9 ms·

My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price

166 points by infoman 13y ago

tiziano88 13y ago
Link to the desktop version of this post: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9Gdmk...
- adamors 13y ago
  Thank you.
PanMan 13y ago
Isn't it clear that, as with any electronics product, price will go down over time? So even if they launch at $500, in a few years there will be a version for $200. So the question might be more how strongly they want to boost adoption at launch. And this could be a product that actually needs a slower adoption, to get people used to it.
- enginous 13y ago
  Yes, and even if they had resources and interest to distribute it rapidly, I'd venture to guess that $200 would be underpricing it. People might say they're prepared to pay less for it now than when it's reached some adoption and they start feeling the social pressure of "everybody has it; I must get one." For now it's probably more of a futuristic toy to them.
kayoone 13y ago
Unrelated sidenote: Posted the exact same thing about half an hour earlier (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617110) but didnt get an upvote. Not that i care since i rarely submit new stuff, but HN is strange sometimes ;)
hkmurakami 13y ago
The success of this totally depends on price. Each audience I asked at the end of my presentations "who would buy this?" As the price got down to $200 literally every hand went up. At $500 a few hands went up. This was consistent, whether talking with students, or more mainstream, older audiences. $500 standalone and $200 with some kind of carrier contract? (or is glass meant to be an accessory to a phone? maybe the battery would be inadequate to take on many of the phone features?)
- jagermo 13y ago
  >>or is glass meant to be an accessory to a phone? I ask myself the same question. It would make sense to connect via Bluetooth and let the phone do the heavy lifting (utilizing the available cores and the faster data rate). I am so looking forward to Glass, but I don't want another smartphone with another contract.
- buro9 13y ago
  It's an accessory to a phone. It uses bluetooth primarily, but additionally can use WiFi for network communication. It does not have 3g/4g nor require a SIM or contract. Think of it is a bluetooth headset that happens to have a camera and display, and additionally WiFi (for helping to upload those larger files).
  - stesch 13y ago
    Nobody in their right mind would hold a cell phone for most of the waking hours continously at their head. I wonder how problematic Bluetooth and WiFi are for your health.
    - JelteF 13y ago
      Without discussing if Bluetooth and WiFi are bad for your health, it would be way better to keep those transmitters and receivers close to your head than for instance your upper body. Your skull is quite dense and blocks radiation way more than the soft material that protects your heart and lungs.
magic_haze 13y ago
Interesting he feels so strongly about that... but then again, he always kinda does. Not sure what to make of it. I used to follow Scoble's blog back when he was evangelizing for Microsoft, but he's abandoned his mediums so often and so vociferously that I sort of lost track. Is Google Plus his latest platform now? Personally, I'm consciously trying _not_ to get stuck with a single company's ecosystem, so a lot of the advantages Scoble mentions simply don't relate to me. But then again, I never really ventured past search and Gmail... is the rest of Google's services really that good to justify buying into?
- onedev 13y ago
  As far as G+ is concerned, I find Facebook much more useful than G+ for all intents and purposes (photos, groups, messaging, news, everything I find is either better or more useful on Facebook; more useful in the sense that my friends actually use it heh). YouTube has great content but the design has changed for the worse in my humble opinion. Maps is top notch. Really a modern day beauty. Calendar is pretty useful, but nothing you can't get from some other provider. I prefer Dropbox to Google Drive. It performs better, has a better UI, is more intuitive, and I admire the company itself as well as Drew (founder), so I stick with Dropbox (oh and the 50gb free that I've amassed helps too!).
  - andybak 13y ago
    Remember Drive = Docs + Online storage so you're essentially only comparing Dropbox to the latter. You're probably aware of this but with the rebranding of Docs to Drive I thought it was worth making this explicit.
    - sidi 13y ago
      With Dropbox, you are free to pick the editor. Not so with Drive. The 'Docs +' in fact adds a constraint.
      - andybak 13y ago
        I'm not clear how to get a Google Drive workflow using Dropbox and an app. i.e: 1. A single canonical version of each document with a change history. 2. Simultaneous real-time editing by multiple users with conflict resolution. Dropbox has pretty limited locking and conflict resolution even if you don't factor in live editing.
atirip 13y ago
Wasn't Robert Scoble The Great Antihyper? Everything he hypes will eventually fail?
- TillE 13y ago
  I don't follow him too closely, but it seems that Scoble likes everything new. Some will be flops, others (eg, Instagram) will be hits.
stevewillows 13y ago
I find it interesting that social cues like flipping the glasses up while in the bathroom are becoming normal.
- raldi 13y ago
  It seems like the perfect opportunity for theft.
  - bergie 13y ago
    People already keep their smartphones on table in busy bars, and maybe their wallet in a back pocket. This isn't any easier to steal than that, and has way less impact than having to freeze your credit cards for instance. Much will depend on the price of the final Glass, but if it is down to around the price of designer sunglasses, I don't see a big threat.
    - raldi 13y ago
      I dunno.. if I were using a urinal and someone grabbed the flipped-up glasses on my head, I would be in no position to either chase them or even get a description of their face.
    - stevewillows 13y ago
      My thoughts exactly. Theft is bound to happen, but I don't think it will be any different than any other gadget. Maybe we will see some sort of remove viewing apps that will allow us to view what the thief is looking at.
  - nestlequ1k 13y ago
    If someone else in the area outside the bathroom has google glasses on, you could ask around and maybe get a face shot of the person running out of there. I'm sort of fascinated (and slightly scared) by a world where google glasses are everywhere and the ability to get away with a crime in a public place is nearly impossible.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rmp2150 13y ago
Why is the picture quality so bad?
- netrus 13y ago
  Guess it's because the camera has to be super-tiny.
  - rmp2150 13y ago
    Wasn't the camera one of the biggest selling points Google tried to make? Looking at picture quality in the blog post and the Glass demo at Google I/O 2012, there is a clear disconnect, in my opinion.
    - dombili 13y ago
      Yes, but I don't think they've ever claimed that the picture quality of the camera was great. They emphasized on the camera a lot because taking pictures with the Glass is way more personal than taking a picture with a traditional camera. After some time, when you go back to look at the pictures you'd taken, you live those moments again the same way you remember them, from your point of view. This was my take anyway.
      - rmp2150 13y ago
        Yeah I understand that but whats the point if the quality is not good. Good Idea. Poor execution.
        dombili 13y ago
        I don't think the quality is that bad, actually. In low light situations the camera obviously suffers, but that's not a big surprise, considering how small the lens is. Then again, I know nothing about photography.
        michaelt 13y ago
        The images on the article, like [1] have been downscaled to 480×354 px for the mobile site, then upscaled by your browser. The original can be accessed via the regular google plus interface [2] and downloaded as 2560x1888 px [3] The quality is in line with a phone camera. [1] https://plus.google.com/app/basic/photos/+Scobleizer/album/5871408320945406321/5871408318710743810?cbp=19od81n563a9o&sview=20 https://plus.google.com/app/basic/photos/+Scobleizer/album/5... [2] https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9Gdmk... [3] http://imgur.com/RHmdbi7 http://imgur.com/RHmdbi7
onedev 13y ago
