need.

I’ve been holding off taking that plunge because I believe Apple has something up its sleeve for the Mac Pro. The trouble is, I just don’t know how much longer I can hang on. Yes, my Mac Pro is still doing its job, but it’s getting harder and harder to complete tasks. And I’m becoming more frustrated by the computer by the day.

So, I need to ask, Apple: where in the world is my new Mac Pro? If you’re not going to launch a new one, just put us out of our misery and tell us. If you are, make it quick; we’re losing faith that you’re actually going to launch a replacement. And the sooner we lose faith, the sooner you lose us to a Windows PC.

I never thought I’d say it, but it’s possible that I might just have to ditch my Mac Pro for a custom-built PC. Don’t make me do it, Apple. Don’t. Make. Me. Do. It.


Dear Apple: Where Is My Mac Pro? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

What Should I Stick In My Finger?

It’s probably too late now, but for the last week there may have been an unusual window of opportunity in which I could have embedded something cool into the tip of my finger. I lost it recently. The tip, that is. Of my finger. It happened in a freak office chair incident at a posh hotel in New York City. That’s pretty much all you need to know, except that I lost about a centimeter of finger. I mean, I found it. The fingertip, that is; but it could not be reattached. It was not stitched. It was left agape and healing of its own devices. If I’m going to stick something in there to extend the capabilities of my digit in perpetuity, now is the time. Rarely is one greeted with such an open opportunity, literally, so of course I wonder what sort of technical marvel I could implant.

et_glowing_finger

It really wouldn’t have to be much. A programmable RFID-type key that I could then use for a variety of purposes. I could tap my finger on the electronic gates to get into work. I could get into my car and start the engine simply by touching the door handle, then the steering wheel. It could be fun to pay with a finger. Just magically tap upon the NFC reader at the register and I’m good to go. Wave my bare hand at the gas pump. The possibilities are endless.

Also, a little dull. I love NFC in my phones and I guarantee I use it more than almost anyone else you know (spoiler alert: my day job is with Samsung). I’m talking about implanting something in my finger. It needs to be a step beyond the latest and greatest.

An LED would be fun. Something multicolor that I could control. I wouldn’t need mind control to change the hue or brightness. Bluetooth would be fine. I program my finger on my phone and when I tap against something it lights up. The E.T. effect alone would be worth the price of admission. I wonder if my son would laugh when I touch his bumped head with my finger and as it glows softly I whisper “Oooooouuuuchhh.” Probably he’d run screaming from the room, because Daddy’s fingers aren’t supposed to light up, and he hasn’t seen E.T. yet. So, maybe light-up finger is not the way to go. I need something more personal, less showy.

Therefore, laser pointer finger is also out. This is unfortunate, because the minute I thought of it I knew it had vastly more potential than LED finger. If it’s going to be my finger, I’d spring for the 1W blue-laser type, the one that can pop a balloon from less than 1 foot. I’d need a way to dial it back on command. Bluetooth again, perhaps, or a touch sensitive control. After all, you don’t want to fire off an astonishingly potent laser from your fingertip at the wrong time. You could be wiping an eyelash out of somebody’s face, or picking your nose, or dancing in some sprinkler-like fashion and end up causing serious harm. Sorry, closest-I’ll-come-to-having-a-real-lightsaber finger, it just isn’t meant to be.

“How about finger-cam?”

I need to think more creatively. How about a camera? There is great potential in a camera that is a continual part of my body. I’ve occasionally imagined replacing one of my eyes with a camera – haven’t we all? I’ve never considered replacing one of my fingers. It would be easier to control the shot with a finger cam. The eyes are somewhat involuntary. If something crazy catches your eye, it will rush to the scene immediately. A finger, on the other hand, can take some direction. There is control and flexibility. I could control the perspective, the angle, the aperture.

Unfortunately, there are also many places a finger goes that should not be filmed. I’m going to let that last statement float in the air until you get my meaning. Actually, I didn’t have any specific meaning in mind. There are a ton of disgusting places you would stick your finger that should not be filmed, but you just thought of the worst of them. You are a sick weirdo. I was thinking of when I’m cleaning out a whole raw chicken. You, on the other hand, are a disgusting person. That is exactly why fingertip cameras will never work.

