Computed·Blg

Via engadget

-----

We've had a bit of a love / hate relationship with the Google Chromebook since the first one crossed our laps back in 2011 -- the Samsung Series 5. We loved the concept, but hated the very limited functionality provided by your $500 investment. Since then, the series of barebones laptops has progressed, and so too has the barebones OS they run, leading to our current favorite of the bunch: the 2012 Samsung Chromebook.

In that laptop's review, we concluded that "$249 seems like an appropriate price for this sort of device." So, then, imagine our chagrin when Google unveiled a very similar sort of device, but one that comes with a premium. A very hefty premium. It's a high-end, halo sort of product with incredible build quality, an incredible screen and an incredible price. Is a Chromebook that starts at more than five times the cost of its strongest competition even worth considering? Let's do the math.

Hardware

Wow. This is certainly a departure. If you're going to charge an obscene premium for a laptop with an incredibly limited OS, you'd better produce something that is incredibly well-made. In that regard, the Chromebook Pixel is a complete success. If you'll forgive us just one cliche, Google has gone from zero to hero with the Pixel. It's truly something to behold.

First impressions are of a laptop with surprising density. Apple's MacBook Pros, with their precisely hewn aluminum exteriors, have long been the benchmark against which other laptops were held in when it comes to a sense of solidity. In its first attempt, Google has managed to match that feeling of innate integrity with the Pixel, and in some ways go beyond it.

It's all machined aluminum, anodized in a dark, almost gunmetal color that successfully bridges the gap between sophisticated and cool. Everything is very angular; vertical sides terminate abruptly at the horizontal plane that makes up the typing surface. In fact, the only thing not bridged by right angles is the cylindrical hinge running nearly the entire width of the machine, but thankfully the edges of the entire laptop are just rounded enough to keep it from digging into your wrists uncomfortably. Battle scars received while typing have become a bit of an annoyance in many modern, aluminum-bodied machines.

A good, quick test of a laptop's rigidity is to open it up, grab it on both sides of the keyboard and try to twist. On a flimsy product you'll hear some uncomfortable-sounding noises coming from beneath the keys and, if you're really unlucky, you might send a letter or two flying. Not so with the Pixel. The torsional rigidity is impressive for a machine that is as thin, and as light, as this.

To put some numbers on that, the laptop measures 16mm (0.62 inch) in thickness and 3.35 pounds (1.52kg) in heft. That compares very favorably to the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina, the one that we would most closely pit this against, which is 19mm (0.75 inch) thick and weighs 3.57 pounds (1.62kg). So it's thinner and lighter, and with a very similar 12.85-inch, 2,560 x 1,700 display (which we'll thoroughly discuss momentarily), but with lower performance. It is, however, on par with the 13-inch MacBook Air when it comes to speed, and is only slightly thicker (0.06 inch) and heavier (0.39 pound).

A dual-core Intel 1.8GHz Core i5 chip is the one and only processor on offer here, paired with 4GB of DDR3 RAM and generally providing more than enough oomph to drive the very minimalist operating system, which is installed on either a 32 or 64GB SSD. The larger option is only available if you opt for the $1,449 laptop, which also adds Verizon-compatible LTE to the mix (along with GPS). Either model sports dual-band MIMO 802.11a/b/g/n along with Bluetooth 3.0. For those who like to keep it physical, there are two USB ports on the left (sadly just 2.0) situated next to a Mini DisplayPort and a 3.5mm headphone jack. On the right is an SD card reader, along with the SIM card tray -- assuming you paid for the WWAN upgrade.

For those who aren't interested in making use of that headphone jack, there are what Google calls "powerful speakers" built in here -- though they're hard to spot. They're integrated somewhere below the keyboard and, believe it or not, that "powerful" description is quite apt. You won't be giving your neighbors anything to complain about if these are cranked to maximum volume, nor do you need to concern yourself about cracking the masonry thanks to the bass, but the output here is respectably loud and good-sounding. These speakers are at least on par with your average mid-range Bluetooth unit, meaning you'll have one less thing to pack.

For the receiving end, Google has also integrated an array of microphones throughout the machine to help with active noise cancellation, including one positioned to detect (and eliminate) keyboard clatter when you're typing whilst in a Hangout or the like. Without the ability to selectively disable this microphone we can't be sure how great an effect it had, but we can say that plenty of QWERTY-based noise got through in our test calls. Google, though, has indicated it will continue to refine the behavior of that mic, so there's hope for improvement.

Integrated in the bezel is a webcam situated in the center-top of the bezel, next to a small status LED to let you know when Big Brother is watching. One final piece is the power plug, a largish wall wart that takes a cue from Apple by including a removable section. Here you can slot in either a flip-out, two-prong end or a longer, three-prong cable. The inspiration is obvious, but we're not complaining. This lets you have both a short, easy-to-pack version when you're traveling light and a longer but rather more clunky version for those times when you need a bit more reach.

We do, however, wish Google had also taken inspiration from Apple and Microsoft and included some sort of magnetic power connector. We found that the small plug, with its traditional, single-prong-style connector, had a tendency to slowly work its way out of the laptop when the cable had any tension from the left. Thankfully, a bright glowing light on the connector lets you know when the laptop is charged or charging -- and thus when the thing has slid out far enough to lose connection.

