Beyond Google Glass: The cybernetic headband

Beyond Google Glass: The cybernetic headband

Summary: Google has its own vision for wearable computing that locks you into their ecosystem. How about an open specification for wearable human interface devices instead?


Over the last few weeks, I've written quite a bit about Google Glass.

I've discussed the changes in social norms that will be needed if wearable computing truly becomes mainstream.

I've warned about the potential for misuse and abuse if Glass' software becomes compromised, and if hacked devices get in the hands of sociopaths.

I've talked about the potential industry pitfalls for Glass, as well as a potential path for monetization success in addition to various applications in vertical markets.

I've made suggestions for possible design improvements in successive iterations of the product.

And finally, I've taken a peek into the future, some 20 years hence, to see what the future of augmented reality might look like if we take the technology to its logical conclusion: Complete integration with the human brain, as depicted in the 1983 Douglas Trumbull film Brainstorm.

Human to cybernetic interfaces like I described in the last piece are probably a long ways off.

But if we are to take Glass at face value, and if we are to acknowledge that this is a potential path (of which I believe there are many) for personal computing, then we should probably explore what the near future might bring.

Today, we refer to Glass and other potential products that might emerge like it as "wearable computing devices". I include devices such as smart watches  like the rumored "iWatch"  and other wrist-mounted computing devices in this category as well.

I have a better term for this that I think might be catchy. Glass is a Cybernetic Headband, or a "Cyband" for short.

Today, Glass is the only Cyband on the market. But there could be others.

Google is attempting to set a standard with Glass by being the first product on the market. Sometimes, you succeed in that approach, and sometimes you fail. The market and consumer response is what determines the end result.

What if ... instead of there being different, competing Cyband hardware with embedded OSes and their own application standards, we were to take a completely vendor-neutral approach? What if Cybands were simply just peripherals that talked wirelessly to smartphones and other computing devices using open standards?

First and foremost, I beleive there should be certain basic design principles and assumptions about what Cybands should be.

A Cyband should not be a standalone computing device. Google Glass violates this basic principle out of the box by running on a sophisticated, power-hungry SoC with a complex embedded OS, with large amounts of localized storage, which in turn requires a smartphone or a wireless network to provide the necessary cloud connectivity.

This is wasteful, not just on power consumption, but also computing resources, and adds a layer of complexity and security risk that is currently unnaceptable.

A Cyband should be a Bluetooth 4.0/wi-fi device that acts strictly as an external sensor network and human interface controls for another computing device, such as a smartphone, which in turn provides the application logic and presentation layer to the Cyband.

It should use a low-power microcontroller, such as an ARM Cortex M, to provide basic firmware and control logic, nothing more.

A correct implementation of a Cyband as I define this today would be the Pebble smartwatch, for example, even though its capabilities are limited. Something a bit closer to a full-capability, vendor-neutral Cyband might be the soon-to-be released m100 by Vuzix.

Sensors on a Cyband would include cameras, eye and hand gesture detection, microphones, GPS, accelerometers, gyroscopes, heartbeat/pulse monitors, pedometers, proximity detectors, and photocells, induction charging components, battery monitoring, signal monitoring (such as to determine Bluetooth or wi-fi signal health), as well as RFID tags for "Antiglass" policy enforcement.

A human feedback control would include the monocular display, touch sensor(s), and buttons, as well as audio playback, among others.

To tie all of this together, you would need a published, open standard for a Cyband communications API that could be adopted by anyone that produces smartphones, tablets, personal computers, and the OSes they run on.

This means that if you had a Cyband, you could use it interchangeably on systems that ran Android, iOS, Mac OS, and any variant of Windows. Each of these OSes could have "Cyband presentation and interaction modes" for applications running on those platforms.

Today, we have similar open specifications for networking, microphone input, and audio streaming with Bluetooth 4.0. The various operating systems implement their support differently, however it's pretty much a given that if you have a Bluetooth device that meets a certain minimum specification, it works with all OSes provided that they also meet those specifications and support all of the device's capabilities.

Such would be the same with Cybands. And because Cybands would essentially be Bluetooth headsets (and wristbands) on sensor and feedback steroids, any of the usual suspects, such as Plantronics, Logitech, SONY, LG, Jabra, Jawbone, Bose, and Sennheiser could make them, among the obvious others.  

