Return to the archive index

Re: Size

From: --friar <>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 11:42:02 -0500

Zach said:
>My hang up is - "so what?"
>I can buy a small laptop almost the same size and same power.  I can make
>the enclosure smaller, but I have to give up some big features.  What are we
>going to use these for?  What application is going to be absolutely
>necessary that you need it on you at all times?  Email?  That can be done by
>cell phone or PDA.  Who are we building this for and what are their needs?
>Now, I can answer all of those questions if we had wireless broadband in
>most of our geographic location, but that seems to be on the back burner.  I
>can answer all of these questions as well if the voice recognition software
>was MUCH better and 70% affective, but that seems to be in a galaxy far, far
>away.
>Are we building in anticipation of what tomorrow brings?  Are we building
>for knowledge or seeking financial wealth?
>I guess I have lost sight of why I started doing this and now I build
>because there is always a better mouse trap to be built.  My problem lies in
>the possibility that there are no mice to trap.
>I'm terribley sorry for my rant, but I'm hoping some may offer answers to
>some of these questions.

Later, Charles J Knight said:
>In a very few years, the equivalent of your current wearable will
>fit in a wristwatch case, and run continuously on a button cell
>battery, for days or even weeks -- heck, Casio's already got a
>color digital camera in one, this year!  The limiting factor will not
>be the machine or even the power source, but the human interface,
>in a VERY short time.

My personal view after building my initial wearable was very similar to
yours, Zach.  I too was hit with the "So What?" question.  But I then
realized that nearly everyone on this list is concentrating on a problem that
is, essetially, solved (the hardware), instead of working on the stuff that
actually provides these systems with unique, new utility (the software).

The only truely "new" application that I have heard of for a basic wearable
(meaning a cpu, an input device, an output device, some ram and some storage)
is Brad Rhodes' Rememberance Agent.  Everything else has either required a
specialized piece of hardware (network card, webcam, gps, what-have-you), or
been a recreation of a desktop tool for use with the basic wearable's input
and output devices.  Unless we come up with new tools that are MORE useful
in a wearable environment than they are with a laptop or desktop or handheld,
there will never be a reason to use a wearable.  Wearables will simply
continue to be modified laptops.

What becomes possible with an always-available cpu?
What becomes possible when the user has constant status information?

Add wireless networking and the answers become even more involved.

--friar

--
Subscription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to 
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
Please, *PLEASE* don't subscribe through a forward/expander/false domain

+Previous Message in Thread | Next Message in Thread

From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty

Archive created with babymail