SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Intel will shut down its New Devices Group, spelling an end to the company's Vaunt smartglasses project:
When Intel showed off its Vaunt smart glasses (aka "Superlight" internally) back in February, we had high hopes for a new wave of wearable tech that wouldn't turn us into Borgs. Alas, according to The Information's source, word has it that the chip maker is closing the group responsible for wearable devices which, sadly, included the Vaunt. This was later confirmed by Intel in a statement, which hinted at a lack of investment due to "market dynamics." Indeed, Bloomberg had earlier reported that Intel was looking to sell a majority stake in this division, which had about 200 employees and was valued at $350 million.
To avoid the awkwardness that doomed the Google Glass, Intel took the subtle approach by cramming a retinal laser projector -- along with all the other electronic bits, somehow -- into the Vaunt's ordinary-looking spectacle frame; plus there was no camera on it. The low-power projector would beam a red, monochrome 400 x 150 pixel image into the lower right corner of one's visual field, thus eliminating the need of a protruding display medium.
Vaunt is what you get when your committee is too scared of the "Glasshole" fiasco to make a useful product. People on camera could easily identify Google Glass because of its protruding head-mounted display and hardware, as well as the camera indicator light. Build the SoC and any flat buttons directly into a black frame, put small camera lenses at the hinges and/or center, use retinal laser projection or make the lenses into full field of view displays, and remove the indicator light. Then the wearer doesn't have a "Glasshole" problem (but those being viewed might still end up with a "Glasshole.")
Also at The Verge, ZDNet, and AppleInsider.
Previously: Intel Unveils "Vaunt" Smartglasses
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday April 19 2018, @07:49PM
Varies by state. General guidance in mutual consent is "anywhere there is the expectation of privacy, mutual consent must be obtained for recording to be legal"... So, what's the expectation of privacy? In Georgia they decided that a public school classroom had the expectation of privacy for the purposes of admissibility of evidence when parents put a wire on their kid, that didn't keep the recording from getting the teacher fired, but it did keep the state from getting sued... Public street, you could spin that both ways - a) it's a public street, duh!, and b) persons making conversation at a distance from others in a public venue have an expectation that their conversation is not being overheard nor recorded from other persons > 100 yards away.
Even at an arena sporting event with a kiss-cam, do you expect that people more than 5 rows away from you can listen clearly to your quiet conversation? Most people would expect that, but with array microphones you can cancel and enhance anywhere in the arena to the point that an array mic on the central scoreboard can listen to ANY conversation in the building clearly.
🌻🌻 [google.com]