Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media

Next Generation of MP3 Glasses 178

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the tunes-on-the-move dept.
Doggie Fizzle writes "A review of the Nu Tech Dark Shadow 256MB MP3 Sunglasses shows one of the latest attempts to multitask common items, whether we want it or not. The Oakley Thumps may have come first, but at 3x the cost of Nu Tech Dark Shadows, even frugal geeks can look smooth... From the review: "I am a sucker for any tool or gadget that tries to combine more than one use or function into a single item, but I also have learned from experience that many times such items fail to perform well at any of the tasks they were designed to do.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Next Generation of MP3 Glasses

Comments Filter:
  • obviously (Score:5, Funny)

    by yagu (721525) * <yayagu.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:05PM (#14148774) Journal

    Obviously not a Unix person.

    From the slashdot article:

    From the review: "I am a sucker for any tool or gadget that tries to combine more than one use or function into a single item,..."

    or he'd already have known:

    that many times such items fail to perform well at any of the tasks they were designed to do...
    • Re:obviously (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Namronorman (901664)
      Not only that but more to break, I'd imagine something like that's durability isn't that great. I think they look large and grotesque, this is probably something someone with too much money would buy just for a toy, and then never use them. That or this guy who said he uses them while he skis, that wouldn't be so bad I guess

      "Dude, you just sat on my glasses!"
      • Re:obviously (Score:3, Interesting)

        Bleh, such a bad solution for skiing . . .

        Sunglasses are a poor substitute for a good pair of goggles.

        If you really want music while you're on the mountain, lots of helmets now have built in headphones [skiingmag.com] (some of them have Bluetooth as well)

        Of course, you need to tap something into the headphones, but there are several ski shells that are designed with iPod's in mind . . . some even have controls built into the sleeves [burton.com]. Hell, there are even ridiculously expensive coats with built in iPods [spyder.com].

        If you don't have t
    • Maybe he's a George Carlin fan and is trying to help prove Carlin's description of the American Dream: "If you nail together two things that have never been nailed together before, some schmuck will buy it from you."
    • This product made me think: 1) What if I want listen to my music when I'm in the dark? 2) What if I need sunglasses when I don't want to listen to music? 3) Why Would I want to lug something on my head that I could carry in my pocket or on my belt?

      For me the next generation MP3 player isn't so much a player but a few USB ports in my car. If done right any MP3 player would work with my car stereo, my phone and PDA could be charged w/out a cumbersome power adaptor, and I would only need to keep a few cab

    • You know, I think people misunderstand the unix philosophy sometimes. It's not that apps do one thing. It's that they're modular, and *interoperate*.

      A compiler doesn't do one thing: it does lots of stuff: parsing, translating, optimising, retargetting. But it does that by using other subtools, and by communicating with other parts of the system and libraries etc.

      Likewise, there's no reason an app or tool can't play music and videos and download podcasts all in one slick interface. It's just that it

  • Hmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:05PM (#14148776)
    The sad part is, you'll have listened to all the songs before the sun goes down.
  • Very annoying... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tehshen (794722) <tehshen@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:06PM (#14148783)
    If you already wear glasses :/
    • by johnty (558523)

      i see two main problems with this:

      1. its on a pair of sunglasses - ok its great for outdoors when its sunny, but if you either wear glasses, or spend a good deal of time indoors, or out at night, you can't really use them
      2. you can't change the earbuds. what happens if you want to replace them with better sounding ones? i guess you could cut the cord and attach new ones onto it, but i'm sure not everyone's willing to perform the surgery.

      now if the mp3 player component was detacheable, or if the frame co

      • 256MB requires you to either carry not much music or record at a sample rate so low that it's not the earbuds limiting sound quality. :)

        If the mp3 player was detachable, then you'd just have some sunglasses, earbuds, and an mp3 player. You can already get that if you zip-tie the earbuds to the sunglasses earpieces. I'd take a picture and make a fake product page if I was as bored as I'd like to be...
  • by dada21 (163177) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:06PM (#14148788) Homepage Journal
    This is an interesting item but it is so 1990. The review's comment of "I am a sucker for any tool or gadget that tries to combine more than one use or function into a single item" is exactly why we don't need so many all-in-one items, but instead, mininetworked items.

    Why is Bluetooth such a relative failure? My PDA has bluetooth and I use it ALL the time. The problem is that I don't see very many viable, workable, user friendly bluetooth devices.

