Because it's silly to assume Google's using this for ad tracking and surveillance. The number of people in the world using this is practically zero. I doubt 99% of Google's workforce has ever tried or heard of it. HN has a tendency to jump to ridiculous conclusions.
This is probably a project for some engineers to get promoted and go and work on more interesting stuff.
> Because it's silly to assume Google's using this for ad tracking and surveillance. The number of people in the world using this is practically zero. I doubt 99% of Google's workforce has ever tried or heard of it. HN has a tendency to jump to ridiculous conclusions.
Concepts and prototypes are typically created based on the company's overall vision. Of course very few people will interact with this particular iteration.
Really, do you think anyone here was concerned about how many Google employees were "subjected" to this internally?
To play devils advocate, if this shipped to millions of people, what benefit does Google have in terms of advertising that wasn't already available in Android? That people are wearing clothes?
From an opportunity cost standpoint it just does not make sense.
> Really, do you think anyone here was concerned about how many Google employees were "subjected" to this internally?
Strawman. I'm trying to point out how this is not part of some grand vision, but just a hardware research project from a lab designed to build out novel concepts for their hardware teams. You can't build a good project without a few failures first, so why not release what they make along the way?
Okay, but you've still not answered, why spend time building new hardware when they could just update their operating system and get 99% of the data you're talking about, for much much less money? Take away the clothing part, and this is literally just a fancy button to control music.
> Okay, but you've still not answered, why spend time building new hardware when they could just update their operating system and get 99% of the data you're talking about, for much much less money? Take away the clothing part, and this is literally just a fancy button to control music.
Because the goal is to extend the reach into every nook and cranny of our lives. Collect more data to serve more ads, better.
Edit: Think of this as step 10 or so, after all of their previous device categories. I'm sure we'll be up to at least 100 device categories within the next decade.
Who said that was the goal? You are projecting. Google, as any company would, is looking to diversify. Not everything is about ads or tracking the user for ads.
In the trailer with the example in the shoe and playing soccer, that's insights a phone couldn't capture. It's got an accelerometer and gyroscope, so it can answer the question of "what do people do when they aren't on their phones"
Maybe it can't differentiate between soccer and ultimate frisbee, but even just recognizing active vs sedentary lifestyle is valuable information for an advertising profile.
> Maybe it can't differentiate between soccer and ultimate frisbee
That doesn't seem so hard to do. I think they'll be able separate your sports activities into at last 50-80 separate categories, with a pretty good level of precision.
There's also the timing of your activities. So much to learn about you as a consumer.
“Strawman. I'm trying to point out how this is not part of some grand vision, but just a hardware research project from a lab designed to build out novel concepts for their hardware teams.“
I straw man your straw man!
Nobody said anything about a “grand vision”.
Merely that this would be used to gather data on those who use it.
Experiment, or grand design, google has shown that more often than not, new technology will be used to further serve their customers. Advertisers.
And how does that change the fact that this is a perfect example of the hubris that google displays as they flaunt their power to invade everyone’s lives and make money off of them?
> Jacquard™ by Google weaves new digital experiences into the things you love, wear, and use every day to give you the power to do more and be more.
WTF!? Sounds like the CEO of Google giving the intro to Google I/O. If it was Microsoft, it would have the word ‘empower’ instead of power. God I hate this BS lingo, Steve Jobs would fire the editors over this crap.
Why not put wtf this is at the first opportunity in the simplest terms?
I have a pet peeve for company marketing people that say “We provide products and services to empower customers”. Well, no shit! It would be insane otherwise.
> Why not put wtf this is at the first opportunity in the simplest terms?
The "Technology" link is literally the third word visible on the page, after the Jacquard logo and a "Products" link.
> I have a pet peeve for company marketing people that say “We provide products and services to empower customers”. Well, no shit! It would be insane otherwise.
