4 ms·

> Glass will be made by a third party but feature support from Google I hope in the future it will be made only by 3rd parties. Say, you buy nicely looking des

by zalew 14y ago

> Glass will be made by a third party but feature support from Google I hope in the future it will be made only by 3rd parties. Say, you buy nicely looking designer shades and they have google glass. Right now it's ugly, vulgar, creepy and has a high douchebaggery factor, I wonder how they want to convince people to walk around with this thing on their faces.

raldi 14y ago
It wasn't so long ago that you were a douche if you walked around in public talking into a cell phone. Or if you drove around showing off your crazy automobile contraption instead of riding a horse like a normal person. Or if you wore a timepiece strapped to your wrist, instead of on a chain in your pocket like a proper gentleman. (And later, if the watch on your wrist had some kind of ugly LCD thing, instead of a handsome analog face.) Then again, there was a time when you were a douche if you rode around on a Segway... and that period never ended. So I guess this could go either way.
- zalew 14y ago
  Fair enough. What I meant is that a licensing model would be cool because it would offer the same tech in endless fashion applications, instead of forcing to wear a wire structure on your head. For the moment I'm afraid that in the beginning it will be what it is, and after some time there will possibly be some special designer editions for a bazillion dollars.
- pifflesnort 14y ago
  > It wasn't so long ago that you were a douche if you walked around in public talking into a cell phone. You still are. It's still considered rude to subject everyone to your cell phone call. These people walk up to the register while on a call, block the sidewalk while distracted, and otherwise are clearly not actually with us in this universe. http://conversations.nokia.com/2011/07/12/breaking-the-rules-with-mobile-etiquette-poll/ http://conversations.nokia.com/2011/07/12/breaking-the-rules... http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2438977 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2438977 http://formingthethread.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/cell-phone-rudeness-in-the-public-restroom-really/ http://formingthethread.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/cell-phone-... > Or if you drove around showing off your crazy automobile contraption instead of riding a horse like a normal person. Yep, the 'showing off' part is still douche. > Or if you wore a timepiece strapped to your wrist, instead of on a chain in your pocket like a proper gentleman. (And later, if the watch on your wrist was some kind of ugly LCD thing, instead of a handsome analog face.) This one too. Once watches stopped being a functional item (the advent of phones), they became douche status badges. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/fashion/watches-are-rediscovered-by-the-cellphone-generation.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/fashion/watches-are-redisc... http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/150719282/in-cell-era-timepieces-are-fashion-trend-to-watch http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/150719282/in-cell-era-timepiec...
  - zalew 14y ago
    > Once watches stopped being a functional item (the advent of phones), they became douche status badges A watch to a man is like a purse to a woman - an accessory (and/or jewellery).
- gfodor 14y ago
  Unlike these other things, owning Glass is an "all-in" proposition. You can put the cell phone away. You can park the car. Hell, you can get off the Segway even. Glass? It is on your face. It is part of your identity. Having met a few people wearing it, it is hard to imagine a more in-your-face device to own. It's one step shy of a tattoo on your forehead. When you meet someone wearing these things while they are not commonplace, the first thing you will notice when you meet them is Glass. If the perception is that Glass = douche, guess what, your first impression everywhere you go is going to be "douche" before you even get to introduce yourself. You can take it off, sure, but if people are wearing them around their neck all the time they will eventually start just leaving them at home. It's a huge, huge problem. I wish Google luck but also at the same time worry they are going to set back wearables for some time by pushing a Segway-like device onto the public before it's ready.