    If I want an MP3 player, what I'd really want is a portable deposit/store/memory bank (SD card is fine), a very tiny MP3 player and a bluetooth set of headphones. I can't find anything of the sort that WORKS.

    My bluetooth headset for my phone has TERRIBLE sound quality. The bandwidth for bluetooth should allow for a decent sound in stereo, but the mono headset is just crap. Can anyone recommend a good stereo set of bluetooth headphones that work?

    I believe the future of portable music will probably not be the MP3 player, especially as network availability becomes more pronounced. I use Shoutcast on my PDA phone to stream my entire MP3 collection from home as I want to. GPRS at 33.6K is fairly crap quality, but when I am in range of a public WiFi router (my phone has WiFi as well) I can get pretty awesome quality streaming. Nowadays I am near a public WiFi router probably 15% of the time, compared to 5% last year.

    Will we even NEED storage or a large bulky scratchable iPod when we can stream terabytes of music in a few years?
    • I like the way you think. But I have to ask, why not just build the entire music player into the headsets? Why two pieces with the complicated bluetooth system connecting them?

      How long until Apple/Napster/Yahoo comes out with a music player that does this? Think about it, the player automatically connects to iTunes (or whatever) over WiFi, logs into your account, and starts streaming music. That would be sweet.

      • > why not just build the entire music player into the headsets? Why two pieces ...

        For the same reason headphones with integrated FM radios don't sell like hotcakes. Bulky, hard to upgrade, short battery life, expensive for manufacturers to offer choices of headset/player option, etc etc.

        Tom
      • They will do it, probably.

        The FCC just announced it will allow serving channels a la carte on cable. What a STUPID STUPID STUPID regulation we've had to deal with for decades. Guess what? Channels a la carte is so 1990, too!

        People are getting used to on demand everything. On demand opeds via blogs, on demand news via the web and SMS, on demand coupons, on demand everything. Storing information that is identical between millions (or even dozens) of users when information can be shared can show a huge sa
        • Because IP isn't real-time. I don't know about you, but I really am not a big fan of streaming video. Especially Real (Shudder)
          • Real-time has nothing to do with IP, per se, but the routing of it. IP packets can be routed in real-time provided your routers and network can place some guarantee on its delivery. Today, IP is routed on a "best effort" basis. Drop a couple packets? Fine, we'll wait for the time out and try again. (But that's mostly the semantics of TCP, not IP.)

            The whole process of sending and receiving of IP packets is not up to snuff to be called real-time and the problem is not with the protocol itself. You need
      • why not just build the entire music player into the headsets?

        Because sometimes you might want to just listen to your music through your headphones. Or maybe even broadcast it to multiple listeners in a small area. The holy grail here isn't a gadget but a modular system that can adapt to your needs simply by buying another module and plugging it into the system.

      • But I have to ask, why not just build the entire music player into the headsets?

        Because you might want to replace the headphones at some point. And not just to upgrade to a better headphone. If the MP3 player had bluetooth, then it could send audio to your headphones, your ski/motorcycle helmet, your car stereo, etc. These are relatively inexpensive interfaces -- the MP3 player itself (and the music it holds) it not.

    • The sound quality of cell phones is rather limited by the quality of the whole telephone system. Since that is the case, the cell phone bluetooth headsets are engineered to meet that shoddy quality level. If you want to have a good listening experience, you need to buy a bluetooth headset that supports A2DP profile and a transmitter that does as well (computers and phones like a Nokia N91 or 8801). Some headsets, like Logitech's Bluetooth Wireless Headphones, include a bluetooth adapter that plugs into a
    • yeah, I tried some of the HP Bluetooth headphones, which are the same as the ones Logitech and others sell. Apparently there's really only one manufacturer making them. Anyway, the sound quality was ok but they were horribly uncomfortable. I have a rather large head and the one-piece non-adjustable headband sucked. The "behind the head" design sucks as well because the way the earpieces connect to the headband is not very accomodating. It was not comfortable to have my ears pinched between two pieces of har
    • Will we even NEED storage or a large bulky scratchable iPod when we can stream terabytes of music in a few years?

      I you mean by streaming terabytes of information at any given time at any given place in the world, then no.

      But that might be more than a few years.
    • Ya, I agree about the bluetooth thing.

      My mouse broke the other day and I drove out to several computer stores looking for an instant replacement. Since I just bought a new bluetooth laptop I figured I'd snag a bluetooth mouse.

