5 ms·

I just wore Google's glasses for 2 weeks and I'm never taking them off

33 points by tellarin 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
supercoder 14y ago
Think he might live to regret the claim he'll never live a day without a pair of smart glasses (is that the right term for the general device space?), but even if he does it's possible he might be the odd one out. To me it's like someone getting the first Segway and saying they'll never live a day without it. It might be great to them as a nerd, but doesnt do anything to validate how everyone else is going to view it.
- patrickaljord 14y ago
  Google Glass is no Segway though, he explains why Segway is not practical most of the time while Glass is https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZGFr8eMFAfH https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZGFr8eMF...
shawabawa3 14y ago
I still don't really get what google glass is for. The only things he mentions using it for is directions and taking pictures, my phone works perfectly for both those things (I can't remember any time where I've missed a good picture because I couldn't get my phone in time) Maybe its something you need to try to really understand, but I'm not excited by it.
- tellarin 14y ago
  Well, I can remember many times where I didn't have my phone handy and missed some great pictures. But that's not enough to convince me of the usefulness of smart glasses. Nonetheless, I'd love to try one out for a couple weeks and I can see me buying one for USD$ 200 if it gets to that price.
- dm2 14y ago
  The current version of Google Glass is a stepping stone. It's just to see what features people might unexpectedly use or find out they really want or do not want. The future versions have unlimited possibilities such as automatically recording live events then replaying them, playing games, taking inventory, or even overlaying TV shows on top of screens at a bar so that you can effectively watch whatever you want. Infrared, night-vision, and auto-tracking of objects are also possibilities. The military has had such a system for many years, it's called Land Warrior. It can map waypoints in a 3d environment, give directions, display messages, and display any information that the user needs. I imagine that in the near future the system will be able to identify hostiles or friendlies, detect mortars instantly and tell the user where to move, and will be integrated with the boomerang shooter detection system. The possibilities are endless, we have to start somewhere though.
  - dorian-graph 14y ago
    A lot of those examples you gave so easy to do from home, in a bedroom or toilet. The military use example seems fine and some useful HUD type information would be neat.
  - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
    Just like Google Wave. "Unlimited possibilities (no *current applications)." I buy a device for what it can actually do, not for the potential of what it could do in 3-100 years time. The ironic part about you bringing up Land Warrior program is that Land Warrior was cancelled in 2007. It still lives on but has never been expanded and or been adopted by other units or branches of the US military.
    - lorenzfx 14y ago
      The German army has received the first units of a similar system ("Gladius") and will be testing it in Afghanistan soon [0]. [0] http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrheinmetall-starts-gladius-soldier-system-deliveries-german-army http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrheinmetall-starts-g...
    - dm2 14y ago
- brunomlopes 14y ago
  I'd like to propose another use case: HUDs. I've recently took up cycling to work and back, and would love to have speed/gears/time up on the glasses, instead of having to look and focus down. Riding my scooter would also be better with it, since the speedometer and turning light indicators are a bit out of my normal field of vision. Also, be able to see who's calling on the cell phone would be a plus (I've found that having the phone 'say' who's calling results in a jumble that I can't make heads or tails of, as most of the names are not English names)
  - dm2 14y ago
    Yes! Integrating it with your car to see gas (or battery) levels. No integration needed to see speed, directions, stop lights, traffic, construction ahead. You could take it one step further and crowd-source to find stolen cars or license-plates.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      >You could take it one step further and crowd-source to find stolen cars or license-plates. // So it seems Orwell didn't anticipate that we would carry the cameras that spy on us with us ... take it a couple more steps further and the secret service have a system where they can look through anyone's [with smart-glasses] eyes at what they're seeing. Imagine Boston if after the bombing the authorities could requisition the view of everyone over the previous hour (cached for your convenience) and run that through a mapping program that can literally recreate the 3D scene with peoples movements and interactions for that whole period. Awesome power.
      - dm2 14y ago
        One critical feature would be local storage of recorded video. It would be a huge invasion of privacy to pull images from innocent people, even if it is for the greater good, maybe. I don't know which side of the privacy debate I'm on. If there is unlimited transparency for citizens then there should be 100% transparency for the government, that's the only way. The 3D mapping thing has already been done. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.5982v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.5982v1.pdf
- gnaffle 14y ago
  Lots of people say "don't get it" when faced with a new technology. That's the problem with generic platforms. "Why would I need a smartphone" is a similar question. The potential answers are obvious today, but they weren't 10 years ago. I don't think it's about understanding, but rather imagining what could be done better with this technology. A lot of workers are carrying barcode scanners and tablets around in the field today because they need to input or access information. That's a potentially very lucurative niche. I don't really think (and certainly don't hope) Google Glass will ever be socially acceptable, though.