  - dannyr 14y ago
    How is putting your cellphone/Segway away different than putting your Glass away? When would you know if the public is ready for wearables without releasing a product? If Google sells hundred of thousands of these, the public is ready.
    - gfodor 14y ago
      If you put your cell phone away, it goes in your pocket. If you put your Segway away, it goes in the garage (or something?) It's still useful there since you can access it when you need it. If you put Glass away, you basically invalidate the purpose of Glass itself, which is to be an always-available HUD for your life. (At least as far as I understand it.) And yes, I agree the only way to know if the public is ready is to release a product. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it but I'm pretty bearish on them being able to pull it off. My gut is that there is a product that exists between "cell phone" and "heads up display you wear on your face" that would have reduced the risk of colossal failure. (Similar to how there is probably a product between "E-Mail" and "Google Wave" that would have worked better too.) There are just too many things that have to go right that have nothing to do with technical prowess. If it was just about algorithms and data I'd be cheering them on, but it's not, it's mostly about stupid fuzzy human being stuff, and Google has always struggled with that. (Though they're learning quickly!) If I was going to make a prediction I think Glass will flop. The only way I could see it not flopping is if they get something out there quickly that genuinely looks cool and doesn't have a huge pricetag. (Not because price will inhibit purchasing it, but because if it is high priced it will immediately be known as showing off, ie douchey, to own one.) I think the next step towards pervasive always-available computing is going to be wristband/watch type stuff with flexible displays which provides a nice step forward ubiquitous-computing wise, leaves room for creative design that can spawn a array of fashions, will be affordable, and will not require forging of new social norms on the way. (I'm 99% sure this is where Apple is headed.) And lets face it, a slick-designed slap bracelet that you can post to Facebook on is going to be fucking cool, whereas a cyborg-like eye-piece is at the very least going to get mixed reviews.
dannyr 14y ago
Man, so much hate for this device that the poster probably have never seen or used in person. A douchebag will be a douchebag with or without Glass. But in my book, douchebags are people who call other people douchebags for no good reason.
- lclarkmichalek 14y ago
  Oh but these people do have a good reason, the person is wearing something they don't approve of.
- zalew 14y ago
  did I offend you, or am I not allowed to dislike how an electronic device looks like?
  - dannyr 14y ago
    No. But it's different when you resort to name-calling just because of something a person wears or what a person looks like. Call people douchebag for their actions.
    - pifflesnort 14y ago
      > Call people douchebag for their actions. Like choosing to wear a stupid-looking $1,500 distraction-generator?
      - dannyr 14y ago
        Have you used it? How are you sure it's a distraction-generator?
    - gfodor 14y ago
      This isn't how fashion, or people in general, work. There is a reason they call it a "fashion statement." It's an action that doesn't require actual action. Basically Glass requires that Google release a product that is fashionable out of the gate. There really isn't going to be second chances with something like this. Google isn't exactly known for being a company that has good intuitive fashion sense. I'm sure they're A/B testing the damn colors for gods sake.
sneak 14y ago
Shut up. We're all going to buy one. We'll hate ourselves, sure, and we may only wear it to user group meetings, but you can bet your ass we're all going to blow $300 on one. Wearing it in public is one thing. Wearing it constantly at home (baby's first steps, anyone?) is another matter.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Who is this "we"? I'll probably buy wearables at some time in the future, but I have no interest in glasses or anything else that's primarily used for video capture.

