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.<p>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.<p>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).
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.<p>The nice thing is, that they are completely "invisible" for other people around me.
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.
Good for Intel.<p>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.
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.
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.<p>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.
I really like how much effort they put in to make things as natural and unintruive as possible.<p>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.)
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.
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.<p>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.
Did anyone get tech specs on the display?<p>How many characters can it display at once? One line or multiple lines? What's the resolution? Are images supported?<p>I don't think a monochrome device will sell, but the display is (to me) by far the most interesting development here.
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.<p>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.
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).
Oh yeah, that swipe gesture looks so natural...<p>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...
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.
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.<p>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.
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.
<p><pre><code> 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!
</code></pre>
Wow. Thanks guys.
> “You can ignore people more efficiently that way.”<p>They should really have a chat with my SO. She can always tell if someone is paying attention.<p>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.
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.<p>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.
> 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.<p>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.
So the tech geek in my wants to love these things. It is so SciFi future-y. I just cannot see using them.<p>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..<p>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.
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.<p>If I was them, I would add a bone conduction speaker in the stem so it can give you audible information as well.<p>I also like the ring input device another commenter mentioned.[1]<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16308730" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16308730</a>
Wearables are one area where not having feature bloat means a MUCH better product.<p>Battery life, normal temperature, reliability vs a gimmick that 1 out of a 1,000 users will want.
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.
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...<p>The first successful business in the "glasses with HUD" space will be one that targets businesses which manufacture complex things using human beings.
<i>> Intel intends to attract investors who can contribute to the business with strong sales channels, industry or design expertise, rather than financial backers.</i><p>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.
When can I actually buy a pair? How much will they cost?<p>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.
Basically the Pebble of AR.<p>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.
where can we sign-up?
I googled <i>vaunt</i> and first thing that comes up is a bra company, NSFW: <a href="https://sneakyvaunt.com/" rel="nofollow">https://sneakyvaunt.com/</a>
IMHO, Soon, smart glasses will be as ubiquitous as cellphones. We as humans keep increasing our communications and multitasking. This item covers both.
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.
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.