  - ohwp 14y ago
    Well I still don't own a smartphone because I ask myself the question "Why would I need a smartphone". And when I look around a lot of people don't need it. So in a way "I don't get" why a lot of people "need" a smartphone.
    - UberMouse 14y ago
      I don't need a smartphone, but it's convenient and useful.
    - dm2 14y ago
      The people who do not need a smartphone, a tablet, or a HUD shouldn't purchase one. If they feel pressure from society to buy one or just want to see what all the fuss is about, then that's their choice. People who purchase one for the games are doing nothing but providing funding to help improve the technology for the people who actually do have uses for smart-phones. There are TONS of practical uses for smart-phones, but there are also billions of people living on this planet who don't have a use for them.
    - gnaffle 14y ago
      And that's OK. Not everyone needs a smartphone, but that wasn't my point. My point was that many people (even tech people) immediately ask this question in a dismissive way before they have even started to think about what this technology can be used for. I know people who thought smartphones weren't for them, but suddenly they discovered they were easier to use than their old Nokia phone and had QWERTY keyboards so they could write text messages without learning T9. I never imagined that a tablet would be so useful for flying and didn't see a need for one before that.
- Kiro 14y ago
  You weren't excited by the smartphone either.
rikacomet 14y ago
You take them off every night, I mean seriously!
buro9 14y ago
I wish I had Glass yesterday when I was stuck in traffic. OK Glass, show me traffic to Home. I wanted a sixth sense, to be able to see a map of London with all traffic marked out so that I could pick my rat race run through the back streets and at least be moving. And whilst I got out of the traffic fine, I wish I had Glass and it knew to tell me before I got into it.
- davej 14y ago
  As someone who owns a motorbike and uses it for my daily commute, I'm really excited about Google Glass because it means I will be able to get rid of my GoPro helmet cam and I will also have a GPS & traffic monitor. But mine is a niche case.
- threeseed 14y ago
  Do you not have a sat nav ?
  - buro9 14y ago
    Seems a bit much for London. I have a TomTom but the map & traffic subscriptions equate to over £100 per year. And I can't even update the maps using Linux, so I basically let it expire and have abandoned it. I do occasionally use Google Navigation on my Android for sat nav purposes, but for driving around a city that I know really well it is redundant except for traffic info (but even then I can usually work out my own route with better local knowledge of where traffic goes). So yes, I could've fumbled around and got my phone from my bag (behind the seat), and wired it up, and viewed the traffic. But I was driving, even when I was mostly stationary I wouldn't take my attention away from the road like that. Hence, if I had Glass, then I wouldn't need to prep in advance, nor fumble around... the tools would just be with me for when I needed to activate them. Yesterday seemed exceptional though, something fouled up the whole of Fulham and Chelsea and the domino effect knocked out all major routes around too. That's an exception, not the rule... even if my TomTom subscription was active and up to date I wouldn't have wired it up just for a cross-town drive.
    - 14y ago
hexasquid 14y ago
> "OK Glass, Take a Picture" works. "OK Glass, Take a Photo" doesn't. The Glass is forcing your voice commands to be a certain set of commands and no others will be considered. This is quite a forgiving attitude; I'd expect both to work.
- jaibot 14y ago
  Could be that having more command versions results in too many false positives.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I think the idea is to match very specific phrases so you are less likely to accidently trigger it in normal speech.
- hornetblack 14y ago
  They should probably add some more built in commands. But I think locking the commands may help privacy issues. If you could get it to trigger on something common like "and" you may have issues with people using it for "bad" things.
- thomholwerda 14y ago
  No, you shouldn't. Ever wonder why Palm succeeded where Newton and other failed? It's because Palm used a standardised, single-stroke learned script, whereas its competitors used full natural handwriting recognition that sucked balls. Glass is clearly going for the same thing.
  - cremnob 14y ago
    The difference is that it's 2013.
nikolakirev 14y ago
I am really interested in the whole "smart glasses" idea and Google's implementation. What I am concerned about are all those cellular/radio antennas strapped to your head and how do they affect a person's health. I have not found any discussions about this topic yet.
- Luyt 14y ago
  Radio waves are non-ionizing.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "I have not found any discussions about this topic yet" Because cellular phones do not affect a person's health, no matter what a small group of tin-foil hat wearers may believe.
ivanb 14y ago
Wearing even 0-dioptries glasses for long periods can be detrimental to eye health. Glasses limit peripheral vision and restrict eye movement. This can lead to weakened muscles, worse blood flow and worse eyesight.
- nodata 14y ago
  cite?
- Adirael 14y ago
  Citation needed. What happens to the muscles, blood flow and eyesight of people that need to wear glasses every minute they're not asleep? Why their eyesight and general eye health doesn't deteriorate over time if it "can lead to weakened muscles, worse blood flow and worse eyesight"?
  - ivanb 14y ago
    Unfortunately I have no citation to prove my statement. It is just my concern and opinion. I remember that I read something about this in books on eye exercises and health. It may or may not be true.
