I wanted to thank you for your insight and expertise revealed in the Steve Gillmor piece. I'm a computer neophyte, a lawyer by trade, but I love reading about the general trends. I loved the quote from William Gibson. ["The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet." Noted in Tim's Inventing the Future.] Along those lines and that of the network being the platform, what role/significance do you see wearable computers having in the "future." (I'm speaking specifically of computers similar to those manufactured by companies like Xybernaut.)

Thanks in advance,

Merrill Earnest

Wearables are a classic case of the hackers showing us where technology will take the everyday consumer all too soon. Folks like Steve Mann or Thad Starner may seem like they are really "out there" now, but in fact, I believe that a lot of what they do will be routine for many people in only a few years.

Just think how many people you see walking around with a cell phone earpiece seemingly glued in, as much a part of their wardrobe as a wristwatch. When a heads-up display can fit in a pair of glasses, and a microphone on your throat, when speech interaction with computers is more widespread and the global network tracks our location so that it can respond more appropriately, you can bet that there will be widespread consumer applications of this technology.

Remember when the Dick Tracy communicator watch seemed like something out of science fiction? We're in that future, just not with an all-in-one device. There are already people with cameras on their PDAs, beaming the shots to friends over cell modems.

As I said in my article, it starts with techies who mix and match existing technologies. Then comes a stage of integration, in which separate functions are rolled together. And of course it all gets smaller.

So yes, wearable computing is a big part of the future for all of us. I wish I could tell you when all the pieces will come together, but I'm just looking at this from the cheap seats. I can see the pattern, but not the details.

Jon, do you have anything to add?

[ O'Reilly editor Jon Orwant writes: ]

Wearable computing will arrive as soon as society stops laughing at it. Ten years ago, the barrier to widespread wearable computing was the technology. Where do you put a computer on your body? How can you power it? How do you look at the screen? How can you type at it? Now those problems have been solved, more or less.

The barrier is now something less amenable to forecasting than transistor density or disk capacity: the barrier is social acceptance. When you can wear a computer and walk from one end of the mall to the other without people sniggering, that's when you know the world is ready. I don't know when Miss Manners will toss off her first column about how the etiquette of suspending your dinner conversation to replay audio of that great joke you heard at the office, but I bet it doesn't happen until a decade after you see wearable computers on MTV or "Party of Five" or wherever teenagers get their apparel instructions these days.

We've gotten used to gadgets like cell phones and Palm Pilots. They require context switches: either you've got a phone clamped to your ear or you don't; either you're pecking away at your Pilot or you're not. You're making specific and noticeable motions with your body, and that is what renders them awkward for continuous use. Contrast that with the one common piece of wearable computing today: watches. You don't activate a watch so much as glance at it, which is why we think of it as closer to clothing than a computer. (Bear in mind that most "analog" watches are actually 32kHz embedded digital computers. If your watch isn't the type you wind, you're wearing a computer.)

And that is how future wearable computers will insinuate themselves into our lives: gradually, as fashion rather than gadgets, and purchased at Abercrombie & Fitch and not Radio Shack. Wearable computers will have to integrate into our clothing seamlessly--and I really do mean without seams--so it doesn't look like we're going to a "Star Trek" convention every time we step outside. Either that, or culture has to change so that people don't poke fun at us if we stumble around with a monitor two inches from our eyes. Since disdain for Trekkies is part of our society's mutual social contract, I'm betting on seamlessness.

Watches have an easy time being treated as fashion rather than gadgets. Since they only perform one infrequently needed task--telling the time--they don't need much of our attention. A general purpose wearable computer might record audio, emit audio and video, and let us type at it. Audio is easy, since sound travels around corners; there are lots of places on our bodies to hide microphones and speakers and they'll work just fine. Typing is getting there, thanks to one-handed grippable keyboards like the Twiddler. Video is harder, since if we want to be able to read our displays while performing other activities (such as walking), we need heads-up displays like the Xybernaut, which are still expensive but getting cheaper--and more importantly, smaller.

It'll happen eventually. In 2010, I expect to be buying pants with Unix pre-installed.

Tim O'Reilly and Jon Orwant

Got a question? Just ask!