7 ms·

Thoughts on Google Glass

37 points by jordw 13y ago

randallsquared 13y ago
It's confusing that people at Wired found Matt Honan's Glass weird. I also work at a news outlet (NPR), and I have a co-worker who wears Glass during the workday (not every day, but enough that I notice). I've never seen anything but polite interest.
- allsystemsgo 13y ago
  I agree. I work at a small mobile dev shop. At least 10 people there own Glass. No one cares.
justina1 13y ago
Mat Honan's article was a valuable critique. And interesting. Gruber's reaction on the other hand... > It’s a cool lab demo that they’re presenting as a finished product. Google couldn't be any more clear that it is a beta and they've never once said that the current price is what it will hit the market at (or if it will hit the market, for that matter). So that's just flat out wrong. > It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does. Again, assuming it's a mass market product and not the experiment in wearable computing it is. > In the meantime, to me, Google Glass is the new Tablet PC. And there it is. Glass is Microsoft's failed foray into tablet computing. He's not even sure that this form factor will be popular, yet he compares it to a technology that took off in spite of an initially poor execution. He's convinced it will succeed, I guess, when someone other than Google does it. I wonder who he has in mind.
- reidmain 13y ago
  They said they are going to release a consumer version in 2014. Perhaps something is going to drastically change but the vibe that I get is they are beta testing it so they are hammering out bugs and other rough edges not looking to drastically overhaul the hardware or software.
  - MBCook 13y ago
    > Perhaps something is going to drastically change but the vibe that I get is they are beta testing it so they are hammering out bugs and other rough edges not looking to drastically overhaul the hardware or software. I remember listening to people discuss Glass on a couple of podcasts after it was released and this is the one thing that sticks in my mind from the reviews. While Google called it a beta, the reviewers said it felt more like an alpha or an engineering sample than a beta product.
ajre 13y ago
Google could probably price the glass for just a few hundred dollars, but they don't. Why? Because Glass is not yet a polished consumer product with apps/features that create a compelling reason to wear them all the time. Google is releasing them intentionally to 'thought leaders' who will critique and come up with the ideas for features that will make Glass broadly compelling to consumers. By the time Glass is released as a mass market product it will already have app store loaded with apps. Seems like a simple strategy!
vinkelhake 13y ago
It’s a cool lab demo that they’re presenting as a finished product. They do? It seems to me that they've been looking for early adopters that can provide feedback. It'll be a finished product once it's available for order on Google Play.
- reidmain 13y ago
  They've said that they are going to release the consumer version in 2014. Sure it could drastically change from what a developer could be receiving in December 2013 but odds are it is going to be stuff like the price that changes the most, not the actual hardware.
  - turing 13y ago
    That's not really relevant. The point was that Gruber stated that Google is presenting Glass as a finished product, which is something they have never done.
    - reidmain 13y ago
      Based on this website they are putting A LOT into presenting it to the public as pretty polished http://www.google.com/glass/start/ http://www.google.com/glass/start/ That isn't a developer website that is a website designed by marketing.
  - magicalist 13y ago
    Glass uses a TI SoC, and TI doesn't make SoCs anymore, so the odds are actually quite high that the hardware will be making a change before going into mass production. It was actually a surprise when they did a feature bump in October and it was still on an OMAP. A hardware change makes a lot of sense, besides. It's running slightly older phone hardware, but its still phone hardware. It would be silly to say that "odds are" a new phone coming out a year (or even 6 months) after the last version would be keeping the same hardware; I see no reason to assume that here. As long as you can keep power usage down (or lower) and heat down (or lower), there's no reason why you wouldn't upgrade from what's essentially a phone from 2011.
allsystemsgo 13y ago
I disagree. I own Glass. 99.9% of people who see me wearing them want to know more about them. They want to try them on and experience glass. And of course, I let them give Glass a whirl. They love it. Yes it's WAY too pricey but, it's still awesome. I don't find them that unattractive. I look at it like, "I'm at a sporting/concert event and I obviously want to take pictures, so I'm wearing this, which is more convenient." Once I explain that to people, they totally get why I'm wearing Glass. Glass makes sense and it's a step in the right direction for wearable computing. At least for now. My gripes: It needs Bluetooth LE. I'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support notifications at least. iOS is hamstrung until I can send iMessages. I don't see that changing. Swiping through all the cards can be kind of a nuisance. Battery life. Google is a software company so, I imagine the more Apple opens up their notifications etc, the better Glass will get.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  It needs Bluetooth LE. I'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support notifications at least. Does Android even support BLE yet in a way that's accessible and standardized across hardware manufacturers? I was looking at doing some work with Bluetooth LE last year but was amazed at the lack of attention Google was putting into it. It seemed likely they were going to ignore it altogether for a while.
  - allsystemsgo 13y ago
    Not sure. Like I said, I'm an iOS dev. I think the most recent version of android does?
  - nickbarnwell 13y ago
    Android 4.3 brought about much improved BLE support [1]. Unfortunately, driver support from manufacturers is still fairly limited, and hasn't been appearing very quickly. [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19717902/does-android-kitkat-allows-devices-that-support-bluetooth-le-to-act-as-a-periphe http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19717902/does-android-kit...
- reidmain 13y ago
jwcooper 13y ago