    - jbri 14y ago
      Anecdotally, as someone who wears (prescription) glasses 24/7 already, I haven't noticed anything like this. It might be worth mentioning that the authors of "health books" generally tend to be more concerned with selling more books than they do about actually improving your health. I would be very skeptical about claims made in a self-help health book that weren't backed up by actual studies.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      Ah, that would be because those "eye exercises" are snake oil.
julianpye 14y ago
I love technology and my gadgets as much as the next one, but I would never want to get that dependent on one type of technology. Scientists have long warned us about solar storms and there is a chance that one day all your technology could go out. I was recently asked if I was a luddite, because I didn't want to get rid of my box of printed maps, but hey, maybe one day I need them. So every once in a while, take a weekend and switch off your gadgets and see if you can cope.
nutanc 14y ago
Point 2:As the price got down to $200 literally every hand went up. At $500 a few hands went up. Point 3: Nearly everyone had an emotional outburst of "wow" or "amazing" or "that's crazy" or "stunning." Takeaway: $200 is the going rate for people willing to be "wow"ed or amazed
- lucb1e 14y ago
  And yet we all buy $750 computers or something. I think it's a little more complicated than "you can ask $200 for something amazing".
- danpalmer 14y ago
  I think that $200 depends on the crowd, and on the device or software. I wouldn't pay $100 for a game that wow'ed me with it's graphics for example, but (if I had the money) I might pay $50,000 for a car that wow'ed me.
Cthulhu_ 14y ago
I wonder if he's so excited about the device because it's awesome in itself, or because of all the attention and interest he gets showered with wearing it and using it to publish things online. It's a novelty; I'm sure the first people with mobile phones and later on smartphones experienced something similar, before they became a common sight. Even now, people with the newest, shiniest new phone will get some measure of attention, a confirmation for their expense.
- Kurtz79 14y ago
  No doubt, but that is already saying a lot about the device in itself. If it generates such interest and attention the way the first mobile phones or the first iPhone did, then it might really be something that in a few years will be a "common sight". I think it's really something that excites the imagination, and rightly so, it remains to be be seen if it will be a substantial improvement in terms of functionality compared to current mobile devices.
nicholassmith 14y ago
Interesting how many people have admitted to letting others use them when Google has expressly forbidden that. I think at this stage they'll be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I'm not surprised Robert Scoble loves them, he's a hardware lover and an early adopter. I'm not surprised audiences at places Scoble has been too love it. I'm not sure my parents would love it. I think they'd actively avoid it for the most part, and whilst there's lots of geeks like me who'll get them to at least experiment I'm still unsure of whether it's got significant mass market appeal. Maybe v2 or v3, but it'll take time.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "I think at this stage they'll be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted." Naw, they love it. You have to keep a false sense of exclusivity to make a product look sexy before it becomes a commodity device.
uptown 14y ago
Previous discussion of same article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617165
- tellarin 14y ago
  Hadn't seen that one. :-/
pinaceae 14y ago
1., This is Scoble. He hypes professionally, literally anything. Try following him on Twitter or G+ and say goodbye to your newsfeed. 2., Valid critique - wearing Google Glass is like wearing Bluetooth headset all the time. Which guys like Scoble probably did, way before anyone else. Anyone being pretentious assholes.
- illuminate 14y ago
  The very definition of persons who wear novelty devices just to have something to talk about. I wonder how quickly people move away from him at a cocktail party?
jdrobins2000 14y ago
I just wore Google's glasses for 2 weeks and I'm never taking them off* *until they stop getting me attention
danpalmer 14y ago
I can't justify buying a Google Glass. I doubt they will be $200, I think $800 is more likely at launch. But then I couldn't justify my iPad when I bought it. $600 for something I can check email on and browse the web? I already have a laptop for that right? Well I ended up using my iPad loads for far more than I could have imagined. I really shouldn't have bought my MacBook Pro. It was twice the price of a Windows laptop that would have suited me fine, and I could have even installed Linux and had a great development setup right? Well yes, but I'm so much more productive on a Mac now than I ever was on Windows, and I have to fix the software a lot less than I do on my Linux computers. Just because I can't justify buying a Google Glass doesn't mean it's not worth buying. I've got that feeling of excitement about a technology that I haven't had since I bought my first smartphone. Is it worth it right now? Maybe not. But if no one bets on it, it's not going to happen, so I'll give it a shot.
codva 14y ago
He also proclaimed RSS and Podcasts as world changing technologies back in the day. And he proclaimed Netflix dead in 2007. That's 3 huge misses right there. There are probably more, and he may have got a couple right along the way too.
- danpalmer 14y ago
  RSS might not be world-changing, but it is absolutely crucial to the web.
uptown 14y ago
I haven't used Glass yet, but I do know I don't want drivers of cars or motorcycles using them on the road while they're supposed to be driving: http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/28/living-with-glass-day-four http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/28/living-with-glass-day-fou... This has the potential to be a huge safety problem.