Companies manufacturing washing machines don't "empower customers" in that there aren't many differenciators between washing machine brands today. Nor does your average company selling toilet paper, that would be insane.
This project however aims to "empower customers" by introducing a paradigm change: make your clothes smarter (smart fibers woven in the base product) while deciding yourself how smart you want them to be (you choose what actions to take on what gestures).
Whether it succeeds is another thing entirely of course.
> Companies manufacturing washing machines don't "empower customers" in that there aren't many differenciators between washing machine brands today. Nor does your average company selling toilet paper, that would be insane.
Might privileged to assume everyone can afford or has room for a washing machine, for the people who don't I'm sure it definitely would empower them to get more done if they could .
Also there's a lot of differentiation, I never knew how much better front-loaders were till we owned one.
This reminds me of the "futurism" movement in Italy that led to Mussolini's rise where they were so into fashion that they didn't know how but they just knew they wanted milk-based clothing and had to figure it out, and they actually did! It's kind of a cool story, without the fascist dictator throwing a wrench into the coolness.
This also seems like it's totally ripped from star trek, the insignia on their uniforms do exactly that and Jean Luc Picard sounds a lot like Jacquard....
I could see this as a gimmick from Nike, Reebok, or someone already in fashion but from Google it seems... like some weird B-project team endeavor like Google Glass that probably won't go anywhere long-term.
As a general rule, you really should read whole comments and not stop in the middle of sentences, otherwise you will miss half the words and misunderstand it all.
As I wrote, there aren't much differenciation between washing machine brands today. Of course one is empowered by getting a washing machine, any washing machine. That much is obvious. It doesn't mean however that washing machine manufacturers are in the business of empowering their customers , although they certainly were in the mid 1930s.
Nowadays though, the folks who are getting their first washing machines right now are simply catching up with the times, which is precisely what Rosling is saying in that talk. In fact, there hasn't been much innovation in washing machine technology over the last few decades, it's all mostly come down to gradual improvements in their general efficiency. For people who already owned washing machines, those improvements are very small in nature.
This is why this Jacquard project is a different thing altogether: we're currently in the mid-1930s of the smart cloth. Whether it's a fad or a complete paradigm shift won't be apparent for a few years.
Nope they are other way around cleaning one's bottom than toilet paper. They are nothing more empowering than a washing machine to clean-up clothes.
Please watch the video because I guess from you answer that you haven't...
Beside my point was just that you choose a particularly bad exemple this is not a thread about washing machine vs smart clothes... (even though washing machine probably win against jacquard which is not water proof)
I worked for a consulting company who revealed their new brand, competitive advantage and mission was “Results. Action. People.”
I raised my hand and asked how this could be a competitive advantage since every single consulting company has the same brand. Their response was that our people were better.
It’s weird how people think these meaningless statements are useful. I expect that there’s some psychology that shows that while bullshit to me, they are perfectly fine to enough people to work.
it looks like it's a remote button that you can configure and attach to your clothes, then you can tap it and something on your phone happens (like play next song)
Probably not considering the blob talks to Jacquard's app. Then again, you are part of an incredibly insignificant tiny minority of prospective customers, completely out of that project's target market.
All in all, as someone who might want to use this product one day, I'd rather Google not spend their project's resources on never-buyers like yourself and instead spend those adding features and driving cost down for people that could be genuinely interested.
> I'd rather Google not spend their project's resources on never-buyers like yourself and instead spend those adding features and driving cost down for people that could be genuinely interested.
Sure. And drop all open protocols and support only the proprietary ones while they're at it?
Not sure what your point is but in that case I'd rather go the obvious third way which is that they would support a subset of open protocols instead of all of them.
I had to read hacker News comments to understand what this device does, and I went pretty deep into the page.
Seems like they're trying to do too much with this instead of niching down. I have no use for a device I can touch that triggers some tiny subset of things I might want to trigger.
After a minute scrolling the page I gave up and thought "quicker to read HN comments to figure out what this thing actually is" and I was not wrong. Very sad.