I like gadgets and various electronics, but for some reason Glass just rubs me the wrong way. I'm not sure if it's because of the 'creep factor' or what. I guess I'm just not ready for a society always recording everything. I can't even imagine what high school would be like. One embarrassing thing happens, and 30 people have it recorded, uploaded to the internet, and commenting on it in minutes. I guess that could already happen with phones, but at least right now not everything is being recorded at every minute by every person. If Glass use does become widespread, I have a feeling many private companies, such as restaurants, and malls will ban its use indoors, which would make it a pain to use (especially if it's connected to your prescription glasses!).
- deckiedan 13y ago
  I could imagine an 'off'/airplane mode with a visible red LED on top or something, which, in such a small device clamped to your glasses would be fairly visible, and hard to fake/hack. Alternatively, some kind of wifi/3g blocker or jammer, could be the answer. In some ways it might make sense to use a polite version of that, where devices would 'hear' a wifi SSID signal, or whatever, with a 'this is a private place, no creepiness, please' signal embedded in it. To stop denial of service, or only having official jamming, you could have that privacy signal location specific, with a Lat/Long GPS position, and then the whole thing signed against a central server (probably google, but a non-Profit would probably be ideal), so that people couldn't wander around with portable jammers. Then shopping centers, schools, private homes, resturants, etc, could easily register for a code, plonk it on a jammer or other wifi router, and behold, an illusion of privacy. If there were government regulation about devices having to obey such signals to be legal for use, then I could see it working.
  - skyebook 13y ago
    Maybe this is naive of me, but I don't really look forward to a future where I walk around making sure people in my vicinity are glowing red (or green, for when I do something heroic).. I realize that having some indicator is a huge plus over having nothing but it just feels so sterile. Perhaps this is as much a reaction to always-on everything, but there's something especially off-putting about taking the concept of eye contact and making it a consumable, recordable activity. Technology thus far hasn't really encroached on or been able to imitate this face to face interaction.. > Alternatively, some kind of wifi/3g blocker or jammer, could be the answer. I know that in much of the US these devices are illegal, wouldn't be surprised about other places.
cargo8 13y ago
> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does. To me, that’s everything. Same thing with all existing smartwatches — the problem isn’t the idea, it’s the actual execution. There are no points for being first to market with a bad product. This is just wrong. Google gains massive points in my book for putting something like Glass out there. They get points for showing the world a glimpse of what the future can be, and getting everyone else to think about it. The wearables revolution was started with Glass, and whether or not Glass ends up being the flagship product of the wearables market it doesn't matter. Google started it either way.
- acgourley 13y ago
  His point is that no one remembers the Tablet PC and everyone remembers the iPad. But that's a really weak argument to me. The Tablet PC didn't just fail because the form factor was 10 years too early and because the design missed the mark... but because the product was abandoned. If Google keeps up, stays hungry and keeps working through the early issues they can come out as the market leader just as easy as Apple or whomever tries to follow.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    My HP tc1100 has about the same functionality as a 1st gen iPad, only with more RAM, 1/5th the battery life, resistive stylus screen, and twice the weight. That's what it means that it was "10 years too early." That said, HP was a premier tech company in its day, and the tc1100 was a tour-de force of industrial time for its time. If Google Glass is the best one of the premier tech companies can do now, then it's clearly too early.
    - 51Cards 13y ago
      There is no such thing as being "too early" to market. That is how you cut your teeth, learn and get ahead. You fail when you give up on the idea (or are proven that it will never catch on... either way). However if you create a product that eventually takes off, and if you continue to iterate it and not abandon it, you can't be too early. And, if nothing else, it is 100x less risky to be too early, than too late.
ojbyrne 13y ago
When I heard that Strava was on it, I instantly wanted one (and had no interest beforehand). Sports is to wearables what the spreadsheet was to the PC.
julianpye 13y ago
What surprises me always is that people act as if Glass was the first of its kind. The tech has been around for ages and actually Glass is very poor in terms of its holographic projection technology. What is new is that Google is the first company who is really serious about this and has the guts about it flying in the face of negative publicity, not shying away from its weirdness for many people. I led an AR/VR project at Vodafone using Sony's far superior tech with local startups and the project while technically successful didn't make it past the prototype stage. All there is: Google has really high innovation reputation, they can shape the market even if it 'feels weird', that is why the article is spot on saying it 'will help grease the wheels for social acceptance'.
laureny 13y ago
It's quite entertaining to see Gruber struggle so much with the idea that Google has out innovated Apple. You can tell he really wishes he could say that everything about Google Glass sucks but deep inside, he knows that Google is onto something, so he ends up making a weak, half positive and half negative point about the product. He knows deep inside that regardless of how Google Glass (and wearable glasses in general) fare in the future that Google has out innovated Apple, and he's really having a hard time coming to terms with that idea.
- corin_ 13y ago
  I read it more that he's expecting Apple to be the company that comes along with the sexy, socially-acceptable version of Google Glass that takes it mainstream. Admittedly based more on the author than his words.
  - laureny 13y ago
    And that might very well happen, but if it does, it will still be described as Apple copying Google, which probably drives Gruber crazy. Personally, I think that the simple fact that Google came up with the idea means that Apple will never create such a product.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rahimnathwani 13y ago
"we won’t be able to tell who’s wearing built-in-HUD-and-camera glasses and who’s just wearing regular glasses" Oh no! I might have to get laser eye surgery and stop wearing glasses.