Keyboard and trackpad

Island-style keyboards continue to be all the rage and, for the most part, Google makes no exception for its latest Chromebook. The primary keys float in a slightly recessed area, comfortably sized and comfortably spaced. Each has great feel and great resistance. Typing on this machine is a joy.

However, the row of function keys that rest atop the number keys, discrete buttons for adjusting volume and brightness and the like, is a different story. These are flush with each other and far stiffer than the normal keys. This isn't much of a bother, since you won't be using them nearly as frequently as the rest, but butting them right up against each other makes them difficult to find by touch. Thankfully, all are backlit, so locating them in the dark is no problem.

We also wished for dedicated Home and End keys, after finding the Chrome OS alternative of Ctrl + Alt + Up or Down to be a bit of a handful. Regardless, you'll quickly learn to type around these relatively minor shortcomings and enjoy the great keyboard. Thankfully, the trackpad is equally good.

It's a glass unit, darkly colored and positioned in the center of the wrist rest, which makes it slightly shifted to the right compared to the space bar. It has a matte coating but still feels quite smooth, resulting in a very nice swiping sensation indeed. Of course, with a 12.85-inch touch-sensitive display, you may find yourself using it less frequently than you think.

Display

Again, up top is a 12.85-inch, 2,560 x 1,700 IPS LCD panel that we can't look at without thinking of the very similar 13.3-inch, 2,560 x 1,600 panel on the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display. It's smaller but packs an extra 100 pixels vertically, giving it a slightly higher pixel density of 239 ppi. Naturally, that's far from the full story here, and those who are really into proportions will know that resolution equates to a 3:2 aspect ratio. In other words: it's rather tall.

A 16:9 aspect ratio (or something close to it) is the prevailing trend among non-Macs these days, but even when acknowledging that, this one feels particularly tall. Still, we didn't exactly mind it. As mentioned above, the keyboard is plenty roomy, and given that Chrome OS isn't particularly friendly to multi-window multi-tasking (manually justifying windows is a real chore) we were rarely left wanting a wider display.

That was, really, our only minor reservation about this panel. Otherwise we have nothing but love for the thing. It is, of course, a ridiculously high resolution, which makes pixels basically disappear. Indeed the simple, clean and stark Chrome OS looks great when rendered with such clarity, but we couldn't help but lament the occasional excess of white space that's becoming common across many of Google's web apps. For a display with a pixel density this high, it feels somewhat under-utilized.

That is until, of course, you boot up the 4K sample footage Google thoughtfully pre-installed on the machine, which looks properly mind-blowing -- even if it is only being rendered at slightly higher than half its native resolution.

This is a glossy panel, tucked behind a pane of Gorilla Glass, so glare may be a bit of a problem if your work setup has bright lights positioned behind you. Still, reflectivity seemed to be on par with the latest, optically bonded panels -- that is to say, far from the "mirror, mirror" effect provided by many of the earlier gloss displays. Contrast is quite good from all angles, though the color accuracy drops off if you look at it from too high or low, with everything quickly getting a bit pink. Slightly pretty.

And, finally, this is indeed a touch-enabled panel, something we didn't know we needed on a Chromebook -- and frankly we're still not sure we do. We'll discuss that in more detail in the software section below.

Performance and battery life

Again we're dealing with a 1.8GHz Intel Core i5 processor here, a bit on the mild side compared to most higher-end laptops. Still, it proves to be more than enough to run the lightweight Chrome OS. That's paired with 4GB of DDR3 RAM and, predictably, integrated graphics courtesy of Intel's HD 4000 chipset.

It's no barnstormer, but it runs a browser with aplomb. And, really, that's about all it's likely to do with the limited selection of apps available for Chrome. Everything we threw at it ran fine, though after extended sessions we did notice heavier websites started to get a little bit stuttery. It's nothing that rebooting the browser didn't fix.

High-def videos play smoothly, though when pushing the pixels (or running games), the machine does get fairly warm. The fan vents are below the hinge; a thin sliver of an opening that thankfully doesn't seem to dump a lot of hot air into your lap. It's noticeable, but it isn't particularly loud or annoying and again, since you likely won't be doing too much taxing stuff here, don't expect to hear it all that often.

When it comes to battery life, Google estimates the 59Wh battery will provide "up to" five hours of continuous use. And, indeed it may. On our standard battery run-down test, which loops a video at fixed brightness, the machine clocked in at four hours and eight minutes for the WiFi model. The LTE model, with its LTE antenna on, came in about 30 minutes shorter at 3:34.

These numbers are rather poor, unfortunately. The 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina clocks in at more than six hours on the same battery test, while both the 13-inch MacBook Air and the latest Samsung Chromebook score about 30 minutes more even than that.

Connectivity

As mentioned above, both Chromebook Pixel models include dual-band MIMO 802.11a/b/g/n, which means you'll be sucking down bits at an optimal rate more or less regardless of what sort of router you're connecting to.

Stepping up to the $1,449 LTE version of course means you can walk away from those routers. That machine includes a Qualcomm MDM9600 chipset to receive on LTE band 13, intended for Verizon in the US only. So, then, we tested it in the US in two different LTE markets on both coasts. Speeds varied widely from location to location, but in general matched or exceeded the speeds we saw from other Verizon-compatible mobile devices.