> What if Technology helped us focus on what matters most? Keeping our lives free from distractions. To help us be more present.
Laughable, coming from Google. Or Apple, or Microsoft, or Facebook.
> This thing, we really think it'll help you focus and live free from the distractions of all the other things that we make. We're not going to stop making those things, though. Or change them in any meaningful way, because no one here actually believes anything we say.
I also don’t understand how covering yourself in even more devices constantly buzzing for your attention is supposed to lead to less distraction and being more present.
To me this a first step for not having to check your phone or tablet if nothing needs attention.
This is in particular useful if you’ve already filtered down your notifications significantly, you’ll be able to go stretches of hours without looking at your devices, because you’re mostly sure nothing important happened.
Can't figure out what it is from the page. An accelerometer clip on for your shoes and sleeves? Something woven into some of the fabrics in one cutaway image, maybe strain sensors or touch sensors?
Shoes, Jackets and Bags powered by the technology is cool and all, but it doesn't say anywhere whether this is waterproof? Are the jackets washable in a washing machine?
The gadgets are cool, but there are questions about the real world utility of this.
What a strange name and marketing scheme. It's unclear what they're selling, how to get it, or if I would even want it. I increasingly feel out of the loop when it comes to new products and services marketed by large corporations.
They're clearly going for the other end of the spectrum here.
A watch is something that is attached to you, regardless of what other clothing/shoes/bags you may have.
This is attached to the clothing/shoes/bags you may have, regardless of whether you're in it or not.
The only way this can work out is if the device can be built so cheaply that it can be integrated into most items of clothing to be ubiquitous (like the anti-theft tags).
The point of a smart watch is that you own one, and so device vendors can pack in a ton of tech inside it to make it compelling. And since you only need one, they can probably price it high, and offer some sort of accessory system to cater to different style preferences. The Apple Watch totally nails this product.
This product, IMHO, is a disaster from a product perspective, not even going into the tech involved.
What do I do if I chose to not wear my blue jean jacket that day? No functionality? Maybe I'll cut this little device out of the jacket and put it into my coat sleeve. It's basically a really terrible smart watch at this point.
This is one of the Google projects that I'm surprised still exist. The new technology here is integrating touch sensors into fabrics. You can see examples on the website of clothing and bags.
The main problem is that it's just that - a touch sensor. You still need a separate device that will contain all the other pieces - processor, battery, IMU, connectivity, etc. Once you make that device and wear it - you might as well integrate the input mechanism into it, why bother with using the fabric?
Better yet - integrate a screen into it as well, do you don't just have an odd, input only device, but you can actually see what you are interacting with. Oh wait - at that point you've just re-invented the smartwatch.
Can someone enlighten me on what is a killer use case that is actually better served with the Jacquard technology?
I already control my phone while in my pocket using my headphones. Others do it with their watch. Still others just shout at their phones.
I don't think it's impossible that there's an even better solution hiding in this product, but it really does seem to address a solved problem, to my mind.
If the clothes could somehow tap into your smartphone battery and processor that would have at least made the whole thing simpler to use. As it stands right now, you need to have a separate “tag” that you charge separately and connect to your phone wirelessly. At that point you might as well wear a smartwatch or similar.
Not a great solution, since people often aren't carrying cellular phones, but are almost always clothed. I think the point is that this can be used at almost any time, compared to a phone which someone will often be without?
I almost never take mine with me places, unless I am expecting to take a call while out. I am aware I'm less common than I used to be in this regard, but I'm pretty sure a significant chunk of people still do this, though probably the majority by now carry them more often than not. In any case, people leave their cellular phones home more than often enough for a device that lives in clothing to provide substantially more availability.
People not carrying phones outside the house isn't just less common, it's an absolutely tiny edge case which no company is going to redesign their products around.