Some observations: From what he wrote it seems to me like he only gauged the reactions of technically-oriented people. Of course tech people are going to be pretty excited about this, more-so than the average Joe. He also seems to feel very very strongly about this. I don't think many people feel the same strength of opinion towards Glass. He's right about the price. If they could cut it down to subsidized-smartphone levels, people will be more open to trying it. It's certainly cool and most people will probably think so (hence everyone wanting to check it out), but thinking it's cool and actually incorporating it in daily life is very different. Of course Robert is an early adopter so he was more open to the notion of having something like that on his face at all times, but I don't think many people will be as open to it. He notes that its a more social device because you don't have to look away to use it. Well, I've also tried Glass and you do have to look up and to the right to use the device. The actual display is in your peripherals so if someone is talking to you and you wanted to use Glass, they would most certainly notice because your eyes would drift to your peripherals. I don't think it'll be too different from pulling out your phone from a politeness standpoint.
- threeseed 13y ago
  I don't think it'll be too different from pulling out your phone from a politeness standpoint. This is the point a lot of Glass proponents don't seem to get. They assume that not paying attention to you whilst looking at your face is somehow more polite than looking at your phone. It's not. I suspect that over time Glass will become like Bluetooth earpieces. Perfect for use alone but a faux pas around other people.
  - saulrh 13y ago
    A couple of differences. First, vision is much higher bandwidth. You can glance at a notification and immediately know that you have a message, who sent the message, and how you received it. Takes half a second. Bluetooth earpieces are only suitable for sustained conversation. They are social faux pas because you are having a sustained conversation with someone else. This is not the case with HMDs - someone using a tool like Glass is actually more focused on their task and less distracted overall because they spend less time switching contexts. Citation: http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1695.pdf http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1695.pdf Second, glancing at an HMD is fundamentally different from pulling out a cell phone because you're not looking away from the other person. It is difficult to emphasize how important this is to people who have not done work in this field. It is looking away that breaks conversations, not doing something else. Conversation continues to work as long as the other person thinks you're looking at them. And having an HMD on is close enough that people don't react to you jumping away into glass-land to look something up or jot down a note. This one doesn't have a citation, but I have spent several years taking classes from the guy who now runs the Google Glass project, and I can tell you this from direct experience. I've said it before and I'll say it again: please, please try these things before you dismiss them. Social interaction is sufficiently complicated that experimentation is the only way to predict how people will react to something. And the experiments show that Glass works.
jdotjdot 13y ago
I'm actually pretty curious how this will fit for people who already wear glasses or some kind of eyewear. Will there be prescription Google Glass(es)? That could shoot the price way up, especially if Google is the only merchant for them. Who will make the lenses for me? Could I get my favorite glasses merchant to make my glasses, or will I be forced to get a $700 special prescription pair from Google? Maybe people with poor eyesight could never wear them at all? I am completely on board with the product and hope for its success--but I am convinced that the entire product is merely the first iteration that will eventually make way for contact lenses, which will be the true long-term viable version of this product. Right now, Google Glass will be good for gathering information not only about the world around us as we already do with smartphones, but for understanding how customers and developers would begin to use such a product--and then applying that information towards improvement in what will ultimately be lenses.
- Heliosmaster 13y ago
  Eventually, if the market will be very wide, I guess there will be Google Prescription Glasses (you decide the name). For the moment Glass can be detached and put on top of the frame of your current glasses (bonus: hipsters with big frames, won't even notice it!). I Totally agree with the first iteration concept.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    Not 'eventually', it's already confirmed, manufactured and used - some of the demoed Glass units have a slightly different front frame where prescription lenses can be attached in the same way as for "normal" glass frames.
- logn 13y ago
  Google is already in talks with Warby Parker (the Zappos of glasses) to design more stylish frames. I'm sure they have a plan for affordable prescriptions, and Warby's frames/lenses come to less than $100 already. Actually, if I could get Google (prescription) Glass for < $400 and it wasn't very noticeable I have a computer on my head, I'd certainly buy a pair since I already wear glasses. But there's no way in hell I'm going to use this if I always need a cell phone (I rarely have one), and I'm not paying any of the major cell companies for a Glass plan because they all rip you off. If they teamed up with Metro/Boost/Cricket type companies or went the original Kindle path of free data, I'd be happy.
senthilnayagam 13y ago
I love apple products but at 200$ willing to buy one for my whole family. I would like map app prebuilt on it
joelrunyon 13y ago
> 1. I will never live a day of my life from now on without it (or a competitor). This seems like a massive statement.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Well, the guy already wears (normal) glasses probably every day of his life. It's just a matter of using a different pair :)
- MortenK 13y ago
  Well it is Robert Scoble. The guy is more easily excited than a puppy on adderall.
- Kiro 13y ago
  You will feel the same way.
personlurking 13y ago
I just read this and this (1) and together they paint an interesting picture, though I'm with the TC author on this one. I hope they're very akward to use and very much like the Segway in popularity. If they're worn in public and are recording, I want a large, unmistakable red light to come on. Even so, I'm pretty sure people who record without permission will get roughed up on more than one occassion, if not just pushed. On the flip side, recording activity or family-based events (ie, going down a mountain at Tahoe, or your kid taking his/her first steps) and having hands-free internet is pretty cool. 1 - http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/26/eric-schmidt-is-right-using-google-glasses-is-weird-heres-my-experience/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/26/eric-schmidt-is-right-using...
- ewang1 13y ago
  I don't see that being much of an issue. When you're out in public, most expectations of privacy are gone anyways.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    Yes, but you don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to start photographing you either do you? How would you feel if where ever you went someone followed you with a camera pointed at you?
    - lmm 13y ago
      I live in London so that's basically happening already.
      - pekk 13y ago
        Are those recordings currently posted on Facebook or Youtube, with you tagged in them? Do those cameras follow you inside every pub? If so I am quite sorry for you. This isn't fighting governments, this is creating the panopticon. All the public footage will be used by governments and I think you'll find that it will be much more invasive and even malicious than what governments are currently doing. Governments are mostly interested in illegal actions and are at least partially constrained, the general public and anyone who doesn't like you will be happy to use this against you in every way conceivable.
davidw 13y ago
Hrm. I find that wearing things that aren't strictly necessary irritates me. I don't even like watches, let alone some thing attached to my face. When I raced bikes, I ended up dumping the annoying heart rate monitor too as I did not like having this thing strapped to me. Phones work pretty well as they're just along for the ride, like a wallet or keys, and don't constrain me.
- buro9 13y ago
