5 ms·

Eh. And the iPad was destined to be a failure as "just a big iPhone". I'm unwilling to predict the success of Glass, but I'm also unwilling to predict its demi

Eh. And the iPad was destined to be a failure as "just a big iPhone". I'm unwilling to predict the success of Glass, but I'm also unwilling to predict its demise. The jury hasn't even yet convened, much less come close to making a verdict. For one thing, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the product. If the device is recording, a green light illuminates on the device - there's no missing it. Like jvrossb said also, the device doesn't cover your whole eye - if you're reading something on its screen you're very visibly looking up and to the side. The "this will fail social norms" card has been played many times, and it has come to pass, but it hasn't been the core of a product failure. We went through growing pains when people friended everyone on Facebook and then realized what a bad idea it was to post pictures from their wild night out where their boss can see it. We've almost entirely solved that problem now, and Facebook continues to see high engagement and picture sharing. We also suffered through a few years of people staring into their phones at the dinner table. Social etiquette changed and now it's taboo. In almost all cases social norms have shifted in response to new technology - our sense of what is appropriate socially is not a stationary target. If Glass can offer something people want, we will work around its social problems. The real trick is if Glass will actually offer something substantial people want.

hugs 14y ago
The first live Glass demo wasn't a bunch of people at a cocktail party. It was skydivers, skateboarders, and bicyclists. Glass is going to be very popular as a sports accessory. I can see Google inking a deal with the NFL to equip every player with Glass for an "in the helmet" view of every tackle.
- eksith 14y ago
  Ditto. The NFL will in particular would be a prime candidate since sports fans are already dying to be in the athlete's shoes (though not have athlete's feet). The one hiccup in this would be safety. In the off chance a ball or another player's hand (they're not supposed to grab the shield or helmet, but it happens) crushes the device or worse, drives it into the player's eyes. They would need some sort of built-in thing if that's the case and I'm sure that the NFL will have rules against putting cameras on the back of the helmet so the player can keep an eye there.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  Google Glass has a 5MP sensor, which can capture video at 720p, but given its size, the quality probably isn’t stellar. In the use cases you mentioned, GoPro is the better choice. The most expensive model costs one third of Google Glass and captures 1440p at 48fps. It takes photos at 12MP and has advanced stabilization features built in. The GoPro is already the go-to sports accessory, I don’t see how Google is going to disrupt this market given its price and lackluster camera specs.
  - dannyr 14y ago
    The difference though is Glass being real-time. Imagine Glass being used by a golfer. No need for a golf tracker device. You can easily see how far you are from the hole, wind speed, etc. Imagine Glass being outfitted into the helmet. Watching football will not be the same. Seeing the perspective of the quarterback when he is about to throw the ball makes watching the sport more exciting.
    - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
      There are, and have been, more suitable products for that. I don’t think this is the use case Google has in mind for Glass. Google Glass is meant to be way more personal, collecting your movements and augmenting your physical world with content that Google has selected for you based on the information they have on you.
      - dannyr 14y ago
        Actually, it's more of sharing. Look at the promotional videos. Even the Google IO demo last year. It's sharing what the wearer sees to his circle or to the public. Of the main menu choices in Glass, 3 are for sharing "Photo, Video and Hangout"
- threeseed 14y ago
