GOOGLE TRAINSLATION FULL
GOOGLE TRAINSLATION CODE
GOOGLE TRAINSLATION BLUETOOTH

Someday, we’ll have full visual AR in ordinary-looking glasses. Still, the fact is that augmented reality and even heads-up displays are super compelling, if only makers can get the feature set right. The sole remaining point of social unacceptability for Google’s “translation glasses” hardware is the fact that Google would be essentially “recording” the words of others without permission, uploading them to the cloud for translation, and presumably retaining those recordings as it does with other voice-related products. It just looks like they’re making eye contact. And the text visible to the wearer is not visible to the person they’re talking to. Google’s “translation glasses,” on the other hand, neither have a camera nor do they look like cyborg implants - they look pretty much like ordinary glasses. The combination of these two hardware transgressions led critics to assert that Google Glass was simply not socially acceptable in polite company. Second, the excessive and conspicuous hardware made wearers look like cyborgs. (Google didn’t say whether their “translation glasses” would have a camera, but the prototype didn’t have one.) If you were talking to a Google Glass wearer, the camera was pointed right at you, making you wonder if you were being recorded. First, a forward-facing camera mounted on the headset made people uncomfortable. Google Glass critics slammed the product, mainly for two reasons.

GOOGLE TRAINSLATION BLUETOOTH

With permission granted by others, Bluetooth transmissions of contact data could display (on the glasses) who you’re talking to at a business event, and also your history with them. (That would be a heads-up display application, rather than AR.)īut imagine if the “translation glasses” were paired with a smartphone. But that visual data would be available in your glasses, hands-free, no matter where you are. It would be just like using a smart display with Google Assistant - a home appliance that delivers visual data, along with the normal audio data, from Google Assistant queries. One obviously powerful use for Google’s “translation glasses” would be to use them with Google Assistant. In the interim, most of it could be done with audio. These are the kinds of applications we’ll be waiting for visual AR to deliver in five years or more. It could be information about a specific product in a store. It could be information about a specific artifact in a museum. This text could be instructions for operating equipment.

GOOGLE TRAINSLATION CODE

A noise-generating device or smartphone app could send R2D2-like beeps and whistles, which could be processed in the cloud like an audio QR code which, once interpreted by servers, could return any information to be displayed on the glasses. The noise could even be encoded, like an old-time modem. The glasses could send any noise, and then display any text returned from the remote application. The applications for processing audio and returning actionable or informational contextual information are practically unlimited. In reality, the hardware sends noise to the cloud, and displays whatever text the cloud sends back. They could easily process any audio for any application and return any text or any audio to be consumed by the wearer. There's so much more the glasses could do! Audience members and the tech press reported on the translation function as the exclusive application for these glasses without any analytical or critical exploration, as far as I could tell. The most glaring fact that should have been mentioned in every report is that translation is just an arbitrary choice for processing audio data in the cloud.

Google trainslation