  I agree. I also ditched HRM on the bike, but even found something as innocuous as a Fitbit a burden. When the Fitbit worked, it worked well... but then after a couple of weeks it broke and when the utility and value of it has fallen away it is immediately an annoyance. I think, for Google, that ensuring that the value proposition is quite solid (mature offering of services via Glass) that it will do well. The worst thing for them would be to launch too early when the value is not yet proven, and for poor network connectivity, poor software, to turn the "Wow" into annoyance.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  I wear glasses and despise contacts. I guess I could get laser surgery, but I'm used enough to glasses that I would never bother with the cost or risk. I don't see how this is very different from wearing glasses.
  - davidw 13y ago
    For someone who wears glasses, it isn't, as far as I can tell. I don't, though.
  - gingerlime 13y ago
    But when you wear glasses you get to choose the design and look that fits your personality. It's also a fashion accessory. I love my glasses, but part of the reason I love them is because I have not (yet) met a single person with the same glasses as mine, and I've had them for 3 years now. I wouldn't feel so happy wearing something every other person wears.
stesch 13y ago
This is hard to read. And when I switch to the desktop version, Google wants me to log in. WTF?
kingjames24 13y ago
interested in working on a Google Glass product/app....ping me if anyone's working on anything or has any ideas? james@livcard.com
colept 13y ago
I wonder what will happen when Google Glass goes consumer for Explorer upgrades. When Google released the Nexus One, I hopped on board and was satisfied until I went through two recovery requests on the power button. Google Glass is quite a chunk of change. I understand the value in their utility and scarcity, but come time when Google releases the Glasses at a consumer prices, I hope not to be disappointed by the same feeling of getting left behind. Does anybody know if and what upgrade options will be available for Google Explorers when they release the consumer version?
- eloisant 13y ago
  I guess they'll have the opportunity to buy the consumer version like everyone else. What's wrong?
- jfoster 13y ago
  Glass Explorers are not being ripped off. These are like limited edition Apple 1 computers. They're going to be treasured antiques within 15 - 20 years.
- bryanl 13y ago
  There isn't an option. We will just purchase the new device. I have a hunch that if you do cool stuff with Glass using the explorer edition, Google will have problem shipping you the final release gratis.
throwaway1979 13y ago
Are there any Glass users around here? I have a basic question. Can the wearer see a video? I ask because I've seen captured video, still images of ... still images, etc. ;-) Conceptually, video is similar but I want to verify that video playback is in there.
- bryanl 13y ago
  You can review the video you've taken. I'm not sure if the timeline cards support the video HTML tag. The hardware can handle it, so this is just a software limitation,
- estel 13y ago
  Lots of their promotional stuff showed the wearer in a video hangout, so I assume this is in the existing hardware.
- mikeevans 13y ago
  Yeah, I have them. You can definitely watch videos you've taken, hangouts, etc. Even the navigation maps are realtime updated, rather than still photos.
dombili 13y ago
"I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a commerce based company." Maybe I'm not reading this sentence right, but isn't it quite obvious that Page is doing the quite opposite?
polshaw 13y ago
I don't see why people think google are going to struggle to get this out for $200. It is essentially galaxy nexus hardware without cell phone modem, a much smaller battery, and a small LCOS display instead of the large 720p AMOLED one. Yes, there will be higher non-recurring engineering costs with glass- fitting it into such a small space- but if they plan to go fairly mainstream these costs shouldn't cause too much of an impact on the unit device cost. Once you get into mass manufacturing, the marginal cost of making another one should be quite a bit lower than a current smartphone; as they are eliminating or massively reducing the cost of many of the major components. If we look at google's track record, they haven't shown much desire to become a hardware company (that is, make the bulk of profits from selling hardware). Taking into account what google have been willing to price the nexus 4 at, with better hardware all round, I believe google are definitely capable of doing $200 unsubsidised if they want to. I can see $99 possible in the future.
- bmeckel 13y ago
  I agree, I don't think it's crazy to think of them selling this at a $200 price point. They've shown time and again that hardware is just a way for them to spread their software, and this is just an extension of that philosophy. As for the author's point about google moving away from advertising, he's nuts. I think google realized that advertising in this setting would be way too intrusive at the get go, but I'm sure they'll work it in over time.
coob 13y ago
> I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a commerce based company. What planet is this guy on? Google's product has always been eyeballs. This is just the most direct manifestation of it.
- Sven7 13y ago
  Apple has reminded everyone in tech, that there are better routes to mountains of profit than "free" products. When the Scoble's of the world are willing to drop 2000+ dollars (including cost of phone) for the ability to take a picture faster, or more likely, just to look cool to friends, then why not. Who wants to be hostage to advertisers anyway? That unpleasant road, just involves turning all your users into controllable lab rats. If Google is trying to make a shift, I say high time and all the best.
- arrrg 13y ago
  So you think Google’s ultimate goal here is shoving ads in front of people’s eyes? I somehow doubt that. Why wouldn’t they just want another leg to stand on, besides ads? Doesn’t that make sense? You can make tons of money selling hardware. Apple demonstrated that.
  - coob 13y ago
    No, I think Google's ultimate goal is making money. They only know how to make money by selling ads. They have made squat by selling hardware.
b1daly 13y ago
I think part of Scoble's enthusiasm must derive from the fact that he is an always connected person who travels, networks,communicates as his job. Nothing he describes sounded that great, but if you are online all the time while moving then I can see it. I'd like to be online less, and try to experience the world unmediated.
mtgx 13y ago
I hope Google improves the camera by the time they release the consumer version. I saw the demo from Engadget editor, and the video seemed a little too shaky for my taste. It needs OIS, or something to make the video recording much more stable. This is even more important than in a smartphone, because you're moving your head a lot more. So Google should really prioritize this. I would also make it a lot better in low-light, and maybe even give it a flash for night shots and so on. Voice will need to be flawless, so if voice recognition depends on how fast the processor is, then they need to put the fastest one in there (maybe a quad core Cortex A57 at 20nm, for efficiency, too). They also need to keep working on the design, and make future generations as minimal as possible, and as "cool" looking as possible. They need to keep improving on this.
- tiziano88 13y ago
  My guess is that voice recognition happens mostly server-side, similarly to voice search and voice typing in Android.
  - parfe 13y ago
    Jelly bean with google now added offline voice recognition. My downloaded English dictionary is 22mb. http://m.androidcentral.com/google-search-update-allows-third-party-developers-use-offline-speech-recognition http://m.androidcentral.com/google-search-update-allows-thir...
emehrkay 13y ago
I don't think that Google has done a good job of explaining what it does. As of right now, it just seems like a second screen for my phone. My reaction to it reminds me of the reaction to the iPad, but in reverse -- the tech-minded folk were confused while the average joe was excited. I do think it is cool tech and probably the next logical step in personal computing, I'm just at the wait-and-see stage. Mainly waiting to see if there will be competition and what everyone will do with it.
kingkawn 13y ago
I was surprised at how low quality the photos taken by Glass are. Is that the planned camera for rollout?
- antihero 13y ago
  It's for some reason the poster linked to the G+ mobile version.
uptown 13y ago
"Also, Google is forbidding advertising in apps. This is a HUGE shift for Google's business model. I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a commerce based company." Does anybody think this is their permanent stance? I certainly don't.
- drcube 13y ago
  I will not buy Glass if there are ads. Period. I think most people are with me and Google knows this. This probably won't extend to Android or any other Google service, but I can see why they would choose to forgo ads in Glass.
