4 ms·

Quite honestly I just don't see a good reason for the camera. There was never a useful application for them - attempts at augmented reality were shitty, not use

Quite honestly I just don't see a good reason for the camera. There was never a useful application for them - attempts at augmented reality were shitty, not useful, or creepy (or all of the above). e.g., that app that would show you someone's LinkedIn profile when you looked at them. Yeesh. Add that to the (IMO at least somewhat fair) criticism around private spaces and IMO there's not a good case for keeping it. I'm personally hoping the next iteration at least has the option of being camera-less, and that they add in the requisite indicator light if the camera is on.

elif 11y ago
The creepy facial recognition apps were demos or proof-of-concepts. Part of the conditions for developing for glass (at least when i was an explorer) include agreeing to not do facial recognition at all. I strongly disagree with your assessment of the camera as being "never useful." The best experiences I had with glass revolve around "OK glass. record a video" Whether it's catching someone's license plate in traffic, doing something really cool and sharing the first-hand experience with my friends, or recording a pool shot or curling throw so that i can later review it to work on my form. The cards were far too limited. Any meaningful engagement involves pulling out your phone. In fact, I would argue that without the camera, There is absolutely no point to google glass. You can do google voice commands and use headphones with any new phone.
- potatolicious 11y ago
  > "Whether it's catching someone's license plate in traffic, doing something really cool and sharing the first-hand experience with my friends, or recording a pool shot or curling throw so that i can later review it to work on my form." Only the first use case is actually improved by having the camera on your face rather than your phone. I'll gladly admit that having the camera already strapped to your face makes it faster to use than something you have to pull out of your pocket - the problem is that this speed has very little marginal benefit 99% of the time, and pulling the phone out of your pocket isn't really that big of a pain in the ass. I see Glass similarly to how I see most Smart-Things - they solve a problem that most people don't really regard as problems. It's either strictly inferior to pulling out your phone (via limited/inaccurate/slow input like voice or the swipe-pad), or it's slightly superior but only marginally so. And it's 95/5 the former vs. the latter. Not a compelling case for a product at all. > "Part of the conditions for developing for glass (at least when i was an explorer) include agreeing to not do facial recognition at all." I'm aware, which makes the device even more pointless. At least the LinkedIn Recognizer had some semblance of a use case, albeit creepy. I don't think anyone was able to come up with anything mass-market using the camera that was actually useful - niche enterprise uses most certainly, but mainstream mass market? > "In fact, I would argue that without the camera, There is absolutely no point to google glass. You can do google voice commands and use headphones with any new phone." I half-agree with you - I don't see much point in Google Glass outside of niche enterprise/industrial context, camera or no. That said it might be the less shitty smartwatch (itself a product that solves a problem most people don't really regard as problems) - I'd prefer a little screen at the corner of my vision over a buzzing vibrating blob hanging off my wrist demanding I raise my arm every time. So yeah, maybe Google Glass can rival smartwatches in terms of usefulness. Fine company it keeps, then.
grkvlt 11y ago
Actually, that LinkedIn facial recognition app sounds awesome. I have trouble putting names to faces at large events like tech conferences, and it would be great to have a subtle 'This is Bob, the CTO of WhateverCorp, you have a meeting with him next week about the Random project' show up when I scan a room. Isn't facial recognition and then looking up the relevant background details the go-to application for most 'futuristic' imaginings of wearable tech?

elif 11y ago

The creepy facial recognition apps were demos or proof-of-concepts. Part of the conditions for developing for glass (at least when i was an explorer) include agreeing to not do facial recognition at all. I strongly disagree with your assessment of the camera as being "never useful." The best experiences I had with glass revolve around "OK glass. record a video" Whether it's catching someone's license plate in traffic, doing something really cool and sharing the first-hand experience with my friends, or recording a pool shot or curling throw so that i can later review it to work on my form. The cards were far too limited. Any meaningful engagement involves pulling out your phone. In fact, I would argue that without the camera, There is absolutely no point to google glass. You can do google voice commands and use headphones with any new phone.

potatolicious 11y ago
> "Whether it's catching someone's license plate in traffic, doing something really cool and sharing the first-hand experience with my friends, or recording a pool shot or curling throw so that i can later review it to work on my form." Only the first use case is actually improved by having the camera on your face rather than your phone. I'll gladly admit that having the camera already strapped to your face makes it faster to use than something you have to pull out of your pocket - the problem is that this speed has very little marginal benefit 99% of the time, and pulling the phone out of your pocket isn't really that big of a pain in the ass. I see Glass similarly to how I see most Smart-Things - they solve a problem that most people don't really regard as problems. It's either strictly inferior to pulling out your phone (via limited/inaccurate/slow input like voice or the swipe-pad), or it's slightly superior but only marginally so. And it's 95/5 the former vs. the latter. Not a compelling case for a product at all. > "Part of the conditions for developing for glass (at least when i was an explorer) include agreeing to not do facial recognition at all." I'm aware, which makes the device even more pointless. At least the LinkedIn Recognizer had some semblance of a use case, albeit creepy. I don't think anyone was able to come up with anything mass-market using the camera that was actually useful - niche enterprise uses most certainly, but mainstream mass market? > "In fact, I would argue that without the camera, There is absolutely no point to google glass. You can do google voice commands and use headphones with any new phone." I half-agree with you - I don't see much point in Google Glass outside of niche enterprise/industrial context, camera or no. That said it might be the less shitty smartwatch (itself a product that solves a problem most people don't really regard as problems) - I'd prefer a little screen at the corner of my vision over a buzzing vibrating blob hanging off my wrist demanding I raise my arm every time. So yeah, maybe Google Glass can rival smartwatches in terms of usefulness. Fine company it keeps, then.

grkvlt 11y ago

Actually, that LinkedIn facial recognition app sounds awesome. I have trouble putting names to faces at large events like tech conferences, and it would be great to have a subtle 'This is Bob, the CTO of WhateverCorp, you have a meeting with him next week about the Random project' show up when I scan a room. Isn't facial recognition and then looking up the relevant background details the go-to application for most 'futuristic' imaginings of wearable tech?