Comments on: New Virtual Screens and Improved Batteries Could Revolutionize Handhelds

"The company will spend the next 18 to 24 months reducing the size, weight, power consumption and, especially, cost of the miniature display."

That's the prototype. Of course the final version will be much smaller Read before you open your mouths. You'll look less dumb.

Gee, so you would wear something like that if it were smaller? Any piece of technology strapped to your head and covering one eye looks ridiculous, no matter HOW small they make it.

The guy above you is right, they don't need to just work on reducing the size, they need to work to conceal it in sunglasses. With today's technology, the only way they could do that well is by having a secondary unit strapped to your belt or something. That makes it a completely different product.

It's called progress, men.

OF COURSE, the final version won't be this big. It will probably look like a pair of glasses wirelessly connected to a handheld device you write on. Or maybe you'll only hold it up to your eye during the few seconds you need to check the address you are looking for. I don't know.

Geez, have some vision. Some of you seem incapable of understanding that electronics always get smaller and better. You've seen it all your life but it somehow hasn't sunk in. What you are looking at is a prototype, not available for sale, that the company is going to spend 2 YEARS working to make smaller. Think about how much smaller and better all types of electronics get in 2 years.

Now keep your dumb comments to yourselves and wait until a real version gets shipped in 2004.

This is amazing technology people. Before we know it, we'll just have to wear glasses, eye or sun, to use our PDA. Wouldn't surprise me if this had a little piece of plastic (like 5x3 inches), where you enter in text, "tap", etc. Also wouldn't surprise me if this used a mouse like interface to get around. Anyhow, very cool!

Mario
PalmInfoCenter Moderator

Now he was a total GEEK! sounded like he was talking to himself.

Only if you ran this story three years ago!

I hope it's not going to take them 2 years to shrink the bloody thing. They are alway way behind the technology curve.

Calling people names doesn't seem very nice. This unit is crappy right now, and their press release is positioned so they can get funding.

http://www.hitachi.co.jp/Prod/vims/wia/index.html

Now that is a nice unit. It still isn't the kind of shades that dont attract attention unforunately, but they are much better than that borg helmet.

And it's shipping now.

[http://www.mediathreat.net]

Your eye snaps shut as the tear ducts go into overdrive. You will your eye to open, but the searing pain forces you to pry your unyielding eyelids apart and tear at the offending implement. As you toss it to the ground, you hear the earphone chirp "You've Got Mail!"

Actually, there was a Japanese animated series about that very concept. The neat thing about it, was that this guy's eye had access to every public and private network on earth and he could interact with it purely by thought!

Here's more info on it if anyone's curious:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S12F12D6

8==8 Bones 8==8

Sorry, but I don't 'get' the whole anime thing at all.

"Dude", if you looked in the dictionary for the the word "geek", you'd find a picture of someone dressed better than you are. Posting comments onto sites like this one makes you a major league geek. Either accept it or go watch some football and never come back.

My main concern would be that the scanning hardware would fail. Then, you would indeed have a high intensity beam of light focussing on a tiny part of your retina.

;-)

As I see it, these folks are trying to take something that is used in the military (or at
least on the "soldier of the future" shows on TLC, etc), and commercialize it. The problem
is, they don't know where to market it. IBM had the right idea, and even presented it
to the public in such a way that the guy using it looked ridiculous, scaring pidgeons, etc.,
but it was functional. Note that it also used voice instead of writing. The ONLY way this
will succeed in a market where PalmInfoCenter would be interested in it is if a new class of
PDA is developed. And in a case like that, voice commands are a must, audio is a must, etc.

And if that is the case, then all the agruements presented here against it are valid, even if
you don't read the web site.

1. It will be unfashionable (a minor thing IMHO)
2. It will be MORE distracting than cell phones, so running into things is more likely. Keep
in mind we are talking about PDA functions here, not something that complements your
field of vision such as a HUD. So now not only is your hearing being used as a distraction
as in a cell phone, but your eyesight is used as well as a double distraction. And with voice
commands, why use a display at all?
3. If you have 800x600, why use this in such a limited capacity as a PDA? Put the thing into
a wearable computer. Hmmm....wearable computer...seems like I've heard about this thing
before.

In short, I believe the consumer electronics space isn't ready for something like this. Or, put
less kindly, this thing isn't right for the consumer electronics space, whether used in a 3G
environment or not (as the web site says). And if you get the idea of the device, it is not
necessary to read the source web page since PIC provides enough information on the subject.

-- Pds

actually... a good point, but if the final version looks like the prototype, them must be in a huge rush to get the product out the door.

> Forget the implications of light shooting point-blank into your eyes.

like anything you can see? remember, all vision is light "shooting" into your eyes.