In terms of more practical connectivity concerns, it's worth noting that the modem takes about 30 seconds to reconnect after the laptop resumes from its suspended state, which is a bit annoying but certainly no slower than your average LTE USB modem. Also, Verizon is kindly including 100MB of data each month for free for your first two years of Chromebook ownership, but after that you'll be stuck paying up for one of Verizon's tiered data plans.

Oh, and the Pixel lacks an Ethernet port, and does not include an adapter. We tried a few standard USB Ethernet adapters and all worked without a hitch.

Software

As we concluded in our review of the most recent version, Chrome OS has come a long, long way since that first Chromebook crossed our laps. What we have now is a far more sophisticated and comprehensive experience than we did a few years ago, but it's still incredibly limited compared to the broader world of desktop operating systems.

Simple tasks like file management can be a real chore if you're doing anything other than moving a file into a subdirectory. And while the OS itself has a refreshingly simple visual style, it's also very stark and, frankly, a somewhat wasteful design. Not to keep harping on the file explorer, but each file in a list is separated by a sea of white big enough to basically double the effective height. When you're skimming through a big 'ol list of files in a directory, it takes a lot more scrolling than should be necessary given the resolution of this display.

At least Google made the scrolling easy. As mentioned above, the trackpad is quite good and very responsive. Multi-finger gestures are responsive, so good that you might not be inclined to reach up to that touch panel. But, you should, because the experience is generally good as well, though you'll rarely be doing anything more than scrolling webpages or documents. There's not really a whole lot more Chrome OS can do, but even in games like Cut the Rope and Angry Birds, touch was just as good as... well, as it is on an Android tablet.

That said, it's disappointing that Google didn't introduce any gestures to the OS to match its newfound touch compatibilities. In fact, you can't even pinch-zoom in the image viewer or even on most pages in the Chrome browser -- only in specifically pinch-friendly websites (like Google Maps). There are no three- or four-finger gestures for switching apps, and swiping in from the bezels does nothing. Except, that is, for a swipe up from the bottom, which alternatively shows or hides the launcher bar.

Again, we won't restate the entire review of Chrome OS, but it's important to note at least briefly that functionality here is still very minimal. There are built-in apps for viewing photos and videos, for browsing files, for taking photos from the integrated webcam, an app for taking notes and... the web browser. That, of course, is the most important part. Suffice to say, if you can't do all your work from inside of an instance of Chrome on some other platform (like Windows or Mac), you probably won't be able to do it here, either.

Still, we did want to point out one important part of the software, and that is it's easily replaceable. The bootloader is not locked and we've already seen the thing rocking Linux -- and looking quite good while doing it. So, if you happen to be looking for an incredibly well-designed laptop to run that most noble of open-source operating systems, this could be it.

Pricing and competition

We can keep the pricing bit short, because there are only two options here. For $1,299, you can get yourself the WiFi model with 32GB of local SSD storage. For $1,449 you step up to the LTE model, which throws in 64GB of storage in a bid to sweeten the deal.

Should that still be too bitter for your tastes -- and we're thinking there's a very good chance it will be -- Google has included plenty of other incentives that are at least mildly saccharine. First among these are 12 free Gogo passes for in-flight connectivity, each one worth about $14 for a total of $168. The other, rather more compelling add-in, is 1TB of online storage free for three years.

That, believe it or not, is worth a whopping $1,800, which of course means that if you were looking to rent that much data for a period of three years you'd actually be better off just buying a Pixel. It would, effectively, just be a nice, free toy.

For everyone not interested in storing copious quantities of stuff in the cloud, both price points are rather dear to put it mildly. As ever, it's difficult to compare a Chromebook to other laptops on the market thanks to the limited functionality provided by the OS. So, we'll focus primarily on hardware comparisons, and as we mentioned above, we find ourselves inclined to compare this to the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.

That machine, with a full operating system and a faster, 2.5GHz Core i5 processor, starts at $1,499. That, though, has a 128GB of SSD, twice that of the biggest Pixel. We could also see many comparing this against the 13-inch MacBook Air, which offers the same CPU, integrated graphics and 4GB of RAM for the same $1,199. It's lacking the high-res screen but it perhaps makes up for that with, again, 128GB of storage.

On the PC side of things, that resolution is unmatched, but the other specs certainly aren't. We recently had reasonably good feelings about Samsung's Series 5 UltraTouch, a 13-incher packing a similar Core i5 CPU, 4GB of RAM, but again a 500GB platter-based hard disk. An SSD isn't an option, but the $849 price is certainly more palatable.

Again, none of these is an apples-to-apples comparison, as the Pixel offers a touchscreen, something all the Macs lack, and offers LTE connectivity, thus making it even more of a rare bird on the laptop scene. Whether these unique attributes, plus the various goodies Google is throwing in, turn this into a compelling proposition compared to the competition is something you'll have to decide for yourself.

Wrap-up

Again we reach the dreaded wrap-up section on a Chromebook review. It's simply never easy to classify these machines. In some regards, the Pixel is even harder to pigeonhole than its predecessors. The level of quality and attention to detail here is quite remarkable for what is, we'll again remind you, Google's first swing at building a laptop. Boot-ups are quick, performance is generally good and, of course, there's that display.