I don't know if it's that tiny. Like GP (I don't know why he's downvoted) I do own a smartphone but I rarely take it with me when I leave the house. And when I do, it usually stays in the car. I know several people who, like me, are using their smartphones basically only for messaging apps and who just let their smartphone here or there at home and check them only once or twice a day (unless it rings which, arguably, is the device's most interesting use case).
Life is really totally fine when lived without carrying a smartphone around all the time.
It also gives my 6 years old an example of someone she can definitely relates to who doesn't use a smartphone all the time.
I'm not a luddite: but between the 38" monitor at home and the car's navi system, I simply honestly don't have much need for a smartphone.
Now I gotta say this: the demographic that owns a smartphone but doesn't feel the love to the point of living 24/7 with it is probably not the demographic that is going to fancy a tiny electronic device in their shoes and underwear ; )
I don't carry my phone when I go biking. It's either in a plastic bag in one of my rear pockets (the bag is because sweat would damage the phone) or in a phone holder on the handlebar. In both locations the phone is useless to take pictures by tapping a button somewhere on my clothes (same problem with sweat) or on the bike. Of course I don't spend many hours cycling, no more than 12 per week. Still not an insignificant fraction of the time I'm outside my home.
I wonder how that "tap the button and take a picture" works. How do you point the camera to the subject, where is the camera? Not on the phone in my pocket or in a locker at the soccer field.
There seem to have been a numbers of surveys of this, most citing Pew research, but I couldn't actually find a pew study to confirm it. I did find thus study that was a survey of grocery users:
One of the three use cases presented is competitive soccer. How many people carry their phone while playing competitive soccer? I usually keep the phone in the locker.
The product page is unclear on how much information is cached on the device before you need to re-connect to your phone.
Im intrigued, but this seems more like an early teaser.
I think you'd be surprised in much of the non-coastal, non-big-city US, especially in the >40 age crowd.
A few of my older friends just got their first smartphones this year. Most of my old coworkers left their phones either at home or in lockers. I was helping on a farm once (~30 people) and had to ask 10-15 people to borrow a phone before someone actually had a CAT in his truck.
Even in bigger cities, it's become "cool" over the past few years to get dumb phones and/or limited-use phones. Hell, even Google itself designed something [1] to turn your smartphone into a dumbphone (which was basically a joke, but reflects a larger goal toward "breaking smartphone addiction").
Hate to be dismissive, but who honestly wants to wear this nerd shit? A fashion disaster on par with Google glass. Can't wait til my sneakers are part of some botnet.
Seems like they originally announced the Jacquard project 6 or so years ago. The idea of weaving electronics into clothing and fashion brands is interesting, but I'm not sure how useful it is. The product looks like it's evolved into a small bluetooth chip that you can slide into either shirt sleeves or backbacks and it will sense touches even through the fabric. It's interesting, but also fairly niche. The example they show of the woman sliding the Jacquard device into the rolled back jean jacket sleeve doesn't seem practical though. It just seems like smart watches are a better match for this use case of answering calls and performing quick tasks.
Note, it says the product can withstand light splashes, but can't withstand a wash in a machine. What that means is that these devices will get fried on a regular basis...since a device that small is easy to forget about as you toss in your laundry.
Some of the reviews about this product do say it stopped working after one season. But, it is not as bad you describe. Hopefully, it will improve over time.
I like the idea. But it will take someone who isn’t Google to make it work. This is right in Apple’s wheelhouse, though Amazon or a start-up could also pull it off.
It will take another company that isn’t Google to get customers to take a risk in buying it. Whenever I see a Google product that I’m not familiar with, I’m wondering, “How long will it be before it’s cancelled?”
For Google to succeed with a new hardware product, they will need to either give it away or price it below $10
I think fundamentally Google is not the best company to push this forward, but there are obvious targets if it was actually working well. In particular I expect the market for devices with lower capabilities (=lower engagement from the user) to be more and more attractive to people who want to be connected, but not too much.