      I found a TON of wireless RF mice, but only TWO bluetooth mice... and they both sucked.

      WTF? I don't want a stupid RF receiver hanging off the side of my laptop. Moreover, I don't need anymore RF devices in my life.

      I saw a slew of mice touting "2.4ghz" RF .... considering that I'm alre
      • I figured I'd snag a bluetooth mouse.

        I saw a slew of mice touting "2.4ghz" RF .... considering that I'm already having interference problems with my 2.4ghz WiFi router 2.4ghz phone, 2.4 ghz game controllers, etc... why would I want a 2.4ghz mouse?

        So whats this new non-2.4GHz bluetooth of which you speak?

    • Logitech has wireless ipod headphones with controls built in. Just a transmitter that plugs into you ipod. I dont know how well they work, but logitechs stuff is usually pretty solid.
  • Sorry... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rovingeyes (575063) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:06PM (#14148789)
    The Oakley Thumps may have come first, but at 3x the cost of Nu Tech Dark Shadows, even frugal geeks can look smooth..

    Sorry I don't share your enthusiasm, but I don't think you will look smoother, only geekier. I am geeky enough and I don't want to wear it on my face. Besides, the audio actually sucks....what, I had to try it on...common gimme a break!

    • Re:Sorry... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Rethcir (680121)
      Maybe this is why Manny [photobucket.com] is such a bad fielder..
    • i work for a sunglass company in australia, we were offered these exact glasses from one of our vendors in china. We were going to use them for one of the local brands here, except a little research revealed that oakley holds a patent on sunglasses as mp3 players..
      so depending on how these are sold, it's very likely to be patent infringement.
      and no the original vendor does not have a license from oakley.
  • Solar battery? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maiden_taiwan (516943) * on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:07PM (#14148807)
    Seems like this would be the PERFECT product to have a rechargeable solar battery!

    • Seems like this would be the PERFECT product to have a rechargeable solar battery!

      Since we're integrating gadgets, we could place small solar panels on a hat and attach the hat to the glasses. The panels would charge the battery while providing additional sun protection, and it wouldn't look much dorkier than the Oakleys. (How could it?)

      The silly things is, now that you've read that, some of you are thinking "Is he serious??" and some of you are thinking "What a great idea!". I'm sure you'll ident
      • by saforrest (184929) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @03:42PM (#14149685) Homepage Journal
        Since we're integrating gadgets, we could place small solar panels on a hat and attach the hat to the glasses. The panels would charge the battery while providing additional sun protection, and it wouldn't look much dorkier than the Oakleys. (How could it?)

        Perhaps you could add an layer of tinfoil for the paranoid, and to maximize energy use, mount a small propeller on the hat that would generate wind power when the person is in motion!
  • by ankarbass (882629) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:07PM (#14148808)
    these bulbous pieces of shit look dumb on everyone, not just you. So do the oakleys. You are just not going to make a cubic inch of electronics look smooth on a pair of glasses. A product like this will be ready for prime time when you can fit the entire player in the eraser head of a mechanical pencil.
  • girls (Score:5, Funny)

    by uberjoe (726765) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:07PM (#14148809)
    All I want are those x-ray specs I ordered from boy's life 15 years ago.
  • Just great. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hal2814 (725639) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:08PM (#14148813)
    So now when I lose my sunglasses (which happens a LOT), I've also lost my 256MB mp3 player? No thanks.
    • I was surprised that the picture of the glasses doesn't show any sort of strap to keep the things from falling off, and Croakies or equivalent are also helpful because they encourage you to keep the things around your neck instead of putting them down on whatever convenient flat surface is nearby.

      But yeah, I lose sunglasses all the time, mainly because I forget and wear them in from my car and then leave them. On the other hand, I'm happy with el-cheapo sunglasses, so it's not annoying unless my car run

  • even frugal geeks can look smooth...

    ...it's rumored that this cool gadget chases away all those pestering chicks too. It's a g33k's dream come true. And just in time for the gifting season!

  • Not for geeks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot AT keirstead DOT org> on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:08PM (#14148819) Homepage

    ...one of the latest attempts to multitask common items, whether we want it or not.

    ... even frugal geeks can look smooth...

    These are not for geeks, as can be shown by your idiodic comment (who "looks smooth" with a huge box attached to the side of your head?). They are for bikers, runners, and people involved in sports. They are not for a WOW playing geek in his mom's basement.