37 points by jordw 13y ago

It's confusing that people at Wired found Matt Honan's Glass weird. I also work at a news outlet (NPR), and I have a co-worker who wears Glass during the workday (not every day, but enough that I notice). I've never seen anything but polite interest.

allsystemsgo 13y ago
I agree. I work at a small mobile dev shop. At least 10 people there own Glass. No one cares.

justina1 13y ago

Mat Honan's article was a valuable critique. And interesting. Gruber's reaction on the other hand... > It’s a cool lab demo that they’re presenting as a finished product. Google couldn't be any more clear that it is a beta and they've never once said that the current price is what it will hit the market at (or if it will hit the market, for that matter). So that's just flat out wrong. > It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does. Again, assuming it's a mass market product and not the experiment in wearable computing it is. > In the meantime, to me, Google Glass is the new Tablet PC. And there it is. Glass is Microsoft's failed foray into tablet computing. He's not even sure that this form factor will be popular, yet he compares it to a technology that took off in spite of an initially poor execution. He's convinced it will succeed, I guess, when someone other than Google does it. I wonder who he has in mind.

reidmain 13y ago
They said they are going to release a consumer version in 2014. Perhaps something is going to drastically change but the vibe that I get is they are beta testing it so they are hammering out bugs and other rough edges not looking to drastically overhaul the hardware or software.
- MBCook 13y ago
  > Perhaps something is going to drastically change but the vibe that I get is they are beta testing it so they are hammering out bugs and other rough edges not looking to drastically overhaul the hardware or software. I remember listening to people discuss Glass on a couple of podcasts after it was released and this is the one thing that sticks in my mind from the reviews. While Google called it a beta, the reviewers said it felt more like an alpha or an engineering sample than a beta product.

ajre 13y ago

Google could probably price the glass for just a few hundred dollars, but they don't. Why? Because Glass is not yet a polished consumer product with apps/features that create a compelling reason to wear them all the time. Google is releasing them intentionally to 'thought leaders' who will critique and come up with the ideas for features that will make Glass broadly compelling to consumers. By the time Glass is released as a mass market product it will already have app store loaded with apps. Seems like a simple strategy!