If not a camera, a speaker, perhaps? A small wireless speaker? There’s a lot of useful potential in a speaker. I could play music, then stick my finger in my ear to hear it. I could make a phone call, then stick my finger in my ear. If I wanted to whisper something to you without being obvious, I could record a quiet message, then stick my finger in your ear. Basically, what I’m saying is that my finger is going in an ear, like it or not.

What you’d really want with a fingertip speaker, though, is volume. Like enough power to get your groove on. I would love to point my finger at a crowd of people standing around at a bus stop and have my tiny speaker blast the opening from C+C Music Factory’s song “Everybody Dance Now!” If you’re too young to remember that one, it was like the 80′s version of “Harlem Shake.”

I also thought it would be cool to use my finger as a megaphone. I could talk into my phone and my voice would come booming from my hand. Unfortunately, when I think of practical applications, I only imagine myself shouting “Muad’dib!” over and over again.

In the end, if I could implant something, I would implant a whistle. That’s it. Nothing electric, just a simple whistle. Perhaps a slide whistle. Because the best part of having something implanted in my fingertip would be showing it off to kids. It would be friendly and unintimidating. Fun at parties. Great for impromptu sound effects. I imagine my son telling his friends about the cool trick Daddy can do, and then I use my finger to make a brilliant whistle, and watch while a bunch of 4-year olds stick their fingers in their mouths and blow heartily, trying to make a sound.


What Should I Stick In My Finger? is written by Philip Berne & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Is Google Glass Really Worth It?

Google Glass is all the talk in the wearable technology industry. The headset, which will be work as glasses and allows users to do everything from get directions to snap photos and capture video, is arguably the most exciting device to be entering the technology space.

Wearables are new to quite a few folks. Although they’ve seen (and perhaps used) pedometers or those wristbands that track their movements, the average customer has never really thought about wearing glasses that would allow for communication and all of the other features Glass boasts. And thanks to some smart marketing on Google’s part, quite a few people are now saying that they’d jump at the chance to buy Google Glass when it hits store shelves.

glass_dangling

But I’d ask all of those people to truly consider what they’re saying. Yes, Google Glass appears to be a nice-looking device for those who don’t mind wearing an oddly shaped lens on one eye, but for the rest of us walking around town, doing so doesn’t exactly tell the world that we’re the most fashionable people.

Aside from that, I just don’t see the value in all that Google is promoting with Glass. Sure, it’d be nice to look at directions through one lens, and having the ability to snap a photo or record video is great and all, but I can do that with my smartphone. And when I don’t want to do any of that, I can just slip my smartphone into my pocket and not worry all that much about it getting damaged.

Google Glass, on the other hand, looks like an expensive, broken piece of tech waiting to happen. As those of us who wear glasses know, it’s not that hard for them to get all kinds of screwed up in our pockets or when they fall off the coffee table. When it’s a $100 pair of glasses, that’s not such a bad thing. But if we’re talking about Google Glass, which could be exceedingly expensive, it’s a much, much different story. And I just don’t see how Google is going to sidestep that issue.

“Wearable tech is niche, and not even Google can change that”

Beyond that, I guess I’m not sold on the whole wearable technology craze. Yes, I know analysts are saying that the marketplace will grow in leaps and bounds in the coming years and billions of dollars will be spent, but I’m not convinced. Save for a few products, wearable technology is still very much a niche product category. And I don’t think that even Google can change that.

To me, Google Glass is more a novelty device than something that can truly be groundbreaking in the technology world. It’s a neat idea and it’s something that I can see people getting excited about, but does it really deliver value in practice? Theoretically, it’s cool, but I just don’t see it actually appealing to people who want the latest and greatest execution of wearable technology. On that front, I think Google Glass will fall short.

So, I’m not really sure Google Glass is worth it. I suppose I’ll be able to make a final decision when I know exactly how much Google Glass costs. But until then, I’m not expecting too much value.


Is Google Glass Really Worth It? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

The Daily Roundup for 05.01.2013

DNP The Daily RoundUp

You might say the day is never really done in consumer technology news. Your workday, however, hopefully draws to a close at some point. This is the Daily Roundup on Engadget, a quick peek back at the top headlines for the past 24 hours — all handpicked by the editors here at the site. Click on through the break, and enjoy.

Comments