  Do you actually think the NFL is going to place a sharp-edged cube of perspex 1 inch from a player's eye ? Because that sounds far-fetched to say the least. Likewise I can't imagine anyone seriously using the fragile, expensive Glass instead of something a bit more rugged.
- rdl 14y ago
  I could see cameras going on these helmets, but not the displays. It's not too hard to build a small-sensor mostly-solid-state ruggedized camera and transmitter into a helmet; and there's no need for a local display. The hard thing would be batteries (2-3h of transmit?) Don't they have "quarterback cams" already? I don't watch sportsball myself.
  - dfc 14y ago
    A little while ago SOFREP did one of their tommy tacticool stories about new NVGs with cameras. It was a lot more than a helmet with a ruggedized gopro. I'm sorry but I cannot find the link atm.
    - rdl 14y ago
      The Contour HD with a side rail mount (so it fits close to the helmet on the side, usually just above a light) is fairly popular for people who don't have the $50k budget. Way less obtrusive than the GoPro mounts I've seen.
tuxidomasx 14y ago
"If the device is recording, a green light illuminates on the device - there's no missing it." The old trick of covering (or disabling) the recording light indicator of a camera to conceal the act of recording could easily be applied to Glass.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  And yet somehow people are chill with camera phones.
  - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
    I for one do not think camera phones are chill, and many enterprises do not allow them in the workplace. I do not allow for people to take my picture or record me without my permission. As a professional photographer, I have my subjects sign a release before or shortly after I take a picture they’re in. If they refuse to sign, I delete the material.
    - jamesaguilar 14y ago
      Interesting. I've never heard of a workplace where you can't bring your iPhone on the premises, but I guess there must be some. You must admit it's rare in the white collar sector. > I do not allow for people to take my picture or record me without my permission. I don't see how you have much control over it, at least in public. Maybe you live in a country where preventing others from recording you is a legal privilege.
      - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
        “Maybe you live in a country where preventing others from recording you is a legal privilege.” In most countries, you can’t just take pictures of random people without their permission.[1] “I've never heard of a workplace where you can't bring your iPhone on the premises” Banks and other financial institutions, airports, R&D facilities, defense sites, governmental institutions, the list goes on. Not so long a go, I worked at the headquarters of a bank where I could only bring a dumb phone without camera. [1] Even pro-personal invasion sites are cautious: http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-people-without-asking http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-peo...
dotBen 14y ago
(IMHO) if anything in the voice/text feature phone days, using your phone at the dinner table was considered rude - but the use of a smartphone seems to have become more socially accepted, depending on various contexts.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  Using a smartphone or tablet in presence of company might be semi-acceptable, taking pictures or videos of people without their permission isn’t (and shouldn't be, IMHO).
sudoscience 14y ago
The "this will fail social norms" card has been played many times, and it has come to pass, but it hasn't been the core of a product failure. Yes it has. The first cell phones, the first PDAs certainly fell into this category and only later when they became less obtrusive did the gain any real traction. Outright failures are less memorable because they tend to not get very far: people realize they are a mistake before they get to market. But a couple examples I can think of off-hand: WebTv: Not socially ok at all to treat your TV like a computer. Still not, really. Delorean: Weird car with its gull wing doors, too different, can't be seen in that.