    Ever try to bike through traffic while screwing around with a headphone cable? Probably not. If you did then you would see that there is a huge market for these kinds of devices.

    • Saw the perfect design for jogger,biker,etc.
      It was designed as a single piece that slipped over the ear and basiclly looked like one of the bluetooth headsets(without the microphone) but a little bigger. It had a decent sounding speaker that while close to ear so you could hear did not put a mini plug in so that most outside sound was blocked.
    • Ever try to bike through traffic while screwing around with a headphone cable? Probably not. If you did then you would see that there is a huge market for these kinds of devices.

      Given the number of jackasses I see weaving through traffic while talking on their phones, there probably is. But at least once a month I hear that click up ahead and lean left just in time to avoid getting doored. Losing that extra quarter-second of reaction time (and possibly my life along with it) isn't worth another few minutes

    • I agree. I have an iPod, which is great most of the time (car stereo, home stereo, walking around with headphones doing chores). I also have a pair of Oakley thumps for running, biking and skiing.

      I probably wouldn't wear the thumps just walking around town. That seems a little too geeky. Besides, in that situation it's nicer to be able to navigate through menus on a screen. But having music with no headphone cords when doing something athletic is a cool enough idea that I got another gadget for just that pu
    • Re:Not for geeks (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jratcliffe (208809) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:56PM (#14149315)
      "Ever try to bike through traffic while screwing around with a headphone cable? Probably not."

      No, because I'm not enough of an idiot to wear headphones while riding - hearing's important my friend.
      • Re:Not for geeks (Score:3, Informative)

        by grappler (14976)
        That's another nice thing about the thumps - the ear "buds" can hover an inch away from your ear, so that you can hear your surroundings just fine.
    • Yeah, obviously we wear sunglasses when we're sitting in the basement staring at the computer.... The last year or so I've had to start wearing reading glasses while working on the computer, and most of the time if I'm wearing sunglasses, I'm in my car, which has a much better sound system than they can cram in a pair of glasses.
    • Re:Not for geeks (Score:2, Insightful)

      by lixee (863589)
      Anybody else noticed the weight is not mentioned? Neither in TFA nor on the retailers sites.
  • Now you can misplace your MP3 player in your hair.

    But really this is a good combo, since glasses have parts going right beside your ear anyway, so it's handy to have your MP3 player on your face protecting your eyes from UV damage, while damaging your ears with music that is too loud.
  • by ackthpt (218170) * on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:09PM (#14148827) Homepage Journal
    I can't even tell when people on mini headsets aren't actually talking to me. Now I can look forward to talking to people and not being heard, even though the seem to be nodding their heads.

    i'm not even a parent, but it'll be like the world is full of teenagers

  • by queenb**ch (446380) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:16PM (#14148898) Homepage Journal
    Sheesh...does this thing come with a plastic pocket protector, too? Like some of the other posters, it's obvious enough to even the most casual observer that I'm a geek. Do I really need to paste a sign on my forehead? My Treo plays MP3's rather well and can play them through the headset I'm already wearing. Why add ANOTHER set of headphones?

    2 cents,

    Queen B.
  • ...ugly sunglasses with a built-in USB memory-stick-mp3-player and crappy headphones? That'll work.

    The Oakley one might sell on the back of the name, there are brand snobs out there. I don't think I'd touch this thing with a bargepole though.
    • The oakly thump looks craptastic as well. The only people I see wearing Oakleys outside of ski resort areas are the mullet && {camino || mustang}, redneck or nascar crowd.
       
      But then again I do live in Houston, so I may be wrong on that one....
  • Sunglasses? (Score:3, Funny)

    by NardofDoom (821951) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:17PM (#14148908)
    If I ever see anyone wearing MP3 player sunglasses I'm going to smack them. And this is coming from someone with a Bluetooth headset.
  • Oakley Thumps here [oakley.com].

    didn't they have headphones awhile back that would work by sending vibrations directly to the head? I remember them being marketed for swimmers, I think. That would have been a much better use of the wraparound sunglasses - I wouldn't want to have to put things over AND in my ears, I want one or the other.
  • Oakley recently unveiled a new product, the Razrwire [oakley.com], that is derivative of their thump glasses. These feature a bluetooth earpiece that can integrate with a bluetooth phone. Hopefully they're more comfortable than I've heard the thumps are.
  • by mmell (832646) <mmell@hotmail.com> on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:20PM (#14148943)
    When I was in school at Berzerkely, I supported myself as a personal care attendant assisting the physically handicapped. A (frighteningly intelligent and insightful) friend of mine once commented that I could design the ultimate cybernetic prosthesis, one which could replace any damaged body part and work perfectly, but that the vast majority of those with physical handicaps would shun my invention if it didn't look good - i.e., most physically handicapped people would choose a good-looking but non-functional prosthetic over a functioning but ugly one. I confirmed this by talking candidly with many of my clients.