thoughtcriminal 13y ago
I have no doubt Microsoft are working on their own glasses, so maybe I'll hold out for that. I jumped from Google's ecosystem to Microsoft and I'm totally happy with the Outlook.com/Skydrive/Office trifecta. The Windows Phone 8 is awesome and integrates nicely with Windows 8 OS. Even Bing has strengths that Google search can't touch. Internet Explorer 10 is almost tolerable. So yeah, lets see what Microsoft brings to the party.
blablabla123 13y ago
It's funny, the whole post is about how nice those glasses are and how amazing. But I cannot really see why they are useful. If I understand the OP correctly, it features the same functions as a cell phone but without ads and being more social. I think he misses the point, staring at a cell-phone every 10 seconds is not non-social because of the looking away but because of the permanent distraction. It's a sign of politeness to be 100% focussed when talking to someone else. I think I'll buy them if they are below $200 but I won't use them much. Watching Terminator is much cooler anyway ;)
brohoolio 13y ago
What review? I read this and other than saying he won't live without it he doesn't say what makes it amazing. The price point discussion is nice but I don't understand why I would want one. I can see for vacation to take videos to share with my family bu I don't get why it's amazing. Am I going to read my Facebook feed on it? What am I going to do with it other than pictures? Give me details!!
jleyank 13y ago
Couple of questions for those with Glass: Do they work with eyes older than 40 - those that can't focus within 18 inches without multi-diopter help? These folks still have money to burn. How about astigmatism? Makes for interesting curves rotating my progressives. Dptical artifacts on two axes! Will they be snatched off your face like apple gear has been grabbed at times. High value, small package. Easy to fence if google doesn't have or use a kill switch. Price will be an issue. My glasses already cost 400-700 usd depending on where I get them. This assumes I can get prescription Glass...
- mikeevans 13y ago
  Yep they do. My dad is 61 and had surgery on his right eye a few years back (so it's even weaker than normal) and he said he was able to read the screen. He did say he would have preferred a left eye version however. Can't say about astigmatism. I guess they could be, you can remote wipe them though. Agreed on price, luckily I didn't even have to pay the $1500. And there was a Googler wearing a prototype prescription version at the pickup.
bane 13y ago
I appreciate this review, and I agree with him 100% on the price point. Had I been in the audience I wouldn't raise my hand till $200-300 either ($1500 is almost comically absurd). But at the same time, I'm gonna wait no matter what till it does more. A head mounted camera (which seems to make up the bulk of the advertising use-cases for it) just isn't important to me...at all. I think the head mounted navigation stuff could be very useful, but I can barely get my Android phone to understand spoken address searches right now, and I don't mind having it shout out directions to me. I'm not sure I need to pay a few hundred bucks to get the directions up on my face. The one thing that I hope somebody creates an app for is a quick barcode/item scanner and price lookup app. Just tell me what the best price is for an item I'm looking at and where I can get it. I've tried a few phone apps for this, but the experience is atrocious. But is it worth $200-300 for those limited use cases? I dunno. I really am going to wait and see.
- ryankshaw 13y ago
  IMO, at that price point, the real question is "is it worth it to wear them and look like one of those guys that walks around with a Bluetooth earpiece in at all times"?
  - georgemcbay 13y ago
    On the one hand, we're entering a world where Neal Stephenson's "gargoyles" actually exist. On the other hand, the equipment they'll be carrying around is way, way, way smaller than he envisioned.
  - uptown 13y ago
    You don't want to look like this? https://plus.google.com/photos/+Scobleizer/albums/5870920743585489873/5870920745290437858?authkey=CIq7p5Pi046Ucg https://plus.google.com/photos/+Scobleizer/albums/5870920743...
- nooneelse 13y ago
  Not just the price. Have it tell you any one of a number of information types that you personally value. Such as if that item has any ingredients that you have blacklisted (or your doctor has). Have it show you a "Pollan-score" for the item or reviews of it by experts and/or friends. Have it tell you a guess at what ratio of the price will go to corporations that you do and don't like the politics of. Did it get shipped on a boat that has a carbon-emission rating that is higher than you like? Is there another brand sold at this store that more closely matches your preferences, and if so what does their packaging look like? Customers have had their information stream systematically filtered/impoverished by those who would rather not have the invisible hand of the market move in response to some subgroups' aggregate utility evaluations. Information at the point of choice can alter these dynamics.
robobenjie 13y ago
How can you possibly say that you aren't willing to spend more than $200 dollars, but would wear it on your face every single day? People pay more than that for sunglasses which provide no functional utility above the $5 sunglasses.
- rjsamson 13y ago
  He didn't say he wouldn't pay more than $200 - he said that $200 seemed to be the price that nearly everyone he talked to would buy a pair.
- defen 13y ago
  People are paying for a status symbol + fashion accessory. Whether Glass is a status symbol will depend on what kind of circles you travel in, but they're certainly less fashionable than high-end sunglasses.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  I don't think you can just look at the price of Glass alone. AFAIK they rely on your phone to work so you also need an Android phone and data plan. I think Google should be selling Glass like a Android phone accessory rather than a product by itself. Also people are taking a risk by purchasing one. They have never used anything like it and don't know if it will actually benefit them.
  - LockeWatts 13y ago
    Where did you get that information? That is the only time I've ever heard anyone say that, it seems sketchy at best.
    - k-mcgrady 13y ago
      "As Google Glass doesn’t have a mobile antenna or GPS tracking, My Glass is essential if you want to send and receive SMS from Google Glass, use a data connection, or navigate using GPS." The phone is pretty much essential. NB: My Glass is the companion Android app. http://www.androidauthority.com/how-it-works-google-glass-195912/ http://www.androidauthority.com/how-it-works-google-glass-19...
antihero 13y ago
I just hope the voice commands are going to be significantly better than on Android now. Whilst they are much better than anything else, I still don't find them actually usable, and I'm a Brit with an average voice.
fakeer 13y ago
To be honest his first observation felt absurd, so much that I dared not read further of the post. Sometime ago I chanced upon one of his posts and it had the same mood - an attempt be voracious and fanatic about sth even though he would be actually sounding extortionately absurd.
steeve 13y ago
I've had the chance to try them a few months ago, and my only concern with them (while cool), was that they would suffer the same fate as either: bluetooth hands-free kits (aka douchebagy), or segway (aka dorky). The only killer app I think is driving directions, that was nice.
ilaksh 13y ago
http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/ http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/ The next step is a brain computer interface so you don't even have to say commands out loud.
ixacto 13y ago
I would be hesitant to talk to anyone wearing the google glass about any controversial subject matter. Big brother really is watching you... As for price, if google thinks it can make money off of it, the price will indeed be $200 or so.
- xtracto 13y ago
  This is important and greatly overlooked IMO. By Law, Google (along with other Internet companies) have been required to be 'tap friendly', so that the government can read everyone's data (like email). So when more and more people starts using Glass, the government will also want to tap into that. I am sure some will say that such ability will only be used to prevent crime, but we already know how well the government abuses power to their own enjoyment like it happened with the porn-scanners which pictures could never-never-never be saved...
skc 13y ago
Dying to read a whole bunch of reviews from non-techie people. For the time being I can't help but feel like this thing demos well to many geeks.