> Anyone consider the implications of such a technology when it comes to a little thing known as
> "distractions?" It's bad enough that we have idiots driving down the road with phones affixed to
> their heads (or even headsets, which many statistics show don't really help the cell-driver problem).
> I look at the future, and I see someone look at their PDA-screen-built-into-sunglasses while talking
> on their wireless phone headset, weaving like a drunkard on the road when they're SUPPOSED to be
> driving.

when radio's were first introduced for the car, there was alot of people who said the same thing. All distractions in the car are bad, but i will put my cell phone against your two-children-in-the-back-seat anyday, but you don't see anyone saying "children shouldn't be allowed in cars because they are distractions."

heck, it might even help. A h.u.d. that can help me see in the dark, or in the fog would be amazing.

> Words of wisdom: Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

well, i think that was more towards the fact that you COULD jump off a bridge, but you probably SHOULDN'T. All technology is meet with fear and uncertainty, that is human nature. And NO advance is made without any consequences. The big question is if the plus-es out weight the minus-es. Heck, how would you know what you should or shouldn't do? I personally use common sense. Or i get drunk and do whatever seems funniest.

nategall says "blah!"

All light is light "shooting" into your eyes? You need to go back to Biology, Nate. When you see, you're perceiving the variations of light rays that occur naturally or through man-made means. That's a far cry from putting a virtual screen 1-2 inches from your eyeball. Have you ever taken a plain light bulb, or a flashlight, and put it that close? Well, you probably have whenever you're drunk...

Do you honestly believe that 2 kids in the backseat are as big a distraction to driving as a phone you're holding to your head with one hand? Either you don't have children, or you're a piss-poor parent... And yes, a radio is potentially just as big a distraction--just ask someone who's been hit by an idiot trying to change the station or find a CD.

As for your "it all depends on plus-es versus minus-es" statement...well, NO SH**! The original post is titled "Costs-Benefits!" As in, "the costs outweigh the benefits."

nategall may say "blah," but nategall's an idiot...

:-)

A 100 W light bulb emits light in almost all directions. A laser emits practically all of its energy in a tiny point. That's what makes a laser so powerful. I would definitely not want to be at the business end of a 100 mW laser.

Does anybody remember a time when TV's actually did put out X-ray's? Or when women used personal X-ray devices to depilate their skin? And let's not forget Thalidomide, unless you want to hold down your lunch. Sometimes it isn't wise to take a company's safety guarantees at face value.

possibly. if the point was the "Costs-Benefits", I don't think i missed the point. First off, we have no "cost", second we don't have any "benefits". So, an option on the Cost-Benefits would be purely speculative; and just for the record, with the information that is provided at this site, I have no option on the "Costs-Benefits"

>All light is light "shooting" into your eyes? You need to go
>back to Biology, Nate. When you see, you're perceiving the
>variations of light rays that occur naturally or through
>man-made means. That's a far cry from putting a virtual
>screen 1-2 inches from your eyeball. Have you ever taken a
>plain light bulb, or a flashlight, and put it that close?

(should I?... oh heck, why not) Actually the way all vision works is sensing of light waves (or photons, but lets not get into a discussion on the dual nature of "light") that stimulate Cones and Rods on the back of your eye. Now the light that we generally "see" comes from a source which then reflects off of surfaces or object and then "shoots" into our eyes. If the "strength" of the light is too strong, it hurts our eyes, and if it is to low, our eyes cannot discern anything. In between these two limits (which vary from person to person) there is a range which normal vision takes place. If the light beam is the correct strength, it is perfectly feasible to "beam" the picture directly into the eye. And, (now this is the cool part) it looks just like a screen. I am not sure if this particular product is beaming directly into the eye or just onto the screen.

>Well, you probably have whenever you're drunk...

Usually, i just pass out in a puddle of drool.

>Do you honestly believe that 2 kids in the backseat are
>as big a distraction to driving as a phone you're holding
>to your head with one hand? Either you don't have children,

yes. I know a woman who had a perfect driving record until she had a baby. As she was driving she was completely turned around trying to give the baby a bottle, she rear-ended the car in front of her. Now, don't get me wrong, a responsible drive would never have turned around, but that's my option.

>or you're a piss-poor parent... And yes, a radio is
>potentially just as big a distraction--just ask someone
>who's been hit by an idiot trying to change the station
>or find a CD.

Anything in the car is a distraction, other people, cell phones, food, whatever. It is how big of a distraction and what is it adding that matter. And yes, I do not have any children.

>As for your "it all depends on plus-es versus minus-es"
>statement...well, NO SH**! The original post is titled
>"Costs-Benefits!" As in, "the costs outweigh the benefits."

Well, Per my first comment. It is a silly point to make. Now, "I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 10:28:25 PM" you may be an industry insider who has a lot more experience with this particular product, in which case you may have a valid point. But nothing you said leads me to think that is true.

>nategall may say "blah," but nategall's an idiot...

a well made point

ps. "I.M. Anonymous @ 2/18/2002 11:18:56 PM" - i hope to god it is a less powerful version :)

nategall says "blah!"