    Somehow, I just don't see these things catching on. They're ugly.

  • Big deal (Score:2, Redundant)

    by b1t r0t (216468)
    This isn't very useful to those of us who wear glasses.

    Hmm, maybe an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit would help... :-)

    • This isn't very useful to those of us who wear glasses.

      So get a pair of prescription sunglasses and an iPod. Both Oakley & Maui Jim do prescription sunglasses, or you could drop $10 at Walmart on a cheap pair if you don't care about looking cool. Either way you'd look substantially less of a jackass than if you waste a court's time with a frivolous lawsuit.

  • Will come with a tiny display in front of each eye that will be able to show visulizations as well. Now that will be "cool". I can't wait for someone to bring out a half way decent VR headset for a reasonable price. Oh and make good use of it :o)

  • where? (Score:5, Funny)

    by BushCheney08 (917605) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:29PM (#14149030)
    So, where can I get a pair of these Dork Shadow sunglasses?
  • Howabout just some wireless headphones or earbuds that can clip onto your glasses. Then you can choose the mp3 player you want (or use the one you already have), and more importantly, choose some glasses that don't make you look like a complete fool.
  • How long before we start seeing these on woot.com [nyud.net]?

    Blog [nyud.net]
    Podcast [nyud.net]

  • I seen embed/hide their shuffle in a hat with wires down to the ears. Its not bulky. In fact you have the opposite problem with being the size and weight of a stick of gum, you may not notice you've lost it if its not on. You cant make it much smaller and still have controls and earphones jack. If you could only bluetooth away the wires.

    A few more years of Moore's law the price falls on the 100-song model to that of transistor radio and losing it doesn't matter. Else you keep the current price for 1000
  • by TomorrowPlusX (571956) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:46PM (#14149187)
    Do they expect me to *pay* for the luxury of wearing -- on my face no less -- something that looks like a Geigeresque metal-sheened plastic turd? I would be ashamed to leave the house wearing one of these. I might as well have a sign on my chest that says "Too much money, and no standards" And, to anybody who says these are for cyclists and such. Well. I'm a cyclist, I ride 50+ miles on weekends on a road bike, and I bike to work daily in downtown washington dc in rush-hour traffic. My iPod works *just* fine, and as a bonus, I still get to wear my real glasses, so I can see the taxis that want to annihilate me.
  • Dayton, OH - Thomas P. Wetsalot has invented an MP3 condom, and hopes that by getting some Slashdot editor to do his advertising, he can rake in the dough.

    "It's a remarkable device." Wetsalot said. "It has 128mb of RAM, and in comes in ordinary and French Tickler. We're hoping to have the self-lubing model ready for 2006, though we've had some troubles with electrocutions. Another big innovation will be the ability to download songs via our patented USB butt plug."
  • by wsanders (114993) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @02:50PM (#14149232) Homepage
    I think mostly what us nerds object to is the conversion of two commodity "nerd tools" into an overpriced status item.

    We want an Open Source sunglass+MP3 player!
  • Most of the people here seem to have missed the point. This is not a product for you guys sitting in your mom's basement in the dark. This is for people who actually leave the house and do things called "activities".

    Personally, I've been waiting on the Oakley Thump to come down in price to a level that didn't make me laugh. These may just be a good alternative.

    What are they good for? well, bike riding, jogging, yard work...all of the things I like to have music for. I've developed a real distaste f

  • one of the latest attempts to multitask common items, whether we want it or not.

    I hate this New Order Globalized Communism we found ourselves into. I hate being forced to buy gadget upon gadget some marketing department idiot thought of, whether I want it or not. I miss the days where we could freely choose where and on what to spend our money
  • one of the latest attempts to multitask common items, whether we want it or not

    Its not hard to understand that if you dont want it, dont buy it.

    I for one certainly want one.

  • "I am a sucker for any tool or gadget that tries to combine more than one use or function into a single item, but I also have learned from experience that many times such items fail to perform well at any of the tasks they were designed to do."