But, with one single statistic, Google has made the Chromebook Pixel even easier to write off than any of its quirky predecessors: price. For an MSRP that is on par with some of the best laptops in the world, the Pixel doesn't provide anywhere near as much potential when it comes to functionality. It embraces a world where everyone is always connected and everything is done on the web -- a world that few people currently live in.

The Chromebook Pixel, then, is a lot like the Nexus Q: it's a piece of gorgeous hardware providing limited functionality at a price that eclipses the (often more powerful) competition. It's a lovely thing that everyone should try to experience but, sadly, few should seriously consider buying.

Via The Verge

-----

The frosted-glass doors on the 11th floor of Google’s NYC headquarters part and a woman steps forward to greet me. This is an otherwise normal specimen of humanity. Normal height, slender build; her eyes are bright, inquisitive. She leans in to shake my hand and at that moment I become acutely aware of the device she’s wearing in the place you would expect eyeglasses: a thin strip of aluminum and plastic with a strange, prismatic lens just below her brow. Google Glass.

What was a total oddity a year ago, and little more than an experiment just 18 months ago is now starting to look like a real product. One that could be in the hands (or on the heads, rather) of consumers by the end of this year. A completely new kind of computing device; wearable, designed to reduce distraction, created to allow you to capture and communicate in a way that is supposed to feel completely natural to the wearer. It’s the anti-smartphone, explicitly fashioned to blow apart our notions of how we interact with technology.

But as I release from that handshake and study the bizarre device resting on my greeter’s brow, my mind begins to fixate on a single question: who would want to wear this thing in public?

Finding Glass

The Glass project was started "about three years ago" by an engineer named Babak Parviz as part of Google’s X Lab initiative, the lab also responsible for — amongst other things — self-driving cars and neural networks. Unlike those epic, sci-fi R&D projects at Google, Glass is getting real much sooner than anyone expected. The company offered developers an option to buy into an early adopter strategy called the Explorer Program during its I/O conference last year, and just this week it extended that opportunity to people in the US in a Twitter campaign which asks potential users to explain how they would put the new technology to use. Think of it as a really aggressive beta — something Google is known for.

I was about to beta test Glass myself. But first, I had questions.

Seated in a surprisingly bland room — by Google’s whimsical office standards — I find myself opposite two of the most important players in the development of Glass, product director Steve Lee and lead industrial designer Isabelle Olsson. Steve and Isabelle make for a convincing pair of spokespeople for the product. He’s excitable, bouncy even, with big bright eyes that spark up every time he makes a point about Glass. Isabelle is more reserved, but speaks with incredible fervency about the product. And she has extremely red hair. Before we can even start talking about Glass, Isabelle and I are in a heated conversation about how you define the color navy blue. She’s passionate about design — a condition that seems to be rather contagious at Google these days — and it shows.

Though the question of design is at the front of my mind, a picture of why Glass exists at all begins to emerge as we talk, and it’s clearly not about making a new fashion accessory. Steve tries to explain it to me.

"Why are we even working on Glass? We all know that people love to be connected. Families message each other all the time, sports fanatics are checking live scores for their favorite teams. If you’re a frequent traveler you have to stay up to date on flight status or if your gate changes. Technology allows us to connect in that way. A big problem right now are the distractions that technology causes. If you’re a parent — let’s say your child’s performance, watching them do a soccer game or a musical. Often friends will be holding a camera to capture that moment. Guess what? It’s gone. You just missed that amazing game." Isabelle chimes in, "Did you see that Louis C.K. stand up when he was telling parents, ‘your kids are better resolution in real life?’" Everyone laughs, but the point is made.

Human beings have developed a new problem since the advent of the iPhone and the following mobile revolution: no one is paying attention to anything they’re actually doing. Everyone seems to be looking down at something or through something. Those perfect moments watching your favorite band play or your kid’s recital are either being captured via the lens of a device that sits between you and the actual experience, or being interrupted by constant notifications. Pings from the outside world, breaking into what used to be whole, personal moments.

Steve goes on. "We wondered, what if we brought technology closer to your senses? Would that allow you to more quickly get information and connect with other people but do so in a way — with a design — that gets out of your way when you’re not interacting with technology? That’s sort of what led us to Glass." I can’t stop looking at the lens above his right eye. "It’s a new wearable technology. It’s a very ambitious way to tackle this problem, but that’s really sort of the underpinning of why we worked on Glass."

I get it. We’re all distracted. No one can pay attention. We’re missing all of life’s moments. Sure, it’s a problem, but it’s a new problem, and this isn’t the first time we’ve been distracted by a new technology. Hell, they used to think car radios would send drivers careening off of the highways. We’ll figure out how to manage our distraction, right?

Maybe, but obviously the Glass team doesn’t want to wait to find out. Isabelle tells me about the moment the concept clicked for her. "One day, I went to work — I live in SF and I have to commute to Mountain View and there are these shuttles — I went to the shuttle stop and I saw a line of not 10 people but 15 people standing in a row like this," she puts her head down and mimics someone poking at a smartphone. "I don’t want to do that, you know? I don’t want to be that person. That’s when it dawned on me that, OK, we have to make this work. It’s bold. It’s crazy. But we think that we can do something cool with it."