A watch is a better match only for people wanting to wear a watch (I don’t, my kid doesn’t, given how the watch market dipped once cell phones reached their critical mass, a significant number of people don’t either if they have a choice)
Also keep in mind that it’s only bluetooth, so the phone is always at a reasonable distance to do engaging tasks (answering calls for instance).
It looks like the sensors/controls are built into the object, with the CPU, battery and radio (the more expensive part) being movable? So, it attaches to the jacket and exposes some controls, it attaches to the backpack and enables some controls. It attaches to the shoe and reads sensors?
I guess that means you don't have to plug in your jacket or your backpack, and helps to amortize the cost across a wardrobe? Maybe it's purely to get the battery close to a wall socket.
I like the idea of wearable computing. I'm not too keen on being locked into Google/Levi's/YSL though. The list of abilities [0] also leaves a lot to be desired. I'm just not bothered by pulling out my phone to change a song or check when my uber is coming.
The gamification of training with adidas and FIFA is the most interesting, but this seems like a lot of extra tech to basically count reps.
I hope a nice side effect of this will be for this to incentivize higher quality and more durable clothes, and as a result help bring down fast fashion.
It doesn’t seem like these are compatible with cheap disposable clothes/shoes etc.
I remember hearing about Jacquard years ago. Given I haven't heard or seen any applications of it gaining traction since the launch leads me to think it's just going to go into the endless cavern of Google Abandonware.
178 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 224 ms ] thread"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's a cliché by now, but still: It's you.
This is peak Google.
(It's sensors/triggers sewn into clothing, connected to your Google identity.)
This is probably a project for some engineers to get promoted and go and work on more interesting stuff.
Concepts and prototypes are typically created based on the company's overall vision. Of course very few people will interact with this particular iteration.
Really, do you think anyone here was concerned about how many Google employees were "subjected" to this internally?
From an opportunity cost standpoint it just does not make sense.
> Really, do you think anyone here was concerned about how many Google employees were "subjected" to this internally?
Strawman. I'm trying to point out how this is not part of some grand vision, but just a hardware research project from a lab designed to build out novel concepts for their hardware teams. You can't build a good project without a few failures first, so why not release what they make along the way?
You haven't replied to my counterpoint on why focusing on how many googlers used this prototype is irrelevant.
Because the goal is to extend the reach into every nook and cranny of our lives. Collect more data to serve more ads, better.
Edit: Think of this as step 10 or so, after all of their previous device categories. I'm sure we'll be up to at least 100 device categories within the next decade.
Maybe it can't differentiate between soccer and ultimate frisbee, but even just recognizing active vs sedentary lifestyle is valuable information for an advertising profile.
That doesn't seem so hard to do. I think they'll be able separate your sports activities into at last 50-80 separate categories, with a pretty good level of precision.
There's also the timing of your activities. So much to learn about you as a consumer.
I straw man your straw man! Nobody said anything about a “grand vision”. Merely that this would be used to gather data on those who use it. Experiment, or grand design, google has shown that more often than not, new technology will be used to further serve their customers. Advertisers.
WTF!? Sounds like the CEO of Google giving the intro to Google I/O. If it was Microsoft, it would have the word ‘empower’ instead of power. God I hate this BS lingo, Steve Jobs would fire the editors over this crap.
I have a pet peeve for company marketing people that say “We provide products and services to empower customers”. Well, no shit! It would be insane otherwise.
The "Technology" link is literally the third word visible on the page, after the Jacquard logo and a "Products" link.
> I have a pet peeve for company marketing people that say “We provide products and services to empower customers”. Well, no shit! It would be insane otherwise.
Companies manufacturing washing machines don't "empower customers" in that there aren't many differenciators between washing machine brands today. Nor does your average company selling toilet paper, that would be insane.
This project however aims to "empower customers" by introducing a paradigm change: make your clothes smarter (smart fibers woven in the base product) while deciding yourself how smart you want them to be (you choose what actions to take on what gestures).