33 points by tellarin 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Think he might live to regret the claim he'll never live a day without a pair of smart glasses (is that the right term for the general device space?), but even if he does it's possible he might be the odd one out. To me it's like someone getting the first Segway and saying they'll never live a day without it. It might be great to them as a nerd, but doesnt do anything to validate how everyone else is going to view it.

patrickaljord 14y ago
Google Glass is no Segway though, he explains why Segway is not practical most of the time while Glass is https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZGFr8eMFAfH https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZGFr8eMF...

shawabawa3 14y ago

I still don't really get what google glass is for. The only things he mentions using it for is directions and taking pictures, my phone works perfectly for both those things (I can't remember any time where I've missed a good picture because I couldn't get my phone in time) Maybe its something you need to try to really understand, but I'm not excited by it.

tellarin 14y ago
Well, I can remember many times where I didn't have my phone handy and missed some great pictures. But that's not enough to convince me of the usefulness of smart glasses. Nonetheless, I'd love to try one out for a couple weeks and I can see me buying one for USD$ 200 if it gets to that price.
dm2 14y ago
The current version of Google Glass is a stepping stone. It's just to see what features people might unexpectedly use or find out they really want or do not want. The future versions have unlimited possibilities such as automatically recording live events then replaying them, playing games, taking inventory, or even overlaying TV shows on top of screens at a bar so that you can effectively watch whatever you want. Infrared, night-vision, and auto-tracking of objects are also possibilities. The military has had such a system for many years, it's called Land Warrior. It can map waypoints in a 3d environment, give directions, display messages, and display any information that the user needs. I imagine that in the near future the system will be able to identify hostiles or friendlies, detect mortars instantly and tell the user where to move, and will be integrated with the boomerang shooter detection system. The possibilities are endless, we have to start somewhere though.
- dorian-graph 14y ago
  A lot of those examples you gave so easy to do from home, in a bedroom or toilet. The military use example seems fine and some useful HUD type information would be neat.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  Just like Google Wave. "Unlimited possibilities (no *current applications)." I buy a device for what it can actually do, not for the potential of what it could do in 3-100 years time. The ironic part about you bringing up Land Warrior program is that Land Warrior was cancelled in 2007. It still lives on but has never been expanded and or been adopted by other units or branches of the US military.
  - lorenzfx 14y ago
    The German army has received the first units of a similar system ("Gladius") and will be testing it in Afghanistan soon [0]. [0] http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrheinmetall-starts-gladius-soldier-system-deliveries-german-army http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrheinmetall-starts-g...
  - dm2 14y ago
brunomlopes 14y ago
I'd like to propose another use case: HUDs. I've recently took up cycling to work and back, and would love to have speed/gears/time up on the glasses, instead of having to look and focus down. Riding my scooter would also be better with it, since the speedometer and turning light indicators are a bit out of my normal field of vision. Also, be able to see who's calling on the cell phone would be a plus (I've found that having the phone 'say' who's calling results in a jumble that I can't make heads or tails of, as most of the names are not English names)
- dm2 14y ago
  Yes! Integrating it with your car to see gas (or battery) levels. No integration needed to see speed, directions, stop lights, traffic, construction ahead. You could take it one step further and crowd-source to find stolen cars or license-plates.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >You could take it one step further and crowd-source to find stolen cars or license-plates. // So it seems Orwell didn't anticipate that we would carry the cameras that spy on us with us ... take it a couple more steps further and the secret service have a system where they can look through anyone's [with smart-glasses] eyes at what they're seeing. Imagine Boston if after the bombing the authorities could requisition the view of everyone over the previous hour (cached for your convenience) and run that through a mapping program that can literally recreate the 3D scene with peoples movements and interactions for that whole period. Awesome power.