Bold and crazy sounds right, especially after Steve tells me that the company expects to have Glass on the market as a consumer device by the end of this year.

Google-level design

Forget about normal eyeglasses for a moment. Forget about chunky hipster glasses. Forget about John Lennon’s circle sunglasses. Forget The Boys of Summer; forget how she looks with her hair slicked back and her Wayfarers on. Pretend that stuff doesn’t exist. Just humor me.

The design of Glass is actually really beautiful. Elegant, sophisticated. They look human and a little bit alien all at once. Futuristic but not out of time — like an artifact from the 1960’s, someone trying to imagine what 2013 would be like. This is Apple-level design. No, in some ways it’s beyond what Apple has been doing recently. It’s daring, inventive, playful, and yet somehow still ultimately simple. The materials feel good in your hand and on your head, solid but surprisingly light. Comfortable. If Google keeps this up, soon we’ll be saying things like "this is Google-level design."

Even the packaging seems thoughtful.

The system itself is made up of only a few basic pieces. The main body of Glass is a soft-touch plastic that houses the brains, battery, and counterweight (which sits behind your ear). There’s a thin metal strip that creates the arc of the glasses, with a set of rather typical pad arms and nose pads which allow the device to rest on your face.

Google is making the first version of the device in a variety of colors. If you didn’t want to get creative, those colors are: gray, orange, black, white, and light blue. I joke around with Steve and Isabelle about what I think the more creative names would be. "Is the gray one Graphite? Hold on, don’t tell me. I’m going to guess." I go down the list. "Tomato? Onyx? Powder — no Avalanche, and Seabreeze." Steve and Isabelle laugh. "That’s good," Isabelle says.

But seriously. Shale. Tangerine. Charcoal. Cotton. Sky. So close.

That conversation leads into discussion of the importance of color in a product that you wear every day. "It’s one of those things, you think like, ‘oh, whatever, it is important,’ but it’s a secondary thing. But we started to realize how people get attached to the device… a lot of it is due to the color," Isabelle tells me.

And there is something to it. When I saw the devices in the different colors, and when I tried on Tangerine and Sky, I started to get emotional about which one was more "me." It’s not like how you feel about a favorite pair of sunglasses, but it evokes a similar response. They’re supposed to feel like yours.

Isabelle came to the project and Google from Yves Behar’s design studio. She joined the Glass team when their product was little more than a bizarre pair of white eyeglass frames with comically large circuit boards glued to either side. She shows me — perhaps ironically — a Chanel box with the original prototype inside, its prism lens limply dangling from the right eye, a gray ribbon cable strewn from one side to the other. The breadboard version.

It was Isabelle’s job to make Glass into something that you could wear, even if maybe you still weren’t sure you wanted to wear it. She gets that there are still challenges.

The Explorer edition which the company will ship out has an interchangeable sunglass accessory which twists on or off easily, and I must admit makes Glass look slightly more sane. I also learn that the device actually comes apart, separating that center metal rim from the brains and lens attached on the right. The idea is that you could attach another frame fitted for Glass that would completely alter the look of the device while still allowing for the heads-up functionality. Steve and Isabelle won’t say if they’re working with partners like Ray-Ban or Tom Ford (the company that makes my glasses), but the New York Times just reported that Google is speaking to Warby Parker, and I’m inclined to believe that particular rumor. It’s obvious the company realizes the need for this thing to not just look wearable — Google needs people to want to wear it.

So yes, the Glass looks beautiful to me, but I still don’t want to wear it.

Topolsky in Mirrorshades

Finally I get a chance to put the device on and find out what using Glass in the real world actually feels like. This is the moment I’ve been waiting for all day. It’s really happening.

When you activate Glass, there’s supposed to be a small screen that floats in the upper right-hand of your field of vision, but I don’t see the whole thing right away. Instead I’m getting a ghost of the upper portion, and the bottom half seems to melt away at the corner of my eye.

Steve and Isabelle adjust the nose pad and suddenly I see the glowing box. Victory.

It takes a moment to adjust to this spectral screen in your vision, and it’s especially odd the first time you see it, it disappears, and you want it to reappear but don’t know how to make it happen. Luckily that really only happens once, at least for me.

Here’s what you see: the time is displayed, with a small amount of text underneath that reads "ok glass." That’s how you get Glass to wake up to your voice commands. Actually, it’s a two-step process. First you have to touch the side of the device (which is actually a touchpad), or tilt your head upward slowly, a gesture which tells Glass to wake up. Once you’ve done that, you start issuing commands by speaking "ok glass" first, or scroll through the options using your finger along the side of the device. You can scroll items by moving your finger backwards or forward along the strip, you select by tapping, and move "back" by swiping down. Most of the big interaction is done by voice, however.

The device gets data through Wi-Fi on its own, or it can tether via Bluetooth to an Android device or iPhone and use its 3G or 4G data while out and about. There’s no cellular radio in Glass, but it does have a GPS chip.

Let me start by saying that using it is actually nearly identical to what the company showed off in its newest demo video. That’s not CGI — it’s what Glass is actually like to use. It’s clean, elegant, and makes relative sense. The screen is not disruptive, you do not feel burdened by it. It is there and then it is gone. It’s not shocking. It’s not jarring. It’s just this new thing in your field of vision. And it’s actually pretty cool.

