[Femur]

I'd say for the most part nearly all of the technology Kurzweil predicts ends up being available, it is just the implementation of this technology that muddles the prediction.

In Kurzweil's talks he often expounds on the high predictability of technological progress (price and power of computing, etc). He does not so much cover how humans will use this tech.

Im sure that iPod Nano's (or equivalent) could easily have been embedded or sewn into clothing or hats for years now. Speech-to-text is available now and I use it in Google Voice all the time. It's a matter of choice in this case, not the technology.

[roc]

There have been plenty of concept bluetooth rings and watches as well. Technologically they're quite doable and even offer some neat features. None have yet resonated with society enough to be common, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if these caught on in a more significant way much closer to 2009 than 2019; particularly as peripherals integrating wirelessly with a primary personal computer (phone).

[Retric]

The problem with wearable computing has always been how much it costs. People don't want to wear the same thing every day and washing machines and dryers are extremely harsh on electronics. Stepping outside the classics like wrist, ear, and eye is going to require a dramatic advantage. Cell phone watches are possible but holding your risk up to your ear is uncomfortable.

PS: IMO eyewear is the final external location for electronics, but it's going to need to be extreamly light, inexpensive and useful to make it there. Some sort of adaptive bifocal technology that watches your eyes and auto focuses might be the first winner.

[mpk]

A mix of jewelry and electronics going mainstream is pretty unlikely.

Jewelry tends to be expensive and retain value over very long periods of time. Electronics tend to be pricey at first (but cheap relative to jewelry) but become obsolete and thrown in the trash very quickly.

[teej]

I don't think that's right. Sure, there is jewelry that retains value, but that jewelry is composed of three things - gold, silver, and diamonds. It's the material that's retaining value, not the item.

We are already seeing a huge wave in the crossover between electronics and fashion accessories. The Motorola RAZR heralded the beginning of this wave - a phone that was "cool" to have. Apple is riding this wave with it's line of designer laptops, phones, and music devices.

Accessories, which includes cheap jewelry, follow the same value path as electronics: expensive and quickly depreciating. I don't know if I would have predicted it 10 years ago, but it's certainly happening now.

[roc]

Wearables are destined as peripherals, precisely because it only makes sense to choose a wearable over the computer itself when the ergonomics and use cases are superior.

So a cell phone watch is a trivial non-starter. But a bluetooth watch, subservient to the phone, delivering accurate time, calendar information and message notification without having to reach into your pocket and enter your lock code, is a different thing.

Similarly, a necklace recording device would be ideal for hands-free audio/video recording to your primary device. Who wouldn't want a trip video they didn't even have to remember to record? Not to mention a necklace/earring combo that acted as a bluetooth headset.

Eyewear definitely has a lot of promise, but I'm not entirely sold on it needing to be inexpensive. People pay a lot for stylish eyewear. So I don't doubt people will pay quite a bit for eyewear with features. However, it also suggests that eyewear electronics are dead in the water until they're stylish.

The watch and jewelry really isn't that far out there. Particularly during years when chunky jewelry is in style.

[dagw]

The technology is already here. The bluetooth watch you talk about is in the stores. As you and others have mentioned, it's not a tech problem, but style problem. We have to stop throwing engineers at the problem and start throwing fashion designers.