166 points by infoman 13y ago

Link to the desktop version of this post: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9Gdmk...

adamors 13y ago
Thank you.

PanMan 13y ago

Isn't it clear that, as with any electronics product, price will go down over time? So even if they launch at $500, in a few years there will be a version for $200. So the question might be more how strongly they want to boost adoption at launch. And this could be a product that actually needs a slower adoption, to get people used to it.

enginous 13y ago
Yes, and even if they had resources and interest to distribute it rapidly, I'd venture to guess that $200 would be underpricing it. People might say they're prepared to pay less for it now than when it's reached some adoption and they start feeling the social pressure of "everybody has it; I must get one." For now it's probably more of a futuristic toy to them.

kayoone 13y ago

Unrelated sidenote: Posted the exact same thing about half an hour earlier (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617110) but didnt get an upvote. Not that i care since i rarely submit new stuff, but HN is strange sometimes ;)

hkmurakami 13y ago

The success of this totally depends on price. Each audience I asked at the end of my presentations "who would buy this?" As the price got down to $200 literally every hand went up. At $500 a few hands went up. This was consistent, whether talking with students, or more mainstream, older audiences. $500 standalone and $200 with some kind of carrier contract? (or is glass meant to be an accessory to a phone? maybe the battery would be inadequate to take on many of the phone features?)

jagermo 13y ago
>>or is glass meant to be an accessory to a phone? I ask myself the same question. It would make sense to connect via Bluetooth and let the phone do the heavy lifting (utilizing the available cores and the faster data rate). I am so looking forward to Glass, but I don't want another smartphone with another contract.
buro9 13y ago
It's an accessory to a phone. It uses bluetooth primarily, but additionally can use WiFi for network communication. It does not have 3g/4g nor require a SIM or contract. Think of it is a bluetooth headset that happens to have a camera and display, and additionally WiFi (for helping to upload those larger files).
- stesch 13y ago
  Nobody in their right mind would hold a cell phone for most of the waking hours continously at their head. I wonder how problematic Bluetooth and WiFi are for your health.
  - JelteF 13y ago
    Without discussing if Bluetooth and WiFi are bad for your health, it would be way better to keep those transmitters and receivers close to your head than for instance your upper body. Your skull is quite dense and blocks radiation way more than the soft material that protects your heart and lungs.

magic_haze 13y ago

Interesting he feels so strongly about that... but then again, he always kinda does. Not sure what to make of it. I used to follow Scoble's blog back when he was evangelizing for Microsoft, but he's abandoned his mediums so often and so vociferously that I sort of lost track. Is Google Plus his latest platform now? Personally, I'm consciously trying _not_ to get stuck with a single company's ecosystem, so a lot of the advantages Scoble mentions simply don't relate to me. But then again, I never really ventured past search and Gmail... is the rest of Google's services really that good to justify buying into?

onedev 13y ago
As far as G+ is concerned, I find Facebook much more useful than G+ for all intents and purposes (photos, groups, messaging, news, everything I find is either better or more useful on Facebook; more useful in the sense that my friends actually use it heh). YouTube has great content but the design has changed for the worse in my humble opinion. Maps is top notch. Really a modern day beauty. Calendar is pretty useful, but nothing you can't get from some other provider. I prefer Dropbox to Google Drive. It performs better, has a better UI, is more intuitive, and I admire the company itself as well as Drew (founder), so I stick with Dropbox (oh and the 50gb free that I've amassed helps too!).
- andybak 13y ago
  Remember Drive = Docs + Online storage so you're essentially only comparing Dropbox to the latter. You're probably aware of this but with the rebranding of Docs to Drive I thought it was worth making this explicit.
  - sidi 13y ago
    With Dropbox, you are free to pick the editor. Not so with Drive. The 'Docs +' in fact adds a constraint.
    - andybak 13y ago
      I'm not clear how to get a Google Drive workflow using Dropbox and an app. i.e: 1. A single canonical version of each document with a change history. 2. Simultaneous real-time editing by multiple users with conflict resolution. Dropbox has pretty limited locking and conflict resolution even if you don't factor in live editing.

atirip 13y ago

Wasn't Robert Scoble The Great Antihyper? Everything he hypes will eventually fail?

TillE 13y ago
I don't follow him too closely, but it seems that Scoble likes everything new. Some will be flops, others (eg, Instagram) will be hits.

stevewillows 13y ago

I find it interesting that social cues like flipping the glasses up while in the bathroom are becoming normal.

raldi 13y ago
It seems like the perfect opportunity for theft.
- bergie 13y ago
  People already keep their smartphones on table in busy bars, and maybe their wallet in a back pocket. This isn't any easier to steal than that, and has way less impact than having to freeze your credit cards for instance. Much will depend on the price of the final Glass, but if it is down to around the price of designer sunglasses, I don't see a big threat.
  - raldi 13y ago
    I dunno.. if I were using a urinal and someone grabbed the flipped-up glasses on my head, I would be in no position to either chase them or even get a description of their face.
  - stevewillows 13y ago
    My thoughts exactly. Theft is bound to happen, but I don't think it will be any different than any other gadget. Maybe we will see some sort of remove viewing apps that will allow us to view what the thief is looking at.
- nestlequ1k 13y ago
  If someone else in the area outside the bathroom has google glasses on, you could ask around and maybe get a face shot of the person running out of there. I'm sort of fascinated (and slightly scared) by a world where google glasses are everywhere and the ability to get away with a crime in a public place is nearly impossible.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rmp2150 13y ago

Why is the picture quality so bad?

netrus 13y ago
Guess it's because the camera has to be super-tiny.
- rmp2150 13y ago
  Wasn't the camera one of the biggest selling points Google tried to make? Looking at picture quality in the blog post and the Glass demo at Google I/O 2012, there is a clear disconnect, in my opinion.
  - dombili 13y ago
    Yes, but I don't think they've ever claimed that the picture quality of the camera was great. They emphasized on the camera a lot because taking pictures with the Glass is way more personal than taking a picture with a traditional camera. After some time, when you go back to look at the pictures you'd taken, you live those moments again the same way you remember them, from your point of view. This was my take anyway.
    - rmp2150 13y ago
      Yeah I understand that but whats the point if the quality is not good. Good Idea. Poor execution.
      - dombili 13y ago
        I don't think the quality is that bad, actually. In low light situations the camera obviously suffers, but that's not a big surprise, considering how small the lens is. Then again, I know nothing about photography.
      - michaelt 13y ago
        The images on the article, like [1] have been downscaled to 480×354 px for the mobile site, then upscaled by your browser. The original can be accessed via the regular google plus interface [2] and downloaded as 2560x1888 px [3] The quality is in line with a phone camera. [1] https://plus.google.com/app/basic/photos/+Scobleizer/album/5871408320945406321/5871408318710743810?cbp=19od81n563a9o&sview=20 https://plus.google.com/app/basic/photos/+Scobleizer/album/5... [2] https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9Gdmk... [3] http://imgur.com/RHmdbi7 http://imgur.com/RHmdbi7

onedev 13y ago

Some observations: From what he wrote it seems to me like he only gauged the reactions of technically-oriented people. Of course tech people are going to be pretty excited about this, more-so than the average Joe. He also seems to feel very very strongly about this. I don't think many people feel the same strength of opinion towards Glass. He's right about the price. If they could cut it down to subsidized-smartphone levels, people will be more open to trying it. It's certainly cool and most people will probably think so (hence everyone wanting to check it out), but thinking it's cool and actually incorporating it in daily life is very different. Of course Robert is an early adopter so he was more open to the notion of having something like that on his face at all times, but I don't think many people will be as open to it. He notes that its a more social device because you don't have to look away to use it. Well, I've also tried Glass and you do have to look up and to the right to use the device. The actual display is in your peripherals so if someone is talking to you and you wanted to use Glass, they would most certainly notice because your eyes would drift to your peripherals. I don't think it'll be too different from pulling out your phone from a politeness standpoint.

