4 ms·

They might kill the project even before starting it.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Wouldn't surprise me. Glass was killed because it was perceived as creepy. It's actual capabilities fell far short of being able to actually be creepy, but the biggest fear Google has is people realizing how creepy Google actually is. And this, is definitely outright creepy. I am still a little stunned that either nobody at Google knew how this was going to be received, or that they didn't manage to take that person seriously.
- seibelj 9y ago
  I think glass was shattered because it was really lame and uncool. Outside of the tech bubble, you looked ridiculous wearing it, and no one wants to be filmed in a bar or public places by a bunch of weirdos.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    I wore it for about a year. Most people didn't notice it at all, because I wore glasses, so much of the perception of it blended into the frame. The whole "no one wants to be filmed in a bar or public places" thing is exactly what I'm talking about: People had no competent understanding of the device or it's capabilities, so had irrational views about it. ;) Specifically, it was as obvious if you were filming with it as if you were holding up your phone camera (you had to hold it steady and the screen is lit up while it's recording, which is pretty visible), and Glass was a terrible video camera because it was a mediocre 2010-era cell phone camera connected to a device prone to massive overheating that had an approximate battery life of fifteen minutes if it was doing video. IMHO, it's best use case was notification and call handling, and it would've been a far superior device if they left the camera off of it entirely.
    - neilk 9y ago
      Do I have this straight? - Please don’t record me in a public place. - Chill, it’s not a very good camera! The fact that Google sold it as a prosthesis didn’t help. I have a friend whose roommate invited over a guy who refused to take his Google Glass off, because he argued it was a part of him. Exactly what a woman wants to hear when she’s making toast in her pajamas. Anyway I think the common thread here is when tech takes something that used to be socially symmetric and makes it asymmetric. Having a potentially always-on face camera is different than pulling out your phone. The person using their phone has to stop what they’re doing, and it’s usually pretty obvious that they’re taking a picture. Not so with the face camera person. Similarly, Duplex takes something that previously required symmetric investment of time and makes it asymmetric. In theory you could have a virtual assistant burn up hours of someone else’s time and it would cost you pennies. Any emotional blowback would be safely absorbed by a relentless robot.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        > I have a friend whose roommate invited over a guy who refused to take his Google Glass off, because he argued it was a part of him. This just means your friend's roommate's friend is an unpleasant person. Nobody ever asked me to take mine off, but depending on the locale, I probably would have had I been asked. > Having a potentially always-on face camera is different than pulling out your phone. The person using their phone has to stop what they’re doing, and it’s usually pretty obvious that they’re taking a picture. Not so with the face camera person. Google Glass is not an "always-on face camera". As I indicated, it is a 15-minutes-on-at-best face camera, that might literally burn the face of anyone who had it on for fifteen minutes. (Seriously, after the Galaxy Note 7, I'd be a lot more scared of the thing and the LiPo it hangs just behind your ear.) And, also as stated, it's extremely obvious when it's taking a picture.
  - liveoneggs 9y ago
    I commuted on the NYC subway during glass's life and a (probably google employee?) guy who rode the same train occasionally wore one. The few days I saw him he was getting chatted-to about it, mostly by women.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      The folks who noticed mine were generally more intrigued than anything else. I had one guy ask me if I wanted a job on the spot while I was at lunch. A lot of people wanted to try it out, I used to be pretty protective of it though, and generally didn't let people. I also took it to Paris for a week, and definitely had some fun conversing with people about it through a bit of language barrier (my French is not good, but serviceable), customs was not super thrilled I wore it through their line though.
  - gowld 9y ago
    You're saying the same thing as the comment you replied to. It didn't fail because it didn't work, it failed because people had unease about other people using it.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Google seems to be tone deaf regarding all technology<->human interactions.