by zalew 14y ago

raldi 14y ago

It wasn't so long ago that you were a douche if you walked around in public talking into a cell phone. Or if you drove around showing off your crazy automobile contraption instead of riding a horse like a normal person. Or if you wore a timepiece strapped to your wrist, instead of on a chain in your pocket like a proper gentleman. (And later, if the watch on your wrist had some kind of ugly LCD thing, instead of a handsome analog face.) Then again, there was a time when you were a douche if you rode around on a Segway... and that period never ended. So I guess this could go either way.

zalew 14y ago
Fair enough. What I meant is that a licensing model would be cool because it would offer the same tech in endless fashion applications, instead of forcing to wear a wire structure on your head. For the moment I'm afraid that in the beginning it will be what it is, and after some time there will possibly be some special designer editions for a bazillion dollars.
pifflesnort 14y ago
> It wasn't so long ago that you were a douche if you walked around in public talking into a cell phone. You still are. It's still considered rude to subject everyone to your cell phone call. These people walk up to the register while on a call, block the sidewalk while distracted, and otherwise are clearly not actually with us in this universe. http://conversations.nokia.com/2011/07/12/breaking-the-rules-with-mobile-etiquette-poll/ http://conversations.nokia.com/2011/07/12/breaking-the-rules... http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2438977 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2438977 http://formingthethread.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/cell-phone-rudeness-in-the-public-restroom-really/ http://formingthethread.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/cell-phone-... > Or if you drove around showing off your crazy automobile contraption instead of riding a horse like a normal person. Yep, the 'showing off' part is still douche. > Or if you wore a timepiece strapped to your wrist, instead of on a chain in your pocket like a proper gentleman. (And later, if the watch on your wrist was some kind of ugly LCD thing, instead of a handsome analog face.) This one too. Once watches stopped being a functional item (the advent of phones), they became douche status badges. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/fashion/watches-are-rediscovered-by-the-cellphone-generation.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/fashion/watches-are-redisc... http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/150719282/in-cell-era-timepieces-are-fashion-trend-to-watch http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/150719282/in-cell-era-timepiec...
- zalew 14y ago
  > Once watches stopped being a functional item (the advent of phones), they became douche status badges A watch to a man is like a purse to a woman - an accessory (and/or jewellery).
gfodor 14y ago
Unlike these other things, owning Glass is an "all-in" proposition. You can put the cell phone away. You can park the car. Hell, you can get off the Segway even. Glass? It is on your face. It is part of your identity. Having met a few people wearing it, it is hard to imagine a more in-your-face device to own. It's one step shy of a tattoo on your forehead. When you meet someone wearing these things while they are not commonplace, the first thing you will notice when you meet them is Glass. If the perception is that Glass = douche, guess what, your first impression everywhere you go is going to be "douche" before you even get to introduce yourself. You can take it off, sure, but if people are wearing them around their neck all the time they will eventually start just leaving them at home. It's a huge, huge problem. I wish Google luck but also at the same time worry they are going to set back wearables for some time by pushing a Segway-like device onto the public before it's ready.
- dannyr 14y ago
  How is putting your cellphone/Segway away different than putting your Glass away? When would you know if the public is ready for wearables without releasing a product? If Google sells hundred of thousands of these, the public is ready.
  - gfodor 14y ago
    If you put your cell phone away, it goes in your pocket. If you put your Segway away, it goes in the garage (or something?) It's still useful there since you can access it when you need it. If you put Glass away, you basically invalidate the purpose of Glass itself, which is to be an always-available HUD for your life. (At least as far as I understand it.) And yes, I agree the only way to know if the public is ready is to release a product. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it but I'm pretty bearish on them being able to pull it off. My gut is that there is a product that exists between "cell phone" and "heads up display you wear on your face" that would have reduced the risk of colossal failure. (Similar to how there is probably a product between "E-Mail" and "Google Wave" that would have worked better too.) There are just too many things that have to go right that have nothing to do with technical prowess. If it was just about algorithms and data I'd be cheering them on, but it's not, it's mostly about stupid fuzzy human being stuff, and Google has always struggled with that. (Though they're learning quickly!) If I was going to make a prediction I think Glass will flop. The only way I could see it not flopping is if they get something out there quickly that genuinely looks cool and doesn't have a huge pricetag. (Not because price will inhibit purchasing it, but because if it is high priced it will immediately be known as showing off, ie douchey, to own one.) I think the next step towards pervasive always-available computing is going to be wristband/watch type stuff with flexible displays which provides a nice step forward ubiquitous-computing wise, leaves room for creative design that can spawn a array of fashions, will be affordable, and will not require forging of new social norms on the way. (I'm 99% sure this is where Apple is headed.) And lets face it, a slick-designed slap bracelet that you can post to Facebook on is going to be fucking cool, whereas a cyborg-like eye-piece is at the very least going to get mixed reviews.

dannyr 14y ago

Man, so much hate for this device that the poster probably have never seen or used in person. A douchebag will be a douchebag with or without Glass. But in my book, douchebags are people who call other people douchebags for no good reason.

lclarkmichalek 14y ago
Oh but these people do have a good reason, the person is wearing something they don't approve of.
zalew 14y ago
did I offend you, or am I not allowed to dislike how an electronic device looks like?
- dannyr 14y ago
  No. But it's different when you resort to name-calling just because of something a person wears or what a person looks like. Call people douchebag for their actions.
  - pifflesnort 14y ago
    > Call people douchebag for their actions. Like choosing to wear a stupid-looking $1,500 distraction-generator?
    - dannyr 14y ago
      Have you used it? How are you sure it's a distraction-generator?
  - gfodor 14y ago
    This isn't how fashion, or people in general, work. There is a reason they call it a "fashion statement." It's an action that doesn't require actual action. Basically Glass requires that Google release a product that is fashionable out of the gate. There really isn't going to be second chances with something like this. Google isn't exactly known for being a company that has good intuitive fashion sense. I'm sure they're A/B testing the damn colors for gods sake.

sneak 14y ago

Shut up. We're all going to buy one. We'll hate ourselves, sure, and we may only wear it to user group meetings, but you can bet your ass we're all going to blow $300 on one. Wearing it in public is one thing. Wearing it constantly at home (baby's first steps, anyone?) is another matter.

illuminate 14y ago
Who is this "we"? I'll probably buy wearables at some time in the future, but I have no interest in glasses or anything else that's primarily used for video capture.