threeseed 13y ago
I don't think it'll be too different from pulling out your phone from a politeness standpoint. This is the point a lot of Glass proponents don't seem to get. They assume that not paying attention to you whilst looking at your face is somehow more polite than looking at your phone. It's not. I suspect that over time Glass will become like Bluetooth earpieces. Perfect for use alone but a faux pas around other people.
- saulrh 13y ago
  A couple of differences. First, vision is much higher bandwidth. You can glance at a notification and immediately know that you have a message, who sent the message, and how you received it. Takes half a second. Bluetooth earpieces are only suitable for sustained conversation. They are social faux pas because you are having a sustained conversation with someone else. This is not the case with HMDs - someone using a tool like Glass is actually more focused on their task and less distracted overall because they spend less time switching contexts. Citation: http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1695.pdf http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1695.pdf Second, glancing at an HMD is fundamentally different from pulling out a cell phone because you're not looking away from the other person. It is difficult to emphasize how important this is to people who have not done work in this field. It is looking away that breaks conversations, not doing something else. Conversation continues to work as long as the other person thinks you're looking at them. And having an HMD on is close enough that people don't react to you jumping away into glass-land to look something up or jot down a note. This one doesn't have a citation, but I have spent several years taking classes from the guy who now runs the Google Glass project, and I can tell you this from direct experience. I've said it before and I'll say it again: please, please try these things before you dismiss them. Social interaction is sufficiently complicated that experimentation is the only way to predict how people will react to something. And the experiments show that Glass works.

jdotjdot 13y ago

I'm actually pretty curious how this will fit for people who already wear glasses or some kind of eyewear. Will there be prescription Google Glass(es)? That could shoot the price way up, especially if Google is the only merchant for them. Who will make the lenses for me? Could I get my favorite glasses merchant to make my glasses, or will I be forced to get a $700 special prescription pair from Google? Maybe people with poor eyesight could never wear them at all? I am completely on board with the product and hope for its success--but I am convinced that the entire product is merely the first iteration that will eventually make way for contact lenses, which will be the true long-term viable version of this product. Right now, Google Glass will be good for gathering information not only about the world around us as we already do with smartphones, but for understanding how customers and developers would begin to use such a product--and then applying that information towards improvement in what will ultimately be lenses.

Heliosmaster 13y ago
Eventually, if the market will be very wide, I guess there will be Google Prescription Glasses (you decide the name). For the moment Glass can be detached and put on top of the frame of your current glasses (bonus: hipsters with big frames, won't even notice it!). I Totally agree with the first iteration concept.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Not 'eventually', it's already confirmed, manufactured and used - some of the demoed Glass units have a slightly different front frame where prescription lenses can be attached in the same way as for "normal" glass frames.
logn 13y ago
Google is already in talks with Warby Parker (the Zappos of glasses) to design more stylish frames. I'm sure they have a plan for affordable prescriptions, and Warby's frames/lenses come to less than $100 already. Actually, if I could get Google (prescription) Glass for < $400 and it wasn't very noticeable I have a computer on my head, I'd certainly buy a pair since I already wear glasses. But there's no way in hell I'm going to use this if I always need a cell phone (I rarely have one), and I'm not paying any of the major cell companies for a Glass plan because they all rip you off. If they teamed up with Metro/Boost/Cricket type companies or went the original Kindle path of free data, I'd be happy.

senthilnayagam 13y ago

I love apple products but at 200$ willing to buy one for my whole family. I would like map app prebuilt on it

joelrunyon 13y ago

> 1. I will never live a day of my life from now on without it (or a competitor). This seems like a massive statement.

icebraining 13y ago
Well, the guy already wears (normal) glasses probably every day of his life. It's just a matter of using a different pair :)
MortenK 13y ago
Well it is Robert Scoble. The guy is more easily excited than a puppy on adderall.
Kiro 13y ago
You will feel the same way.

personlurking 13y ago

I just read this and this (1) and together they paint an interesting picture, though I'm with the TC author on this one. I hope they're very akward to use and very much like the Segway in popularity. If they're worn in public and are recording, I want a large, unmistakable red light to come on. Even so, I'm pretty sure people who record without permission will get roughed up on more than one occassion, if not just pushed. On the flip side, recording activity or family-based events (ie, going down a mountain at Tahoe, or your kid taking his/her first steps) and having hands-free internet is pretty cool. 1 - http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/26/eric-schmidt-is-right-using-google-glasses-is-weird-heres-my-experience/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/26/eric-schmidt-is-right-using...

ewang1 13y ago
I don't see that being much of an issue. When you're out in public, most expectations of privacy are gone anyways.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Yes, but you don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to start photographing you either do you? How would you feel if where ever you went someone followed you with a camera pointed at you?
  - lmm 13y ago
    I live in London so that's basically happening already.
    - pekk 13y ago
      Are those recordings currently posted on Facebook or Youtube, with you tagged in them? Do those cameras follow you inside every pub? If so I am quite sorry for you. This isn't fighting governments, this is creating the panopticon. All the public footage will be used by governments and I think you'll find that it will be much more invasive and even malicious than what governments are currently doing. Governments are mostly interested in illegal actions and are at least partially constrained, the general public and anyone who doesn't like you will be happy to use this against you in every way conceivable.

davidw 13y ago

Hrm. I find that wearing things that aren't strictly necessary irritates me. I don't even like watches, let alone some thing attached to my face. When I raced bikes, I ended up dumping the annoying heart rate monitor too as I did not like having this thing strapped to me. Phones work pretty well as they're just along for the ride, like a wallet or keys, and don't constrain me.

