5 ms·

Apple can test new phones and new phone prototypes pretty easily. Hardware can be hidden in new cases, software can just not be shown to other people. Google

by jedc 15y ago

Apple can test new phones and new phone prototypes pretty easily. Hardware can be hidden in new cases, software can just not be shown to other people. Google tested self-driving cars for quite a while; it was only when the NYTimes was about to write a story about it anyway that they publicly released information. I would assume these glasses are going to be pretty difficult to hide from the general public when the team is out testing them. If I were them I'd rather release information they want to the public instead of a random blogger getting a photo and kicking up a firestorm of interest.

martinkallstrom 15y ago
Yeah you never want a firestorm of interest around new products.
- jedc 15y ago
  But it doesn't look like it's a new product at all; it's just a prototype they want to test in public.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- abrahamsen 15y ago
  I think they are just trying to influence the spin right now. Try to give the less imaginative (or too imaginative) journalists something to write. The "firestorm of interest" can wait until they actually have a product.
obtino 15y ago
> If I were them I'd rather release information they want to the public instead of a random blogger getting a photo and kicking up a firestorm of interest. There were rumours of these glasses in the NYT last December: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/wearing-your-computer-on-your-sleeve/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/wearing-your-comput... They did their best to conceal it then. It's not in Google's DNA to hide disruptive products for a long period of time.
irrationalfab 15y ago
> If I were them I'd rather release information they want to the public instead of a random blogger getting a photo and kicking up a firestorm of interest. No, you would announce the product 6 months before launching it and you would show it. Otherwise, it means that you don't have a prototype good enough to demo --> waporware. It might exist in the future but today it doesn't exists. This is why the original iPhone launch was such a great event. They showed the damn working thing, no videos like Nokia used to do at the time (iirc about bendable phones that could produce scents?!?!).
- rory096 15y ago
  Early reports said Google's planning on releasing these later this year (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/technology/google-glasses-will-be-powered-by-android.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/technology/google-glasses-...); as far as I've seen, nothing's changed on that front. No, they're not showing you actual prototype UI yet, but that seems to be more difficult in this case than anyone's giving them credit for. How exactly do you demonstrate eyeglass computer output in a video? Already it's disconcerting to look a video of someone's POV; for one, there's no peripheral vision at all. It seems to me that a concept video's the best way to get the general idea into people's heads. Then, they can see for themselves in 6-8 months.

by jedc 15y ago

martinkallstrom 15y ago

Yeah you never want a firestorm of interest around new products.

jedc 15y ago
But it doesn't look like it's a new product at all; it's just a prototype they want to test in public.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
abrahamsen 15y ago
I think they are just trying to influence the spin right now. Try to give the less imaginative (or too imaginative) journalists something to write. The "firestorm of interest" can wait until they actually have a product.

obtino 15y ago

> If I were them I'd rather release information they want to the public instead of a random blogger getting a photo and kicking up a firestorm of interest. There were rumours of these glasses in the NYT last December: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/wearing-your-computer-on-your-sleeve/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/wearing-your-comput... They did their best to conceal it then. It's not in Google's DNA to hide disruptive products for a long period of time.

irrationalfab 15y ago

> If I were them I'd rather release information they want to the public instead of a random blogger getting a photo and kicking up a firestorm of interest. No, you would announce the product 6 months before launching it and you would show it. Otherwise, it means that you don't have a prototype good enough to demo --> waporware. It might exist in the future but today it doesn't exists. This is why the original iPhone launch was such a great event. They showed the damn working thing, no videos like Nokia used to do at the time (iirc about bendable phones that could produce scents?!?!).

rory096 15y ago
Early reports said Google's planning on releasing these later this year (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/technology/google-glasses-will-be-powered-by-android.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/technology/google-glasses-...); as far as I've seen, nothing's changed on that front. No, they're not showing you actual prototype UI yet, but that seems to be more difficult in this case than anyone's giving them credit for. How exactly do you demonstrate eyeglass computer output in a video? Already it's disconcerting to look a video of someone's POV; for one, there's no peripheral vision at all. It seems to me that a concept video's the best way to get the general idea into people's heads. Then, they can see for themselves in 6-8 months.