I imagine the folks at places like Apple and Google have huge smirks on their faces as they watch the media frenzy Amazon Fire has caused. Why? Because companies like Apple and Google ARE technology, that’s their whole reason for existing. In contrast to them, Amazon is more like a digital supermarket with competitively priced inventory, and the added advantage of delivering its goods directly to consumers. Increasing Internet sales is its number one goal, so Amazon continually creates new apps and devices to achieve it. The difference between Amazon and a company like Google is that Amazon doesn’t have a passion for creating innovative technology for the sake of being a heavy hitter in the tech community. Due to this difference, Amazon Fire will be intriguing, until it is quickly replaced with a significantly better product.

What sets Amazon Fire apart from other smartphones is its built in and specialized Augmented Reality interface. Augmented Reality (AR) provides a connection between the real world and the digital world with overlays of video, audio, 3-D content, and location-based information. AR is what users experience with Google Glass and apps created by companies like Metaio, Layar, and Aurasma. When using the Fire phone’s firefly feature, the phone can instantly identify an object, price it,  and provide an option to buy through Amazon. This is most certainly convenient; however the phone’s built in capabilities aren’t much different from the Amazon Flow app, which is already available for both Android and iOS phones.  Although Amazon has used AR in its effort to increase sales, it definitely isn’t the first company to experiment with this technology, and it is actually behind in the ability to capitalize on all the known AR capabilities.

The use of this technology for marketing and ads as well as within specific industries like real estate has evolved since the early 2000s. Metaio is one of the first companies to promote the use of Augmented Reality through print campaigns and consumer usable home design and decoration AR solutions. Metaio, a German company, was founded in 2003 by CEO Thomas Alt. For Alt, the creation of AR stemmed from a project with Volkswagen. To build upon this technology, Metaio was awarded a German government grant to continue the work, which resulted in the creation of Augmented Reality. Since Metaio’s inception, it  has remained at the forefront of AR innovation and truly envisions AR as the new frontier. While companies like Google have partnered with Blipper to create real-time interactive image recognition Augmented Reality for Google Glass, Metaio is far more advanced.  It’s moved on to thermal touch, to make the whole world a touchscreen.

So what is my point?  Augmented Reality is the main selling point that Amazon is using to entice consumers to buy the Amazon Fire phone, but the company isn’t even using the feature its greatest abilities. Amazon Fire’s AR capabilities are basic compared to the new innovations that companies like Metaio are creating. On top of that, companies like Google have already released AR products and are continuing to push the limits of those capabilities. Google is just perfecting its established  AR and waiting to have a monster release of a product that’ll be too amazing for most people to ignore. Amazon is at a clear disadvantage due to the priorities established in its business model compared to the business models of actual tech companies. Because of this difference, technology companies can dedicate their time and resources to improving products while  Amazon is happy to have a hot product until it quickly becomes obsolete.

Think about it, when is the last time someone bought a Kindle e-reader? I imagine Amazon Fire’s product life will parallel that: big explosion and quick fizzle out.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Billy Brown via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post That Amazon Fire Phone You Pre-Ordered is Already Outdated appeared first on Law Street.

As technological advances make our lives easier, will our laws need to change to keep up with the times? That is the question that tech fans are asking after a run-in between a California woman named Cecelia Abadie and the police. Abadie was wearing one of the newest innovations in tech trends: Google Glass.

The idea behind Google Glass is simple. It’s sort of like a smart phone, but completely hands-free, and it communicates with the wearer through motions and voice commands. While Google Glass currently cannot be worn in lieu of prescription glasses, developers are hoping to add an ability to contain a prescription in coming years. Applications available on Google Glass include video capture and streaming, Google Maps, Gmail, Evernote, and The New York Times, among others. More applications are expected to be released as the technology becomes more mainstream and affordable.

Currently, Google Glass is not fully available the public, but for those in the tech industry, such as testers or developers, an “Explorer Addition” is available for $1,500.

Abadie, 44, from Temecula, California, was driving down a San Diego Highway when she was pulled over for speeding. While writing up her ticket, the officer noticed that she was wearing Google Glass and cited her for distracted driving. California Vehicle Code 27602 states that it is illegal to, “”drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.” According to California law, the mandatory minimum fine is $162.

Abadie claims that the glasses were turned off at the time of her arrest. The cop cited her because the monitor was in her view and because Google Glass has a small square in the top right corner that could block a person’s view. After returning home, she posted a photo of the ticket she received to some of her online profiles. Much of the feedback that she received encouraged her to take the ticket to court and fight it. She says she believes that whether or not the ticket gets upheld depends on the judge’s feelings towards technology. She stated, “It’s all in how a judge will interpret it and I suspect their love or hate and understanding of the technology might help or the opposite.”

It seems clear that many of the functions of Google Glass—such as video streaming and web browsing, fall firmly into the category of distracted driving. But there’s also some grey area with Google Glass. Google Glass does contain the potential for navigation software. That type of software, such as a hands-free GPS device, is usually exempted from distracted driving laws. Whether or not Google Glass is ever used for that kind of purpose could change whether or not it is considered distracted driving. However, that raises another important issue: how would officers be able to tell if someone they pull over is using Google Glass for navigation, or for something else?

It’s important to note that Google Glass has presented itself as a program to be used while driving. In the manual, it states that Glass can provide directions, whether “whether you’re on a bike, in a car, taking the subway, or going by foot.” However, the Glass FAQ does also point out that many states have laws preventing the use of such technology while driving. Some states have introduced legislation that specifically prevents the type of technology that Glass uses. West Virginia and Arizona specifically have created amendments that forbid drivers from “using a wearable computer with head mounted display.”

Technology often is ahead of law. I highly doubt that Google Glass will become a norm the way that using a GPS while driving has, but as this new technology develops so quickly, it may become difficult for law enforcement to keep pace. That being said, until Google Glass’s place within driving law becomes regularly accepted, intrepid tech-fans who are trying them out should assume that if they get caught driving while wearing Glass, they will pay the price.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Glasses: a Whole New Level of Distracted Driving appeared first on Law Street.