This would bring the cost of Cybands down to reasonable levels, and allow all of the application platforms that support augmented reality, lifelogging, and wearable computing to win (or lose) mindshare on their respective merits.

Do we need an open specification for Cybands? Talk back and let me know. 

Topics: Emerging Tech, Android, Google, Hardware, iOS, Windows


Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet, is a technologist with over two decades of experience integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies. Jason is currently a Partner Technology Strategist with Microsoft Corp. His expressed views do not necessarily represent those of his employer.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Why bother

    What I find interesting about Google Glass is that.. nobody is talking about it. Not on Twitter, not on Facebook. Not at school, not at work, not over coffee, not at the kitchen table.


    The term 'nobody' may be too harsh a word here, since a few bloggers and other tech writers have blogged about the device. Maybe a small tidbit on the six o'clock news. A few rich kids who want one for the novelty and to say they have one. No one seems excited about it. Its like watching a tumbleweed slowly work its way across a barren desert. Hardly tantamount to being something revolutionary.

    And I think that is all one really needs to know about Google Glass. It joins the list of 'devices' that all claim to make our lives easier, but never quite did. Cuecat. Segway. Robovacuum. Google Glass. The truth, in fact, is that tend to make our lives far more complicated than they need to be.

    Or maybe it was just too late to the party.
  • "Nobody" talking about a product not yet released

    Yes, the term "nobody" is too harsh a word. The job of tech writers is, in part, to write about hot, new UPCOMING tech. The job of more mainstream news writers is to write about news. Of course they're not going to extensively cover something that isn't even available yet. Despite that, I've seen some commentary from non-tech type outlets.

    As to Jason's closing question: "should" or not, there will be open spec competition. I do agree that a "cyband" (I like the name) built strictly as a HID is a better solution than a complete package. A little surprised Google chose to go that way - but it makes a certain amount of sense: they want to completely control the experience of the initial foray into the market, to have the best chance of being accepted by the public. In the future, Google and all other players will almost certainly switch to an open standard.

    Personally, I expect to see wristwatches make a comeback as fully functional PC-equivalents. With a (very) limited interface on them, they will tie in to my 100" wall TV, my triple 30" monitor set up, my 10" portable flexiscreen, or my cyband.
  • It's about sensory networking.

    People make the mistake of stopping at what Glass is now. Apparently, they are oblivious to what it points to. There is a reason it mounts over the eye. One day, it will MERGE with the eye. Then both eyes. Then the ears. Today, Glass, tomorrow, corneal implant screens, subcutaneous implant mic/phones. The data part is ancillary. The sensory part is the omega.

    This is the beginning -- a primitive beginning -- of the next epoch in human evolution: sensory networking. Soon, we'll see effortlessly, and at will, through one another's eyes, hear through one another's ears. We won't just communicate but share subjective experience. This is huge. The implications are tremendous and scary.

    Not the Borg, which Glass reminds me of, because we can unplug ourselves from the network at will. But, and here's the scary part, will we want to?

    This is what Glass is really about.
  • Glass is NOT the only Cyband on the market - VUZIX CORPORATION - VZX.V

    Google Glass is much talked about, but its not the only player in the market, VUZIX Corp have been in the market of producing AR for many years and have been working on the M100 range of wearable device. It plans to release in advance of Glass at half the price ($) and importantly will run on an open environment. Software development kits sold out !!! - patents,patents.patents and tie in's with the likes of Nokia and SAP.

    It aint all about Google !!!!!!!!!!!
  • Glas is an interesting idea, but frankly not novel or even new

    IBM's wearable computer division had a similar device in 1994. Gave equivalent of a 50" tv screen 5 feet in front of you. Was a peripheral and really cool looking vs Google glass.

    I agree that a peripheral approach rathe than a computer on your ear is a better choice.

    Could be augmented by incremental devices which address other issues (i.e. navigational assistance for sight impaired, data storage modules, night vision, radar etc. which is overlaid on the HUD display. This would be useful for things like seeing underground utility pipes, wires, cables, etc, "Radar vision" via fog, smoke, or other vision obscuring environments (including darkness). Wearable scanner for terrorist screening (using sensor Terrahertz camera to obtain xray like photos in real time.