buro9 13y ago
I agree. I also ditched HRM on the bike, but even found something as innocuous as a Fitbit a burden. When the Fitbit worked, it worked well... but then after a couple of weeks it broke and when the utility and value of it has fallen away it is immediately an annoyance. I think, for Google, that ensuring that the value proposition is quite solid (mature offering of services via Glass) that it will do well. The worst thing for them would be to launch too early when the value is not yet proven, and for poor network connectivity, poor software, to turn the "Wow" into annoyance.
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
I wear glasses and despise contacts. I guess I could get laser surgery, but I'm used enough to glasses that I would never bother with the cost or risk. I don't see how this is very different from wearing glasses.
- davidw 13y ago
  For someone who wears glasses, it isn't, as far as I can tell. I don't, though.
- gingerlime 13y ago
  But when you wear glasses you get to choose the design and look that fits your personality. It's also a fashion accessory. I love my glasses, but part of the reason I love them is because I have not (yet) met a single person with the same glasses as mine, and I've had them for 3 years now. I wouldn't feel so happy wearing something every other person wears.

stesch 13y ago

This is hard to read. And when I switch to the desktop version, Google wants me to log in. WTF?

kingjames24 13y ago

interested in working on a Google Glass product/app....ping me if anyone's working on anything or has any ideas? james@livcard.com

colept 13y ago

I wonder what will happen when Google Glass goes consumer for Explorer upgrades. When Google released the Nexus One, I hopped on board and was satisfied until I went through two recovery requests on the power button. Google Glass is quite a chunk of change. I understand the value in their utility and scarcity, but come time when Google releases the Glasses at a consumer prices, I hope not to be disappointed by the same feeling of getting left behind. Does anybody know if and what upgrade options will be available for Google Explorers when they release the consumer version?

eloisant 13y ago
I guess they'll have the opportunity to buy the consumer version like everyone else. What's wrong?
jfoster 13y ago
Glass Explorers are not being ripped off. These are like limited edition Apple 1 computers. They're going to be treasured antiques within 15 - 20 years.
bryanl 13y ago
There isn't an option. We will just purchase the new device. I have a hunch that if you do cool stuff with Glass using the explorer edition, Google will have problem shipping you the final release gratis.

throwaway1979 13y ago

Are there any Glass users around here? I have a basic question. Can the wearer see a video? I ask because I've seen captured video, still images of ... still images, etc. ;-) Conceptually, video is similar but I want to verify that video playback is in there.

bryanl 13y ago
You can review the video you've taken. I'm not sure if the timeline cards support the video HTML tag. The hardware can handle it, so this is just a software limitation,
estel 13y ago
Lots of their promotional stuff showed the wearer in a video hangout, so I assume this is in the existing hardware.
mikeevans 13y ago
Yeah, I have them. You can definitely watch videos you've taken, hangouts, etc. Even the navigation maps are realtime updated, rather than still photos.

dombili 13y ago

"I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a commerce based company." Maybe I'm not reading this sentence right, but isn't it quite obvious that Page is doing the quite opposite?

polshaw 13y ago

I don't see why people think google are going to struggle to get this out for $200. It is essentially galaxy nexus hardware without cell phone modem, a much smaller battery, and a small LCOS display instead of the large 720p AMOLED one. Yes, there will be higher non-recurring engineering costs with glass- fitting it into such a small space- but if they plan to go fairly mainstream these costs shouldn't cause too much of an impact on the unit device cost. Once you get into mass manufacturing, the marginal cost of making another one should be quite a bit lower than a current smartphone; as they are eliminating or massively reducing the cost of many of the major components. If we look at google's track record, they haven't shown much desire to become a hardware company (that is, make the bulk of profits from selling hardware). Taking into account what google have been willing to price the nexus 4 at, with better hardware all round, I believe google are definitely capable of doing $200 unsubsidised if they want to. I can see $99 possible in the future.

bmeckel 13y ago
I agree, I don't think it's crazy to think of them selling this at a $200 price point. They've shown time and again that hardware is just a way for them to spread their software, and this is just an extension of that philosophy. As for the author's point about google moving away from advertising, he's nuts. I think google realized that advertising in this setting would be way too intrusive at the get go, but I'm sure they'll work it in over time.

coob 13y ago

> I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a commerce based company. What planet is this guy on? Google's product has always been eyeballs. This is just the most direct manifestation of it.

Sven7 13y ago
Apple has reminded everyone in tech, that there are better routes to mountains of profit than "free" products. When the Scoble's of the world are willing to drop 2000+ dollars (including cost of phone) for the ability to take a picture faster, or more likely, just to look cool to friends, then why not. Who wants to be hostage to advertisers anyway? That unpleasant road, just involves turning all your users into controllable lab rats. If Google is trying to make a shift, I say high time and all the best.
arrrg 13y ago
So you think Google’s ultimate goal here is shoving ads in front of people’s eyes? I somehow doubt that. Why wouldn’t they just want another leg to stand on, besides ads? Doesn’t that make sense? You can make tons of money selling hardware. Apple demonstrated that.
- coob 13y ago
  No, I think Google's ultimate goal is making money. They only know how to make money by selling ads. They have made squat by selling hardware.

b1daly 13y ago

I think part of Scoble's enthusiasm must derive from the fact that he is an always connected person who travels, networks,communicates as his job. Nothing he describes sounded that great, but if you are online all the time while moving then I can see it. I'd like to be online less, and try to experience the world unmediated.

mtgx 13y ago

I hope Google improves the camera by the time they release the consumer version. I saw the demo from Engadget editor, and the video seemed a little too shaky for my taste. It needs OIS, or something to make the video recording much more stable. This is even more important than in a smartphone, because you're moving your head a lot more. So Google should really prioritize this. I would also make it a lot better in low-light, and maybe even give it a flash for night shots and so on. Voice will need to be flawless, so if voice recognition depends on how fast the processor is, then they need to put the fastest one in there (maybe a quad core Cortex A57 at 20nm, for efficiency, too). They also need to keep working on the design, and make future generations as minimal as possible, and as "cool" looking as possible. They need to keep improving on this.

tiziano88 13y ago
My guess is that voice recognition happens mostly server-side, similarly to voice search and voice typing in Android.
- parfe 13y ago
  Jelly bean with google now added offline voice recognition. My downloaded English dictionary is 22mb. http://m.androidcentral.com/google-search-update-allows-third-party-developers-use-offline-speech-recognition http://m.androidcentral.com/google-search-update-allows-thir...

emehrkay 13y ago

I don't think that Google has done a good job of explaining what it does. As of right now, it just seems like a second screen for my phone. My reaction to it reminds me of the reaction to the iPad, but in reverse -- the tech-minded folk were confused while the average joe was excited. I do think it is cool tech and probably the next logical step in personal computing, I'm just at the wait-and-see stage. Mainly waiting to see if there will be competition and what everyone will do with it.

kingkawn 13y ago

I was surprised at how low quality the photos taken by Glass are. Is that the planned camera for rollout?

antihero 13y ago
It's for some reason the poster linked to the G+ mobile version.

uptown 13y ago

"Also, Google is forbidding advertising in apps. This is a HUGE shift for Google's business model. I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a commerce based company." Does anybody think this is their permanent stance? I certainly don't.

drcube 13y ago
I will not buy Glass if there are ads. Period. I think most people are with me and Google knows this. This probably won't extend to Android or any other Google service, but I can see why they would choose to forgo ads in Glass.