Whether it succeeds is another thing entirely of course.
Might privileged to assume everyone can afford or has room for a washing machine, for the people who don't I'm sure it definitely would empower them to get more done if they could .
Also there's a lot of differentiation, I never knew how much better front-loaders were till we owned one.
This reminds me of the "futurism" movement in Italy that led to Mussolini's rise where they were so into fashion that they didn't know how but they just knew they wanted milk-based clothing and had to figure it out, and they actually did! It's kind of a cool story, without the fascist dictator throwing a wrench into the coolness.
This also seems like it's totally ripped from star trek, the insignia on their uniforms do exactly that and Jean Luc Picard sounds a lot like Jacquard....
I could see this as a gimmick from Nike, Reebok, or someone already in fashion but from Google it seems... like some weird B-project team endeavor like Google Glass that probably won't go anywhere long-term.
Please take 12 minutes of you life to watch this Hans Rosling talk, may he rest in peace.
Hans Rosling: The magic washing machine https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_magic_washing_mac...
As I wrote, there aren't much differenciation between washing machine brands today. Of course one is empowered by getting a washing machine, any washing machine. That much is obvious. It doesn't mean however that washing machine manufacturers are in the business of empowering their customers , although they certainly were in the mid 1930s.
Nowadays though, the folks who are getting their first washing machines right now are simply catching up with the times, which is precisely what Rosling is saying in that talk. In fact, there hasn't been much innovation in washing machine technology over the last few decades, it's all mostly come down to gradual improvements in their general efficiency. For people who already owned washing machines, those improvements are very small in nature.
This is why this Jacquard project is a different thing altogether: we're currently in the mid-1930s of the smart cloth. Whether it's a fad or a complete paradigm shift won't be apparent for a few years.
I agree with you however that wether smart clothes company are empowering anyone is yet to be evaluated.
If that is your definition of empowering, so is a company that produces toilet paper.
Please watch the video because I guess from you answer that you haven't...
Beside my point was just that you choose a particularly bad exemple this is not a thread about washing machine vs smart clothes... (even though washing machine probably win against jacquard which is not water proof)
I raised my hand and asked how this could be a competitive advantage since every single consulting company has the same brand. Their response was that our people were better.
It’s weird how people think these meaningless statements are useful. I expect that there’s some psychology that shows that while bullshit to me, they are perfectly fine to enough people to work.
All in all, as someone who might want to use this product one day, I'd rather Google not spend their project's resources on never-buyers like yourself and instead spend those adding features and driving cost down for people that could be genuinely interested.
Sure. And drop all open protocols and support only the proprietary ones while they're at it?
Seems like they're trying to do too much with this instead of niching down. I have no use for a device I can touch that triggers some tiny subset of things I might want to trigger.
It's so ordinary, it's extra ordinary! :D
> What if Technology helped us focus on what matters most? Keeping our lives free from distractions. To help us be more present.
Laughable, coming from Google. Or Apple, or Microsoft, or Facebook.
> This thing, we really think it'll help you focus and live free from the distractions of all the other things that we make. We're not going to stop making those things, though. Or change them in any meaningful way, because no one here actually believes anything we say.
This is in particular useful if you’ve already filtered down your notifications significantly, you’ll be able to go stretches of hours without looking at your devices, because you’re mostly sure nothing important happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngt0Xg4lLOo
Why? What makes them cool? What do they do that normal clothes don't?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_machine
To me this is the selling point of the Apple Watch, and it's hard to see what this does that a watch does not.
A watch is something that is attached to you, regardless of what other clothing/shoes/bags you may have.
This is attached to the clothing/shoes/bags you may have, regardless of whether you're in it or not.
The only way this can work out is if the device can be built so cheaply that it can be integrated into most items of clothing to be ubiquitous (like the anti-theft tags).
