Technophiles rejoice: Cicret bracelet aims to turn your arm into 'new tablet'

[Mr. Ambien]

You mean what people in "Canada" want is the cheaper data plan. Anywhere else in the world, data plans are relatively much cheaper and many places already offer unlimited LTE for a cheap price. Just too bad that the Canadian telecoms are still living in 1990's.

No doubt the big three are very anti-competitive. Hell, even in the US, as well, it's pretty similar, but much worse here. I find it funny given how much the US gets bashed for corporatism, people ignore that we have it worse and it's far more accepted by the population. You see how quickly they're upgrading speeds and the ability to hit ridiculously low caps. Prices are rising on data, along with speeds, and bandwidth of content people use data for has shot through the roof (a 1080p HD movie trailer is sometimes over 100MB in size -- like $5 of data to watch one trailer), yet they've been stalling on raising data caps and upgrading infrastructure because the over-stepping government doesn't allow competition.

Anyways, I like this technology regardless. It's far more convenient, and don't have to worry about dropping it (not worried about looking silly, already wear big class rings (high school, two colleges) and my wedding ring with sapphires and white diamonds. If it lives up to the hype (always sceptical of this) and functions well enough, I'd go back to having a crappy non-smart phone ($20/month less and cheaper to pay for) and just throw this on the family plan as a tablet (+$10) if it gets good enough cell data signals and has WiFi capability. Just hope it doesn't turn off and on while fapping.

[taxi]

Before 2007 we were satisfied with a mobile phone we could text with. When smart phones came out it was groundbreaking. We dont know what the next level is yet so saying we will be satisfied with what we have when it is revealed is just wrong.

Yeah...but I just don't see the benefit of having my phone on my forearm. And for every innovation there are many technologies that fall by the wayside.

[taxi]

Before 2007 we were satisfied with a mobile phone we could text with. When smart phones came out it was groundbreaking. We dont know what the next level is yet so saying we will be satisfied with what we have when it is revealed is just wrong.

Yeah...but I just don't see the benefit of having my phone on my forearm. And for every innovation there are many technologies that fall by the wayside.

[Offensive Threat]

Yeah...but I just don't see the benefit of having my phone on my forearm. And for every innovation there are many technologies that fall by the wayside.

You dont need a fortune teller to know this will go by the wayside.

[Grapefruits]

just curious, do you have any issues with remote controls for televisions, search engines, calculators, and mobile phones in general?

at what point do you consider technology more than being 'hip'?

should people still be using tv tuner knobs, rotary phones, and paper for their math problems?

I have a bit of an issue with the widespread acceptance of the calculator, many can't even do simple math because of it.

As for this product, just another thing to keep a person distracted while they should be paying attention to their surroundings.

[Mr. Ambien]

I have a bit of an issue with the widespread acceptance of the calculator, many can't even do simple math because of it.

As for this product, just another thing to keep a person distracted while they should be paying attention to their surroundings.

They teach math in school. Products like this are, like most technology, about making things easier.

As a guy, I don't carry a purse around, nor am I a bundle of sticks who carries around a fanny pack, so I'd have nothing to put a tablet into. On the other hand, if I wanted to spontaneously purchase tickets on the way to a theatre to avoid waiting in line, I could have my wife drive and use this thing to purchase tickets without ever having to whip out a phone/tablet/phablet, or even needing to remember to. It takes away the factor of needing to buy screen protectors and cases, or worry about dropping the device.

There's significant use one could make of technology like this, and the benefits of technology is making life easier.

The impracticality of Google Glass isn't the technology, it's the ridiculous costs of data. Probably a similar hindrance on this product, but I think I said earlier, I'd ditch my Note 3 when it goes kaput, then just get a crappy talk-text phone, and add this device as a tablet to our family plan.

[KFBR392]

"The inventors say they need 700,000 to finish the first prototype of the bracelet and 300,000 to develop the Cicret App for all platforms. If their crowdsourcing proves successful, the Cicret bracelet is planned to be available in 10 colors and two drive sizes - 16 and 32 GB."

So let me get this straight... the general public is funding the creation of a for profit product that's privately owned?

Who needs equity investors when you have suckers on the Internet.

[Offensive Threat]

"The inventors say they need 700,000 to finish the first prototype of the bracelet and 300,000 to develop the Cicret App for all platforms. If their crowdsourcing proves successful, the Cicret bracelet is planned to be available in 10 colors and two drive sizes - 16 and 32 GB."

So let me get this straight... the general public is funding the creation of a for profit product that's privately owned?

Who needs equity investors when you have suckers on the Internet.

Commercial products like this is one of the main things that bug me about crowdsourcing. They have obviously shopped this product around to companies and angel investors already and they all turned them down. Because A ) the tech doesnt and wont work or B ) its not a viable product (people wont buy it). When you get to that point its time to rework it and try again or move on to something else. Crowdsourcing at that point seems like beating a dead horse or just trying to recoup some of your investment from suckers. The people who fund this...are they stupid? would you buy stock in a company if that stock is guaranteed to be worthless even if the company succeeds? That seems stupid.

[Mr. Ambien]

Commercial products like this is one of the main things that bug me about crowdsourcing. They have obviously shopped this product around to companies and angel investors already and they all turned them down. Because A ) the tech doesnt and wont work or B ) its not a viable product (people wont buy it). When you get to that point its time to rework it and try again or move on to something else. Crowdsourcing at that point seems like beating a dead horse or just trying to recoup some of your investment from suckers. The people who fund this...are they stupid? would you buy stock in a company if that stock is guaranteed to be worthless even if the company succeeds? That seems stupid.

If the financial crisis or professional leagues aren't a clue, it's all about using the public to finance private risk nowadays, while same private companies benefit with the rewards, yet can fall back on taxpayers if their investment goes sour. Phoenix Coyotes anyone?