thoughtcriminal 13y ago

I have no doubt Microsoft are working on their own glasses, so maybe I'll hold out for that. I jumped from Google's ecosystem to Microsoft and I'm totally happy with the Outlook.com/Skydrive/Office trifecta. The Windows Phone 8 is awesome and integrates nicely with Windows 8 OS. Even Bing has strengths that Google search can't touch. Internet Explorer 10 is almost tolerable. So yeah, lets see what Microsoft brings to the party.

blablabla123 13y ago

It's funny, the whole post is about how nice those glasses are and how amazing. But I cannot really see why they are useful. If I understand the OP correctly, it features the same functions as a cell phone but without ads and being more social. I think he misses the point, staring at a cell-phone every 10 seconds is not non-social because of the looking away but because of the permanent distraction. It's a sign of politeness to be 100% focussed when talking to someone else. I think I'll buy them if they are below $200 but I won't use them much. Watching Terminator is much cooler anyway ;)

brohoolio 13y ago

What review? I read this and other than saying he won't live without it he doesn't say what makes it amazing. The price point discussion is nice but I don't understand why I would want one. I can see for vacation to take videos to share with my family bu I don't get why it's amazing. Am I going to read my Facebook feed on it? What am I going to do with it other than pictures? Give me details!!

jleyank 13y ago

Couple of questions for those with Glass: Do they work with eyes older than 40 - those that can't focus within 18 inches without multi-diopter help? These folks still have money to burn. How about astigmatism? Makes for interesting curves rotating my progressives. Dptical artifacts on two axes! Will they be snatched off your face like apple gear has been grabbed at times. High value, small package. Easy to fence if google doesn't have or use a kill switch. Price will be an issue. My glasses already cost 400-700 usd depending on where I get them. This assumes I can get prescription Glass...

mikeevans 13y ago
Yep they do. My dad is 61 and had surgery on his right eye a few years back (so it's even weaker than normal) and he said he was able to read the screen. He did say he would have preferred a left eye version however. Can't say about astigmatism. I guess they could be, you can remote wipe them though. Agreed on price, luckily I didn't even have to pay the $1500. And there was a Googler wearing a prototype prescription version at the pickup.

bane 13y ago

I appreciate this review, and I agree with him 100% on the price point. Had I been in the audience I wouldn't raise my hand till $200-300 either ($1500 is almost comically absurd). But at the same time, I'm gonna wait no matter what till it does more. A head mounted camera (which seems to make up the bulk of the advertising use-cases for it) just isn't important to me...at all. I think the head mounted navigation stuff could be very useful, but I can barely get my Android phone to understand spoken address searches right now, and I don't mind having it shout out directions to me. I'm not sure I need to pay a few hundred bucks to get the directions up on my face. The one thing that I hope somebody creates an app for is a quick barcode/item scanner and price lookup app. Just tell me what the best price is for an item I'm looking at and where I can get it. I've tried a few phone apps for this, but the experience is atrocious. But is it worth $200-300 for those limited use cases? I dunno. I really am going to wait and see.

ryankshaw 13y ago
IMO, at that price point, the real question is "is it worth it to wear them and look like one of those guys that walks around with a Bluetooth earpiece in at all times"?
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  On the one hand, we're entering a world where Neal Stephenson's "gargoyles" actually exist. On the other hand, the equipment they'll be carrying around is way, way, way smaller than he envisioned.
- uptown 13y ago
  You don't want to look like this? https://plus.google.com/photos/+Scobleizer/albums/5870920743585489873/5870920745290437858?authkey=CIq7p5Pi046Ucg https://plus.google.com/photos/+Scobleizer/albums/5870920743...
nooneelse 13y ago
Not just the price. Have it tell you any one of a number of information types that you personally value. Such as if that item has any ingredients that you have blacklisted (or your doctor has). Have it show you a "Pollan-score" for the item or reviews of it by experts and/or friends. Have it tell you a guess at what ratio of the price will go to corporations that you do and don't like the politics of. Did it get shipped on a boat that has a carbon-emission rating that is higher than you like? Is there another brand sold at this store that more closely matches your preferences, and if so what does their packaging look like? Customers have had their information stream systematically filtered/impoverished by those who would rather not have the invisible hand of the market move in response to some subgroups' aggregate utility evaluations. Information at the point of choice can alter these dynamics.

robobenjie 13y ago

How can you possibly say that you aren't willing to spend more than $200 dollars, but would wear it on your face every single day? People pay more than that for sunglasses which provide no functional utility above the $5 sunglasses.

rjsamson 13y ago
He didn't say he wouldn't pay more than $200 - he said that $200 seemed to be the price that nearly everyone he talked to would buy a pair.
defen 13y ago
People are paying for a status symbol + fashion accessory. Whether Glass is a status symbol will depend on what kind of circles you travel in, but they're certainly less fashionable than high-end sunglasses.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
I don't think you can just look at the price of Glass alone. AFAIK they rely on your phone to work so you also need an Android phone and data plan. I think Google should be selling Glass like a Android phone accessory rather than a product by itself. Also people are taking a risk by purchasing one. They have never used anything like it and don't know if it will actually benefit them.
- LockeWatts 13y ago
  Where did you get that information? That is the only time I've ever heard anyone say that, it seems sketchy at best.
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    "As Google Glass doesn’t have a mobile antenna or GPS tracking, My Glass is essential if you want to send and receive SMS from Google Glass, use a data connection, or navigate using GPS." The phone is pretty much essential. NB: My Glass is the companion Android app. http://www.androidauthority.com/how-it-works-google-glass-195912/ http://www.androidauthority.com/how-it-works-google-glass-19...

antihero 13y ago

I just hope the voice commands are going to be significantly better than on Android now. Whilst they are much better than anything else, I still don't find them actually usable, and I'm a Brit with an average voice.

fakeer 13y ago

To be honest his first observation felt absurd, so much that I dared not read further of the post. Sometime ago I chanced upon one of his posts and it had the same mood - an attempt be voracious and fanatic about sth even though he would be actually sounding extortionately absurd.

steeve 13y ago

I've had the chance to try them a few months ago, and my only concern with them (while cool), was that they would suffer the same fate as either: bluetooth hands-free kits (aka douchebagy), or segway (aka dorky). The only killer app I think is driving directions, that was nice.

ilaksh 13y ago

http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/ http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/ The next step is a brain computer interface so you don't even have to say commands out loud.

ixacto 13y ago

I would be hesitant to talk to anyone wearing the google glass about any controversial subject matter. Big brother really is watching you... As for price, if google thinks it can make money off of it, the price will indeed be $200 or so.

xtracto 13y ago
This is important and greatly overlooked IMO. By Law, Google (along with other Internet companies) have been required to be 'tap friendly', so that the government can read everyone's data (like email). So when more and more people starts using Glass, the government will also want to tap into that. I am sure some will say that such ability will only be used to prevent crime, but we already know how well the government abuses power to their own enjoyment like it happened with the porn-scanners which pictures could never-never-never be saved...

skc 13y ago

Dying to read a whole bunch of reviews from non-techie people. For the time being I can't help but feel like this thing demos well to many geeks.