Glass does all sorts of basic stuff after you say "ok glass." Things you’ll want to do right away with a camera on your face. "Take a picture" snaps a photo. "Record a video" records ten seconds of video. If you want more you can just tap the side of the device. Saying "ok glass, Google" gets you into search, which plugs heavily into what Google has been doing with Google Now and its Knowledge Graph. Most of the time when you ask Glass questions you get hyper-stylized cards full of information, much like you do in Google Now on Android.

The natural language search works most of the time, but when it doesn’t, it can be confusing, leaving you with text results that seem like a dead-end. And Glass doesn’t always hear you correctly, or the pace it’s expecting you to speak at doesn’t line up with reality. I struggled repeatedly with Glass when issuing voice commands that seemed to come too fast for the device to interpret. When I got it right however, Glass usually responded quickly, serving up bits of information and jumping into action as expected.

Some of the issues stemmed from a more common problem: no data. A good data connection is obviously key for the device to function properly, and when taking Glass outside for stroll, losing data or experiencing slow data on a phone put the headset into a near-unusable state.

Steve and Isabelle know the experience isn’t perfect. In fact, they tell me that the team plans to issue monthly updates to the device when the Explorer program starts rolling. This is very much a work in progress.

But the most interesting parts of Glass for many people won’t be its search functionality, at least not just its basic ability to pull data up. Yes, it can tell you how old Brad Pitt is (49 for those keeping count), but Google is more interested in what it can do for you in the moment. Want the weather? It can do that. Want to get directions? It can do that and display a realtime, turn-by-turn overlay. Want to have a Google Hangout with someone that allows them to see what you’re seeing? Yep, it does that.

But the feature everyone is going to go crazy with — and the feature you probably most want to use — is Glass’ ability to take photos and video with a "you are there" view. I won’t lie, it’s amazingly powerful (and more than a little scary) to be able to just start recording video or snapping pictures with a couple of flicks of your finger or simple voice commands.

At one point during my time with Glass, we all went out to navigate to a nearby Starbucks — the camera crew I’d brought with me came along. As soon as we got inside however, the employees at Starbucks asked us to stop filming. Sure, no problem. But I kept the Glass’ video recorder going, all the way through my order and getting my coffee. Yes, you can see a light in the prism when the device is recording, but I got the impression that most people had no idea what they were looking at. The cashier seemed to be on the verge of asking me what I was wearing on my face, but the question never came. He certainly never asked me to stop filming.

Once those Explorer editions are out in the world, you can expect a slew of use (and misuse) in this department. Maybe misuse is the wrong word here. Steve tells me that part of the Explorer program is to find out how people want to (and will) use Glass. "It’s really important," he says, "what we’re trying to do is expand the community that we have for Glass users. Currently it’s just our team and a few other Google people testing it. We want to expand that to people outside of Google. We think it’s really important, actually, for the development of Glass because it’s such a new product and it’s not just a piece of software. We want to learn from people how it’s going to fit into their lifestyle." He gets the point. "It’s a very intimate device. We’d like to better understand how other people are going to use it. We think they’ll have a great opportunity to influence and shape the opportunity of Glass by not only giving us feedback on the product, but by helping us develop social norms as well."

I ask if it’s their attempt to define "Glass etiquette." Will there be the Glass version of Twitter’s RT? "That’s what the Explorer program is about," Steve says. But that’s not going to answer questions about what’s right and wrong to do with a camera that doesn’t need to be held up to take a photo, and often won’t even be noticed by its owner’s subjects. Will people get comfortable with that? Are they supposed to?

The privacy issue is going to be a big hurdle for Google with Glass. Almost as big as the hurdle it has to jump over to convince normal people to wear something as alien and unfashionable as Glass seems right now.

But what’s it actually like to have Glass on? To use it when you’re walking around? Well, it’s kind of awesome.

Think of it this way — if you get a text message or have an incoming call when you’re walking down a busy street, there are something like two or three things you have to do before you can deal with that situation. Most of them involve you completely taking your attention off of your task at hand: walking down the street. With Glass, that information just appears to you, in your line of sight, ready for you to take action on. And taking that action is little more than touching the side of Glass or tilting your head up — nothing that would take you away from your main task of not running into people.

It’s a simple concept that feels powerful in practice.

The same is true for navigation. When I get out of trains in New York I am constantly jumping right into Google Maps to figure out where I’m headed. Even after more than a decade in the city, I seem to never be able to figure out which way to turn when I exit a subway station. You still have to grapple with asking for directions with Glass, but removing the barrier of being completely distracted by the device in your hand is significant, and actually receiving directions as you walk and even more significant. In the city, Glass make you feel more powerful, better equipped, and definitely less diverted.

I will admit that wearing Glass made me feel self-conscious, and maybe it’s just my paranoia acting up (or the fact that I look like a huge weirdo), but I felt people staring at me. Everyone who I made eye contact with while in Glass seemed to be just about to say "hey, what the hell is that?" and it made me uncomfortable.

