I mean, you made up the mobile app thing, that’s nowhere in the article. I would assume that’s nto a thing, considering it’d require the glasses to also include wireless connectivity, which in turn would require more battery capacity to power an antenna and a transmitter.
Ditto for latency. I have to assume there’s some, but we won’t know until they have some working device for people to test. I’ve used eye tracking in VR headsets and you can’t typically see it unless you’re looking for it (turns out your eyeballs have latency too, go figure). More importantly, this is a tradeoff. Bifocals are far from perfect. My understanding is you can train yourself to work with them, but they require a lot of adjustment. There is every chance something like this could have fewer downsides and be more reliable to use.
You’re definitely going to have to charge them and I’d say a full day battery is the bare minimum acceptable spec. We’ll see if they can get them there without a bulky, heavy battery that gets hot in use. That is a big challenge. And, again, we won’t know it’s solvable until someone demos a prototype.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with this on paper, but we don’t know if it’s doable.
I personally own a VR headset (Quest 2), honestly the latency and even low resolution isnt a big deal for me. I just think that some things (such as a pair of glasses), not only dont need smart functionality but I would actively rather have it be stable and reliable. There might be a situation where smart glasses can exist alongside traditional glasses but they’re certainly not a replacement.
These are not smart glasses, these are taking one piece of the spec of some HMDs (eye tracking, presumably) and applying it to a sci-fi feeling adjustable lens. You’re extrapolating based on things sounding the same when they are not the same.
That doesn’t mean it’ll work, or that it’ll work well, it means that the pieces of this tech we have suggest the latency of the detection wouldn’t be a big deal. We don’t know how long it takes the lens to adjust. Still faster than my neck, I bet.
A solution for people who have different correction needs for short and long ranges is not a solved problem. Don’t let the luddism and technophobia modern online spaces promote create the assumption that any technical advancement is a net negative.
My probelm is putting too much technology in critical areas where they seemingly arent needed. Its just hard to be optimistic about the future of technology when everything is AI or enshittified garbage. I find it hard to belive this won’t jump on the same trends with forced online connectivity and a built in AI assistant. Theres a certain level of comfert in manual objects that dont need software updates or to even be charged. Sure it might help me (I wear glasses), but I worry about purchasing devices that I fundamentally do not own
OK, but where are they “seemingly not needed”? A lens that can serve people who have different needs for close and long distances IS needed. Which is why we invented bifocals and progressive lenses, which everybody admits are a workaround.
A better prosthesis is a great application for technology. If they can make what they say they’re making that is a definite need and a good application.
You are filling in the blanks about software updates, mobile applications and not owning the device. There is nothing to suggest that is the case here any more than with any other prosthesis that uses a computer. There’s also nothing to say they won’t go that route, but I refuse to start from the position that I don’t want to improve medical technology because I’m too jaded by people making AI juicers with a subscription business model.
I suppose ultimately my problem isnt with the technology but with capitalism. The system where technological growth is second to infinite economic growth. Thats why many people like me fear the advance of technology. Because they do not advance technology for the common good but for the good of capital. Because of that they’re willing to do dangerous things in the namd of profit.
OK, but that seems unrelated to the subject. If you’re going to reject any tech project regardless because it’s been spawned by a capitalist system I’m not going to be super interested in your take about the tech, I’m more interested in your take about capitalism. Otherwise we’re stuck hearing the same speech about how bad tech is over and over again when it’s really not about tech.
To put it another way: get back to me on the tech once you fix capitalism. In the meantime we’re both stuck here and I will continue to exercise some care in separating good developments from bad ones.
Do they? How?
I mean, They don’t look like anything yet, but what is jumping out at you as being “awful”?
The idea of a pair of glasses having latency, needing to be charged, and most likley requiring a mobile app is absolutely absurd
I mean, you made up the mobile app thing, that’s nowhere in the article. I would assume that’s nto a thing, considering it’d require the glasses to also include wireless connectivity, which in turn would require more battery capacity to power an antenna and a transmitter.
Ditto for latency. I have to assume there’s some, but we won’t know until they have some working device for people to test. I’ve used eye tracking in VR headsets and you can’t typically see it unless you’re looking for it (turns out your eyeballs have latency too, go figure). More importantly, this is a tradeoff. Bifocals are far from perfect. My understanding is you can train yourself to work with them, but they require a lot of adjustment. There is every chance something like this could have fewer downsides and be more reliable to use.
You’re definitely going to have to charge them and I’d say a full day battery is the bare minimum acceptable spec. We’ll see if they can get them there without a bulky, heavy battery that gets hot in use. That is a big challenge. And, again, we won’t know it’s solvable until someone demos a prototype.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with this on paper, but we don’t know if it’s doable.
I personally own a VR headset (Quest 2), honestly the latency and even low resolution isnt a big deal for me. I just think that some things (such as a pair of glasses), not only dont need smart functionality but I would actively rather have it be stable and reliable. There might be a situation where smart glasses can exist alongside traditional glasses but they’re certainly not a replacement.
These are not smart glasses, these are taking one piece of the spec of some HMDs (eye tracking, presumably) and applying it to a sci-fi feeling adjustable lens. You’re extrapolating based on things sounding the same when they are not the same.
That doesn’t mean it’ll work, or that it’ll work well, it means that the pieces of this tech we have suggest the latency of the detection wouldn’t be a big deal. We don’t know how long it takes the lens to adjust. Still faster than my neck, I bet.
A solution for people who have different correction needs for short and long ranges is not a solved problem. Don’t let the luddism and technophobia modern online spaces promote create the assumption that any technical advancement is a net negative.
My probelm is putting too much technology in critical areas where they seemingly arent needed. Its just hard to be optimistic about the future of technology when everything is AI or enshittified garbage. I find it hard to belive this won’t jump on the same trends with forced online connectivity and a built in AI assistant. Theres a certain level of comfert in manual objects that dont need software updates or to even be charged. Sure it might help me (I wear glasses), but I worry about purchasing devices that I fundamentally do not own
OK, but where are they “seemingly not needed”? A lens that can serve people who have different needs for close and long distances IS needed. Which is why we invented bifocals and progressive lenses, which everybody admits are a workaround.
A better prosthesis is a great application for technology. If they can make what they say they’re making that is a definite need and a good application.
You are filling in the blanks about software updates, mobile applications and not owning the device. There is nothing to suggest that is the case here any more than with any other prosthesis that uses a computer. There’s also nothing to say they won’t go that route, but I refuse to start from the position that I don’t want to improve medical technology because I’m too jaded by people making AI juicers with a subscription business model.
I suppose ultimately my problem isnt with the technology but with capitalism. The system where technological growth is second to infinite economic growth. Thats why many people like me fear the advance of technology. Because they do not advance technology for the common good but for the good of capital. Because of that they’re willing to do dangerous things in the namd of profit.
OK, but that seems unrelated to the subject. If you’re going to reject any tech project regardless because it’s been spawned by a capitalist system I’m not going to be super interested in your take about the tech, I’m more interested in your take about capitalism. Otherwise we’re stuck hearing the same speech about how bad tech is over and over again when it’s really not about tech.
To put it another way: get back to me on the tech once you fix capitalism. In the meantime we’re both stuck here and I will continue to exercise some care in separating good developments from bad ones.
They look like standard horn rimmed glasses, I prefer the look of my Lindbergs, but they don’t look awful
They don’t look like anything. I assume the pictures in the article are mockups and prototypes. Who knows what the final product would be like.