  - lapnitnelav 9y ago
    I think a company that only hires "the best of the best" and who refers to themselves with a specific word (Googlers) is bound to be quite disconnected from the average joe.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Wouldn't surprise me. Glass was killed because it was perceived as creepy. It's actual capabilities fell far short of being able to actually be creepy, but the biggest fear Google has is people realizing how creepy Google actually is. And this, is definitely outright creepy. I am still a little stunned that either nobody at Google knew how this was going to be received, or that they didn't manage to take that person seriously.

seibelj 9y ago
I think glass was shattered because it was really lame and uncool. Outside of the tech bubble, you looked ridiculous wearing it, and no one wants to be filmed in a bar or public places by a bunch of weirdos.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  I wore it for about a year. Most people didn't notice it at all, because I wore glasses, so much of the perception of it blended into the frame. The whole "no one wants to be filmed in a bar or public places" thing is exactly what I'm talking about: People had no competent understanding of the device or it's capabilities, so had irrational views about it. ;) Specifically, it was as obvious if you were filming with it as if you were holding up your phone camera (you had to hold it steady and the screen is lit up while it's recording, which is pretty visible), and Glass was a terrible video camera because it was a mediocre 2010-era cell phone camera connected to a device prone to massive overheating that had an approximate battery life of fifteen minutes if it was doing video. IMHO, it's best use case was notification and call handling, and it would've been a far superior device if they left the camera off of it entirely.
  - neilk 9y ago
    Do I have this straight? - Please don’t record me in a public place. - Chill, it’s not a very good camera! The fact that Google sold it as a prosthesis didn’t help. I have a friend whose roommate invited over a guy who refused to take his Google Glass off, because he argued it was a part of him. Exactly what a woman wants to hear when she’s making toast in her pajamas. Anyway I think the common thread here is when tech takes something that used to be socially symmetric and makes it asymmetric. Having a potentially always-on face camera is different than pulling out your phone. The person using their phone has to stop what they’re doing, and it’s usually pretty obvious that they’re taking a picture. Not so with the face camera person. Similarly, Duplex takes something that previously required symmetric investment of time and makes it asymmetric. In theory you could have a virtual assistant burn up hours of someone else’s time and it would cost you pennies. Any emotional blowback would be safely absorbed by a relentless robot.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      > I have a friend whose roommate invited over a guy who refused to take his Google Glass off, because he argued it was a part of him. This just means your friend's roommate's friend is an unpleasant person. Nobody ever asked me to take mine off, but depending on the locale, I probably would have had I been asked. > Having a potentially always-on face camera is different than pulling out your phone. The person using their phone has to stop what they’re doing, and it’s usually pretty obvious that they’re taking a picture. Not so with the face camera person. Google Glass is not an "always-on face camera". As I indicated, it is a 15-minutes-on-at-best face camera, that might literally burn the face of anyone who had it on for fifteen minutes. (Seriously, after the Galaxy Note 7, I'd be a lot more scared of the thing and the LiPo it hangs just behind your ear.) And, also as stated, it's extremely obvious when it's taking a picture.
- liveoneggs 9y ago
  I commuted on the NYC subway during glass's life and a (probably google employee?) guy who rode the same train occasionally wore one. The few days I saw him he was getting chatted-to about it, mostly by women.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    The folks who noticed mine were generally more intrigued than anything else. I had one guy ask me if I wanted a job on the spot while I was at lunch. A lot of people wanted to try it out, I used to be pretty protective of it though, and generally didn't let people. I also took it to Paris for a week, and definitely had some fun conversing with people about it through a bit of language barrier (my French is not good, but serviceable), customs was not super thrilled I wore it through their line though.
- gowld 9y ago
  You're saying the same thing as the comment you replied to. It didn't fail because it didn't work, it failed because people had unease about other people using it.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
Google seems to be tone deaf regarding all technology<->human interactions.
- lapnitnelav 9y ago
  I think a company that only hires "the best of the best" and who refers to themselves with a specific word (Googlers) is bound to be quite disconnected from the average joe.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]