    I'd say if you buy something like sunglasses with an mp3 player built in, you definitely are a sucker.
  • Did this really need to be done? I already feel stupid enough with my Bluetooth wireless headset hanging off one ear, do I need to combine that with a Cyclops-inspired visor ("Optic blasts... FIRE!!!")? Why not just go the route of building a computer system in a motorcycle helmet with a head's-up display, powering it with the heat generated by the brain, and call it done?

    Are we all going to end up looking like the Borg?

  • $500?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by stavromueller (934803) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @03:21PM (#14149524) Homepage
    500 bucks?? That's Frugal???? No thank you...I'll buy an iPod and duct-tape it to the back of my head.
    • Re:$500?? Try $100 (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mal-2 (675116)
      No, the reviewed item is only $100 or slightly under. It is the Oakley Thump that pops up in the ads at the bottom that is $500. This makes sense given the cost of Oakley sunglasses alone (hence the booming market in "Foakleys", cheap knock-offs), but for $500 you think you'd get at least 1 GB of space.

      $100 for decent sunglasses and an MP3 player really isn't bad. Too bad they're ugly. Shouldn't stop poker players from adopting them, however...

      Personally I really only wear sunglasses while driving or as a p
  • by mungojelly (853032) on Wednesday November 30, 2005 @04:11PM (#14149910) Homepage
    What we've got here is a situation where computers have gotten easily small enough to be wearable on a purely practical level, but are still fighting against entrenched aesthetic norms. People hold up cell phones for seemingly hours at a time while walking around, even though they could easily have some sort of hands-free system. People put mp3 players in their pockets and run wires to their head, even though mp3 players could easily be fit somewhere near the ears. One can easily imagine a world in which it would have been cool all along to wear some kind of crazy cyberhelmet, and in that world we would have progressed much further into augmented reality. No use crying over spilled milk, so let's see what's possible with the culture we've got.

    One possibility is that the barrier of aesthetic conservativism will be bypassed only once the size gets down to the point where it really is vanishingly small-- where a pair of sunglasses (or a necklace, or a bracelet, or a ring) with a computer in it is indistinguishable from one without. The computers will simply disappear, and the state of the art for most people in wearable computing will be whatever level is the latest to be effectively vanished.

    The other possibility (the one which I, and I suspect most of us here, would prefer) is that there will be some new product or class of products that will change the collective aesthetic of our society and allow wearable computers to fully flourish. One entirely reasonable route for such a transformative device would be a pair of computerized sunglasses. Sunglasses are the largest head-mounted device which is a currently acceptable fashion. They are also conveniently close to the ears and even go in front of the eyes; they're perfectly situated to talk intimately with a user.

    In order to effect such a transformation, a product would have to be a brilliant innovation either technically or aesthetically-- and probably both. The product under discussion here comes nowhere close to achieving that prerequisite. My guess is that the first mass market computerized sunglasses will be ones which can project some sort of display onto the glass.

    <3
    • One possibility is that the barrier of aesthetic conservativism will be bypassed only once the size gets down to the point where it really is vanishingly small-- where a pair of sunglasses (or a necklace, or a bracelet, or a ring) with a computer in it is indistinguishable from one without. The computers will simply disappear, and the state of the art for most people in wearable computing will be whatever level is the latest to be effectively vanished.

      I wonder about this. Portable electronics (cell-phones,
  • These might have been cool (well, the Oakleys) while cycling in Summer (don't worry - on the cycle network in Milton Keynes, not on the road), but when it's dark by 17h00 and pouring with rain, I think I'll stick with 'street style' headphones and a cheaper player hung inside my jacket!
  • I read this as MPG sunglasses, and presumed that they had a video projection system. That product, I might be interested in. Sunglasses with music? Sorry, not interested.

    The video-glasses won't be anymore distracting while driving than a cell phone, right?

  • This is obviously not a useful item. This is the kind of crap that ends up in those Sharper Image catalogs that they wont stop sending me. Its about as useful as the Simpsons mockery of Sharper Image hardware, the frying pan with a radio in it. Ive been noticing recently that items such as this and the Moto ROKR are consistently inferior to the alternate solution of just taking something and taping an iPod Nano to it. We have some very good music players and some very good other devices, why is it whenever
  • "If you glue two things together that have never been glued together before, some schmuck will buy it." - George Carlin

Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders. -- Gauss

Working...