vinkelhake 13y ago

It’s a cool lab demo that they’re presenting as a finished product. They do? It seems to me that they've been looking for early adopters that can provide feedback. It'll be a finished product once it's available for order on Google Play.

reidmain 13y ago
They've said that they are going to release the consumer version in 2014. Sure it could drastically change from what a developer could be receiving in December 2013 but odds are it is going to be stuff like the price that changes the most, not the actual hardware.
- turing 13y ago
  That's not really relevant. The point was that Gruber stated that Google is presenting Glass as a finished product, which is something they have never done.
  - reidmain 13y ago
    Based on this website they are putting A LOT into presenting it to the public as pretty polished http://www.google.com/glass/start/ http://www.google.com/glass/start/ That isn't a developer website that is a website designed by marketing.
- magicalist 13y ago
  Glass uses a TI SoC, and TI doesn't make SoCs anymore, so the odds are actually quite high that the hardware will be making a change before going into mass production. It was actually a surprise when they did a feature bump in October and it was still on an OMAP. A hardware change makes a lot of sense, besides. It's running slightly older phone hardware, but its still phone hardware. It would be silly to say that "odds are" a new phone coming out a year (or even 6 months) after the last version would be keeping the same hardware; I see no reason to assume that here. As long as you can keep power usage down (or lower) and heat down (or lower), there's no reason why you wouldn't upgrade from what's essentially a phone from 2011.

allsystemsgo 13y ago

I disagree. I own Glass. 99.9% of people who see me wearing them want to know more about them. They want to try them on and experience glass. And of course, I let them give Glass a whirl. They love it. Yes it's WAY too pricey but, it's still awesome. I don't find them that unattractive. I look at it like, "I'm at a sporting/concert event and I obviously want to take pictures, so I'm wearing this, which is more convenient." Once I explain that to people, they totally get why I'm wearing Glass. Glass makes sense and it's a step in the right direction for wearable computing. At least for now. My gripes: It needs Bluetooth LE. I'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support notifications at least. iOS is hamstrung until I can send iMessages. I don't see that changing. Swiping through all the cards can be kind of a nuisance. Battery life. Google is a software company so, I imagine the more Apple opens up their notifications etc, the better Glass will get.

CamperBob2 13y ago
It needs Bluetooth LE. I'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support notifications at least. Does Android even support BLE yet in a way that's accessible and standardized across hardware manufacturers? I was looking at doing some work with Bluetooth LE last year but was amazed at the lack of attention Google was putting into it. It seemed likely they were going to ignore it altogether for a while.
- allsystemsgo 13y ago
  Not sure. Like I said, I'm an iOS dev. I think the most recent version of android does?
- nickbarnwell 13y ago
  Android 4.3 brought about much improved BLE support [1]. Unfortunately, driver support from manufacturers is still fairly limited, and hasn't been appearing very quickly. [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19717902/does-android-kitkat-allows-devices-that-support-bluetooth-le-to-act-as-a-periphe http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19717902/does-android-kit...
reidmain 13y ago

jwcooper 13y ago

I like gadgets and various electronics, but for some reason Glass just rubs me the wrong way. I'm not sure if it's because of the 'creep factor' or what. I guess I'm just not ready for a society always recording everything. I can't even imagine what high school would be like. One embarrassing thing happens, and 30 people have it recorded, uploaded to the internet, and commenting on it in minutes. I guess that could already happen with phones, but at least right now not everything is being recorded at every minute by every person. If Glass use does become widespread, I have a feeling many private companies, such as restaurants, and malls will ban its use indoors, which would make it a pain to use (especially if it's connected to your prescription glasses!).