Steve claims that when those questions do come, people are excited to find out what Glass is. "We’ve been wearing this for almost a year now out in public, and it’s been so interesting and exciting to do that. Before, we were super excited about it and confident in our design, but you never know until you start wearing it out and about. Of course my friends would joke with me ‘oh no girls are going to talk to you now, they’ll think it’s strange.’ The exact opposite happened."

I don’t think Glass is right for every situation. It’s easy to see how it’s amazing for parents to capture all of the adorable things their kids are doing, or for skydivers and rock climbers who clearly don’t have their hands free and also happen to be having life changing experiences. And yes, it’s probably helpful if you’re in Thailand and need directions or translation — but this might not be that great at a dinner party, or on a date, or watching a movie. In fact, it could make those situations very awkward, or at the least, change them in ways you might not like.

Sometimes you want to be distracted in the old fashioned ways. And sometimes, you want people to see you — not a device you’re wearing on your face. One that may or may not be recording them right this second.

And that brings me back to the start: who would want to wear this thing in public?

Not if, but when

Honestly, I started to like Glass a lot when I was wearing it. It wasn’t uncomfortable and it brought something new into view (both literally and figuratively) that has tremendous value and potential. I don’t think my face looks quite right without my glasses on, and I didn’t think it looked quite right while wearing Google Glass, but after a while it started to feel less and less not-right. And that’s something, right?

The sunglass attachment Google is shipping with the device goes a long way to normalizing the experience. A partnership with someone like Ray-Ban or Warby Parker would go further still. It’s actually easy to see now — after using it, after feeling what it’s like to be in public with Glass on — how you could get comfortable with the device.

Is it ready for everyone right now? Not really. Does the Glass team still have huge distance to cover in making the experience work just the way it should every time you use it? Definitely.

But I walked away convinced that this wasn’t just one of Google’s weird flights of fancy. The more I used Glass the more it made sense to me; the more I wanted it. If the team had told me I could sign up to have my current glasses augmented with Glass technology, I would have put pen to paper (and money in their hands) right then and there. And it’s that kind of stuff that will make the difference between this being a niche device for geeks and a product that everyone wants to experience.

After a few hours with Glass, I’ve decided that the question is no longer ‘if,’ but ‘when?’

Via TXCHNOLOGIST

-----

Via Slashgear

-----

3D printers are undeniably cool, but their price also puts them out of the reach of most; that’s where 3Doodler steps in, a 3D printing pen hitting Kickstarter today and promising to make sketches physical. The chubby stylus squirts out of a stream of thermoplastic from its 270 degree-C nib, which is instantly cooled by an integrated fan. By laying different streams of plastic, tugging up streams of it to make 3D structures, and piecing different layers together, you can create 3D designs on a budget.

In fact, early Kickstarter backers will be able to get the 3Doodler from $50, though that award tier is already nearly halfway claimed at time of writing. Next is the $75 bracket, which should stick around a little longer, with the eventual Kickstarter goal being $30,000.

Unlike traditional printers, which require programming, the 3Doodler takes a more abstract approach. You can freeform draw sketches, or alternatively trace out patterns that have been printed, and then peel the set plastic off; 3Doodler suggests possibilities include jewelry, 3D models, artwork, and more.

It’s not going to be the way you print your next coffee cup or car wheel, as we’ve seen promised from regular 3D printers, but the plug-and-play approach has plenty of appeal nonetheless. The Kickstarter runs for the next month, with first deliveries expected in the fall of 2013 assuming it’s funded.

Via ExtremTech

-----

Of course, another possibility is that we simply keep the moths. After all, why should we spend time and money on an artificial system when mother nature, as always, has already done the hard work for us? In much the same way that miners used canaries and border police use sniffer dogs, why shouldn’t robots be controlled by insects? The silkmoth is graced with perhaps the most sensitive olfactory system in the world. For now it might only be sensitive to not-so-useful scents like the female sex pheromone, but who’s to say that genetic engineering won’t allow for silkmoths that can sniff out bombs or drugs or chemical spills?

Who nose: Maybe genetically modified insects with robotic exoskeletons are merely an intermediary step towards real nanobots that fly around, fixing, cleaning, and constructing our environment.

Via AnandTech

-----

Today Intel made a sobering, but not entirely unexpected announcement: over the next 3 years Intel will be ramping down its own desktop motherboard business. Intel will continue to supply desktop chipsets for use by 3rd party motherboard manufacturers like ASUS, ASRock and Gigabyte, but after 2013 it will no longer produce and sell its own desktop mITX/mATX/ATX designs in the channel. We will see Haswell motherboards from the group, but that will be the last official hurrah. Intel will stop developing desktop motherboards once the Haswell launch is completed. All Intel boards, including upcoming Haswell motherboards, will carry a full warranty and will be supported by Intel during that period.

This isn't a workforce reduction. Most of the folks who worked in Intel's surprisingly small desktop motherboard division will move on to other groups within Intel that can use their talents. Intel's recently announced NUC will have a roadmap going forward, and some of the desktop board folks will move over there. Intel will continue to produce barebones motherboards for its NUC and future versions of the platform.

