I read “How Google Screwed Up Google Glass.” The capitalist tool does not have its heart in the analysis. Here’s the tip off: “It really is a great idea.”
What exactly is great about a virtual reality headset? As I wrote in Information Today, I have two or three devices that connect on my shelves. What became of them? Not too much.
In my view, Glass is less about wearing crazy eye glasses and more about dragging red herrings across real journalists’ paths, than a different play. I a report I prepared for an investment bank, I focused on the technology which is used to create the headgear and the contact lens demonstration.
The key figure in this technology is a fellow named Dr. Amir Parviz (aka Babak Parvis, Babak Parviz, Babak Amirparviz, and other variations). He studied at the elbow of Dr. George Whitesides at Harvard. This dynamic duo has demonstrated some chemistry in their research and patents. The contact lens work has roots which reach back to Dr. Parviz’s days at the University of Washington and its research group.
I am not going to rehash the information presented in the Information Today article and the financial institution’s report. Suffice it to say that Glass is less about wearing wonky headgear and more about nanoengineering. Is this self assembly work related to robots. By the way, yummy photos of Google’s X Lab at http://read.bi/1hkHTKl do not include the biomedical facilities. Slight oversight or Loon misdirection?
Seeing through Glass is important. There are strong personal motivations for Google’s top dogs behind the biological engineering research. Maybe running a query on Glass will sharpen the focus?
Stephen E Arnold, April 22, 2014