deckiedan 13y ago
I could imagine an 'off'/airplane mode with a visible red LED on top or something, which, in such a small device clamped to your glasses would be fairly visible, and hard to fake/hack. Alternatively, some kind of wifi/3g blocker or jammer, could be the answer. In some ways it might make sense to use a polite version of that, where devices would 'hear' a wifi SSID signal, or whatever, with a 'this is a private place, no creepiness, please' signal embedded in it. To stop denial of service, or only having official jamming, you could have that privacy signal location specific, with a Lat/Long GPS position, and then the whole thing signed against a central server (probably google, but a non-Profit would probably be ideal), so that people couldn't wander around with portable jammers. Then shopping centers, schools, private homes, resturants, etc, could easily register for a code, plonk it on a jammer or other wifi router, and behold, an illusion of privacy. If there were government regulation about devices having to obey such signals to be legal for use, then I could see it working.
- skyebook 13y ago
  Maybe this is naive of me, but I don't really look forward to a future where I walk around making sure people in my vicinity are glowing red (or green, for when I do something heroic).. I realize that having some indicator is a huge plus over having nothing but it just feels so sterile. Perhaps this is as much a reaction to always-on everything, but there's something especially off-putting about taking the concept of eye contact and making it a consumable, recordable activity. Technology thus far hasn't really encroached on or been able to imitate this face to face interaction.. > Alternatively, some kind of wifi/3g blocker or jammer, could be the answer. I know that in much of the US these devices are illegal, wouldn't be surprised about other places.

cargo8 13y ago

> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does. To me, that’s everything. Same thing with all existing smartwatches — the problem isn’t the idea, it’s the actual execution. There are no points for being first to market with a bad product. This is just wrong. Google gains massive points in my book for putting something like Glass out there. They get points for showing the world a glimpse of what the future can be, and getting everyone else to think about it. The wearables revolution was started with Glass, and whether or not Glass ends up being the flagship product of the wearables market it doesn't matter. Google started it either way.

acgourley 13y ago
His point is that no one remembers the Tablet PC and everyone remembers the iPad. But that's a really weak argument to me. The Tablet PC didn't just fail because the form factor was 10 years too early and because the design missed the mark... but because the product was abandoned. If Google keeps up, stays hungry and keeps working through the early issues they can come out as the market leader just as easy as Apple or whomever tries to follow.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  My HP tc1100 has about the same functionality as a 1st gen iPad, only with more RAM, 1/5th the battery life, resistive stylus screen, and twice the weight. That's what it means that it was "10 years too early." That said, HP was a premier tech company in its day, and the tc1100 was a tour-de force of industrial time for its time. If Google Glass is the best one of the premier tech companies can do now, then it's clearly too early.
  - 51Cards 13y ago
    There is no such thing as being "too early" to market. That is how you cut your teeth, learn and get ahead. You fail when you give up on the idea (or are proven that it will never catch on... either way). However if you create a product that eventually takes off, and if you continue to iterate it and not abandon it, you can't be too early. And, if nothing else, it is 100x less risky to be too early, than too late.

ojbyrne 13y ago

When I heard that Strava was on it, I instantly wanted one (and had no interest beforehand). Sports is to wearables what the spreadsheet was to the PC.

julianpye 13y ago

What surprises me always is that people act as if Glass was the first of its kind. The tech has been around for ages and actually Glass is very poor in terms of its holographic projection technology. What is new is that Google is the first company who is really serious about this and has the guts about it flying in the face of negative publicity, not shying away from its weirdness for many people. I led an AR/VR project at Vodafone using Sony's far superior tech with local startups and the project while technically successful didn't make it past the prototype stage. All there is: Google has really high innovation reputation, they can shape the market even if it 'feels weird', that is why the article is spot on saying it 'will help grease the wheels for social acceptance'.

laureny 13y ago

It's quite entertaining to see Gruber struggle so much with the idea that Google has out innovated Apple. You can tell he really wishes he could say that everything about Google Glass sucks but deep inside, he knows that Google is onto something, so he ends up making a weak, half positive and half negative point about the product. He knows deep inside that regardless of how Google Glass (and wearable glasses in general) fare in the future that Google has out innovated Apple, and he's really having a hard time coming to terms with that idea.

corin_ 13y ago
I read it more that he's expecting Apple to be the company that comes along with the sexy, socially-acceptable version of Google Glass that takes it mainstream. Admittedly based more on the author than his words.
- laureny 13y ago
  And that might very well happen, but if it does, it will still be described as Apple copying Google, which probably drives Gruber crazy. Personally, I think that the simple fact that Google came up with the idea means that Apple will never create such a product.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rahimnathwani 13y ago

"we won’t be able to tell who’s wearing built-in-HUD-and-camera glasses and who’s just wearing regular glasses" Oh no! I might have to get laser eye surgery and stop wearing glasses.