Intel will also continue to produce its own form factor reference designs (FFRDs) for Ultrabooks and tablets, which will be where many of these employees will end up as well. As of late Intel has grown quite fond of its FFRD programs, allowing it a small taste of vertical integration (and the benefits that go along with it) without completely alienating its partners. This won't be a transfer of talent to work on smartphone FFRDs at this time however.

The group within Intel responsible for building reference designs that are used internally for testing as well as end up as the base for many 3rd party motherboards will not be impacted by this decision either. The reference board group will continue to operate and supply reference designs to Intel partners. This is good news as it means that you shouldn't see a reduction in quality of what's out there.

It's not too tough to understand why Intel would want to wind down its desktop motherboard business. Intel has two options to keep Wall Street happy: ship tons of product with huge margins and/or generate additional profit (at forgiveably lower margins) that's not directly tied to the PC industry. The overwhelming majority of Intel's business is in the former group. The desktop motherboards division doesn't exactly fit within that category. Motherboards aren't good high margin products, which makes the fact that Intel kept its desktop board business around this long very impressive. Intel doesn't usually keep drains on margins around for too long (look how quickly Intel exited the de-emphasized its consumer SSD business).

The desktop motherboard business lasted so long as a way to ensure that Intel CPUs had a good, stable home (you can't sell CPUs if motherboard quality is questionable). While there was a need for Intel to build motherboards and reference designs 15 years ago, today what comes out of Taiwan is really quite good. Intel's constant integration of components onto the CPU and the resulting consolidation in the motherboard industry has helped ensure that board quality went up.

There's also the obvious motivation: the desktop PC business isn't exactly booming. Late last year word spread of Intel's plans for making Broadwell (14nm Core microprocessor in 2014) BGA-only. While we'll continue to see socketed CPUs beyond that, the cadence will be slower than what we're used to. The focus going forward will be on highly integrated designs, even for the desktop (think all-in-ones, thin mini-ITX, NUC, etc...). Couple that reality with low board margins and exiting the desktop motherboard business  all of the sudden doesn't sound like a bad idea for Intel. 

In the near term, this is probably good for the remaining Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers. They lose a very competent competitor, although not a particularly fierce one. In the long run, it does highlight the importance of having a business not completely tied to desktop PC motherboard sales.

Via DVICE

-----

No matter how many times you watch The Matrix, the creepiest part is seeing the whole of humanity hooked up to pods to act as living power generators for their robot masters. Now Germany-based designer Dennis Siegel has created a kind of mini version of this idea that he calls an Electromagnetic Harvester.

The tiny device allows him to draw redundant energy from household appliances, mobile devices, and even outside aerial electrical lines. An LED light indicates when power is effectively being drawn in, and that power is conveniently stored in what appears to be a common AA battery. According to Siegel, it takes the Electromagnetic Harvester about one day to fully charge one of the batteries, depending on the strength of the electromagnetic field being sourced.

You can see video of the Electromagnetic Harvester in action in the video below.

Via liliputing

-----

Always Innovating is working on a tiny flying video camera called the MeCam. The camera is designed to follow you around and stream live video to your smartphone, allowing you to upload videos to YouTube, Facebook, or other sites.

And Always Innovating thinks the MeCam could eventually sell for just $49.

The camera is docked in a nano copter with 4 spinning rotors to keep it aloft. There are 14 different sensors which help the copter detect objects around it so it won’t bump into walls, people. or anything else.

Always Innovating also includes stabilization technology so that videos shouldn’t look too shaky.

Interestingly, there’s no remote control. Instead, you can control the MeCam in one of two ways. You can speak voice commands to tell it, for instance, to move up or down. Or you can enable the “follow-me” feature which tells the camera to just follow you around while shooting paparazzi-style video.

The MeCam features an Always Innovating module with an ARM Cortex-A9 processor, 1GB of RAM, WiFI, and Bluetooth.

The company hopes to license the design so that products based on the MeCam will hit the streets in early 2014.

If Always Innovating sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the same company that brought us the modular Touch Book and Smart Book products a few years ago.

If the MeCam name sounds familiar, on the other hand, it’s probably worth pointing out that the Always Innovating flying camera is not related the wearable camera that failed to come close to meeting its fundraising goals last year.

Via c|net

-----

A rendering of the "Landscape House" by architect Janjaap Ruijssenaars.

(Credit: Universe Architecture)

Sure, we've heard of 3D-printed iPhone cases, dinosaur bones, and even a human fetus -- but something massive, like a building?

This is exactly what architect Janjaap Ruijssenaars has been working on. The Dutch native is planning to build what he calls a "Landscape House." This structure is two-stories and is laid out in a figure-eight shape. The idea is that this form can borrow from nature and also seamlessly fit into the outside world.

Ruijssenaars describes it on his Web site as "one surface folded in an endless mobius band," where "floors transform into ceilings, inside into outside."

The production of the building will be done on a 3D printer called the D-Shape, which was invented by Enrico Dini. The D-Shape uses a stereolithography printing process with sand and a binding agent -- letting builders create structures that are supposedly as strong as concrete.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the printer will lay down thousands of layers of sand to create 20 by 30-foot sections. These blocks will then be used to compile the building.

The "Landscape House" will be the first 3D-printed building and is estimated to cost between $5 million and $6 million, according to the BBC. Ruijssenaars plans to have it done sometime in 2014.

Via WebProNews

-----