hugs 14y ago

The first live Glass demo wasn't a bunch of people at a cocktail party. It was skydivers, skateboarders, and bicyclists. Glass is going to be very popular as a sports accessory. I can see Google inking a deal with the NFL to equip every player with Glass for an "in the helmet" view of every tackle.

eksith 14y ago
Ditto. The NFL will in particular would be a prime candidate since sports fans are already dying to be in the athlete's shoes (though not have athlete's feet). The one hiccup in this would be safety. In the off chance a ball or another player's hand (they're not supposed to grab the shield or helmet, but it happens) crushes the device or worse, drives it into the player's eyes. They would need some sort of built-in thing if that's the case and I'm sure that the NFL will have rules against putting cameras on the back of the helmet so the player can keep an eye there.
Samuel_Michon 14y ago
Google Glass has a 5MP sensor, which can capture video at 720p, but given its size, the quality probably isn’t stellar. In the use cases you mentioned, GoPro is the better choice. The most expensive model costs one third of Google Glass and captures 1440p at 48fps. It takes photos at 12MP and has advanced stabilization features built in. The GoPro is already the go-to sports accessory, I don’t see how Google is going to disrupt this market given its price and lackluster camera specs.
- dannyr 14y ago
  The difference though is Glass being real-time. Imagine Glass being used by a golfer. No need for a golf tracker device. You can easily see how far you are from the hole, wind speed, etc. Imagine Glass being outfitted into the helmet. Watching football will not be the same. Seeing the perspective of the quarterback when he is about to throw the ball makes watching the sport more exciting.
  - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
    There are, and have been, more suitable products for that. I don’t think this is the use case Google has in mind for Glass. Google Glass is meant to be way more personal, collecting your movements and augmenting your physical world with content that Google has selected for you based on the information they have on you.
    - dannyr 14y ago
      Actually, it's more of sharing. Look at the promotional videos. Even the Google IO demo last year. It's sharing what the wearer sees to his circle or to the public. Of the main menu choices in Glass, 3 are for sharing "Photo, Video and Hangout"
threeseed 14y ago
Do you actually think the NFL is going to place a sharp-edged cube of perspex 1 inch from a player's eye ? Because that sounds far-fetched to say the least. Likewise I can't imagine anyone seriously using the fragile, expensive Glass instead of something a bit more rugged.
rdl 14y ago
I could see cameras going on these helmets, but not the displays. It's not too hard to build a small-sensor mostly-solid-state ruggedized camera and transmitter into a helmet; and there's no need for a local display. The hard thing would be batteries (2-3h of transmit?) Don't they have "quarterback cams" already? I don't watch sportsball myself.
- dfc 14y ago
  A little while ago SOFREP did one of their tommy tacticool stories about new NVGs with cameras. It was a lot more than a helmet with a ruggedized gopro. I'm sorry but I cannot find the link atm.
  - rdl 14y ago
    The Contour HD with a side rail mount (so it fits close to the helmet on the side, usually just above a light) is fairly popular for people who don't have the $50k budget. Way less obtrusive than the GoPro mounts I've seen.

tuxidomasx 14y ago

"If the device is recording, a green light illuminates on the device - there's no missing it." The old trick of covering (or disabling) the recording light indicator of a camera to conceal the act of recording could easily be applied to Glass.

jamesaguilar 14y ago
And yet somehow people are chill with camera phones.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  I for one do not think camera phones are chill, and many enterprises do not allow them in the workplace. I do not allow for people to take my picture or record me without my permission. As a professional photographer, I have my subjects sign a release before or shortly after I take a picture they’re in. If they refuse to sign, I delete the material.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    Interesting. I've never heard of a workplace where you can't bring your iPhone on the premises, but I guess there must be some. You must admit it's rare in the white collar sector. > I do not allow for people to take my picture or record me without my permission. I don't see how you have much control over it, at least in public. Maybe you live in a country where preventing others from recording you is a legal privilege.
    - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
      “Maybe you live in a country where preventing others from recording you is a legal privilege.” In most countries, you can’t just take pictures of random people without their permission.[1] “I've never heard of a workplace where you can't bring your iPhone on the premises” Banks and other financial institutions, airports, R&D facilities, defense sites, governmental institutions, the list goes on. Not so long a go, I worked at the headquarters of a bank where I could only bring a dumb phone without camera. [1] Even pro-personal invasion sites are cautious: http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-people-without-asking http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-peo...

dotBen 14y ago

(IMHO) if anything in the voice/text feature phone days, using your phone at the dinner table was considered rude - but the use of a smartphone seems to have become more socially accepted, depending on various contexts.

Samuel_Michon 14y ago
Using a smartphone or tablet in presence of company might be semi-acceptable, taking pictures or videos of people without their permission isn’t (and shouldn't be, IMHO).

sudoscience 14y ago

The "this will fail social norms" card has been played many times, and it has come to pass, but it hasn't been the core of a product failure. Yes it has. The first cell phones, the first PDAs certainly fell into this category and only later when they became less obtrusive did the gain any real traction. Outright failures are less memorable because they tend to not get very far: people realize they are a mistake before they get to market. But a couple examples I can think of off-hand: WebTv: Not socially ok at all to treat your TV like a computer. Still not, really. Delorean: Weird car with its gull wing doors, too different, can't be seen in that.