The point of a smart watch is that you own one, and so device vendors can pack in a ton of tech inside it to make it compelling. And since you only need one, they can probably price it high, and offer some sort of accessory system to cater to different style preferences. The Apple Watch totally nails this product.
This product, IMHO, is a disaster from a product perspective, not even going into the tech involved.
What do I do if I chose to not wear my blue jean jacket that day? No functionality? Maybe I'll cut this little device out of the jacket and put it into my coat sleeve. It's basically a really terrible smart watch at this point.
How? The only way this device will indicate anything to the user is by vibrating, just like your phone (or watch) already can do.
The main problem is that it's just that - a touch sensor. You still need a separate device that will contain all the other pieces - processor, battery, IMU, connectivity, etc. Once you make that device and wear it - you might as well integrate the input mechanism into it, why bother with using the fabric?
Better yet - integrate a screen into it as well, do you don't just have an odd, input only device, but you can actually see what you are interacting with. Oh wait - at that point you've just re-invented the smartwatch.
Can someone enlighten me on what is a killer use case that is actually better served with the Jacquard technology?
I don't think it's impossible that there's an even better solution hiding in this product, but it really does seem to address a solved problem, to my mind.
That device already exists - your smartphone
In 1999 maybe; not in 2021
Life is really totally fine when lived without carrying a smartphone around all the time.
It also gives my 6 years old an example of someone she can definitely relates to who doesn't use a smartphone all the time.
I'm not a luddite: but between the 38" monitor at home and the car's navi system, I simply honestly don't have much need for a smartphone.
Now I gotta say this: the demographic that owns a smartphone but doesn't feel the love to the point of living 24/7 with it is probably not the demographic that is going to fancy a tiny electronic device in their shoes and underwear ; )
I wonder how that "tap the button and take a picture" works. How do you point the camera to the subject, where is the camera? Not on the phone in my pocket or in a locker at the soccer field.
https://www.supermarketnews.com/consumer-trends/nine-10-groc...
It shows 89% of those survey use the phone in the grocery store. Separately pew estimates 81% smartphone ownership rates in the US. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
The product page is unclear on how much information is cached on the device before you need to re-connect to your phone.
Im intrigued, but this seems more like an early teaser.
A few of my older friends just got their first smartphones this year. Most of my old coworkers left their phones either at home or in lockers. I was helping on a farm once (~30 people) and had to ask 10-15 people to borrow a phone before someone actually had a CAT in his truck.
Even in bigger cities, it's become "cool" over the past few years to get dumb phones and/or limited-use phones. Hell, even Google itself designed something [1] to turn your smartphone into a dumbphone (which was basically a joke, but reflects a larger goal toward "breaking smartphone addiction").
[1] https://experiments.withgoogle.com/envelope
That said, I doubt any of these people would overlap with Jacquard's target audience, so I guess we're ultimately irrelevant here.
It's the Motorola ROKR all over again.
Note, it says the product can withstand light splashes, but can't withstand a wash in a machine. What that means is that these devices will get fried on a regular basis...since a device that small is easy to forget about as you toss in your laundry.
Some of the reviews about this product do say it stopped working after one season. But, it is not as bad you describe. Hopefully, it will improve over time.
For Google to succeed with a new hardware product, they will need to either give it away or price it below $10
A watch is a better match only for people wanting to wear a watch (I don’t, my kid doesn’t, given how the watch market dipped once cell phones reached their critical mass, a significant number of people don’t either if they have a choice)
Also keep in mind that it’s only bluetooth, so the phone is always at a reasonable distance to do engaging tasks (answering calls for instance).
I guess that means you don't have to plug in your jacket or your backpack, and helps to amortize the cost across a wardrobe? Maybe it's purely to get the battery close to a wall socket.
The gamification of training with adidas and FIFA is the most interesting, but this seems like a lot of extra tech to basically count reps.
0 - https://atap.google.com/jacquard/technology/#abilities
I can't believe this is actually real.