    - dm2 14y ago
      One critical feature would be local storage of recorded video. It would be a huge invasion of privacy to pull images from innocent people, even if it is for the greater good, maybe. I don't know which side of the privacy debate I'm on. If there is unlimited transparency for citizens then there should be 100% transparency for the government, that's the only way. The 3D mapping thing has already been done. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.5982v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.5982v1.pdf
gnaffle 14y ago
Lots of people say "don't get it" when faced with a new technology. That's the problem with generic platforms. "Why would I need a smartphone" is a similar question. The potential answers are obvious today, but they weren't 10 years ago. I don't think it's about understanding, but rather imagining what could be done better with this technology. A lot of workers are carrying barcode scanners and tablets around in the field today because they need to input or access information. That's a potentially very lucurative niche. I don't really think (and certainly don't hope) Google Glass will ever be socially acceptable, though.
- ohwp 14y ago
  Well I still don't own a smartphone because I ask myself the question "Why would I need a smartphone". And when I look around a lot of people don't need it. So in a way "I don't get" why a lot of people "need" a smartphone.
  - UberMouse 14y ago
    I don't need a smartphone, but it's convenient and useful.
  - dm2 14y ago
    The people who do not need a smartphone, a tablet, or a HUD shouldn't purchase one. If they feel pressure from society to buy one or just want to see what all the fuss is about, then that's their choice. People who purchase one for the games are doing nothing but providing funding to help improve the technology for the people who actually do have uses for smart-phones. There are TONS of practical uses for smart-phones, but there are also billions of people living on this planet who don't have a use for them.
  - gnaffle 14y ago
    And that's OK. Not everyone needs a smartphone, but that wasn't my point. My point was that many people (even tech people) immediately ask this question in a dismissive way before they have even started to think about what this technology can be used for. I know people who thought smartphones weren't for them, but suddenly they discovered they were easier to use than their old Nokia phone and had QWERTY keyboards so they could write text messages without learning T9. I never imagined that a tablet would be so useful for flying and didn't see a need for one before that.
Kiro 14y ago
You weren't excited by the smartphone either.

rikacomet 14y ago

You take them off every night, I mean seriously!

buro9 14y ago

I wish I had Glass yesterday when I was stuck in traffic. OK Glass, show me traffic to Home. I wanted a sixth sense, to be able to see a map of London with all traffic marked out so that I could pick my rat race run through the back streets and at least be moving. And whilst I got out of the traffic fine, I wish I had Glass and it knew to tell me before I got into it.

davej 14y ago
As someone who owns a motorbike and uses it for my daily commute, I'm really excited about Google Glass because it means I will be able to get rid of my GoPro helmet cam and I will also have a GPS & traffic monitor. But mine is a niche case.
threeseed 14y ago
Do you not have a sat nav ?
- buro9 14y ago
  Seems a bit much for London. I have a TomTom but the map & traffic subscriptions equate to over £100 per year. And I can't even update the maps using Linux, so I basically let it expire and have abandoned it. I do occasionally use Google Navigation on my Android for sat nav purposes, but for driving around a city that I know really well it is redundant except for traffic info (but even then I can usually work out my own route with better local knowledge of where traffic goes). So yes, I could've fumbled around and got my phone from my bag (behind the seat), and wired it up, and viewed the traffic. But I was driving, even when I was mostly stationary I wouldn't take my attention away from the road like that. Hence, if I had Glass, then I wouldn't need to prep in advance, nor fumble around... the tools would just be with me for when I needed to activate them. Yesterday seemed exceptional though, something fouled up the whole of Fulham and Chelsea and the domino effect knocked out all major routes around too. That's an exception, not the rule... even if my TomTom subscription was active and up to date I wouldn't have wired it up just for a cross-town drive.
  - 14y ago

hexasquid 14y ago

> "OK Glass, Take a Picture" works. "OK Glass, Take a Photo" doesn't. The Glass is forcing your voice commands to be a certain set of commands and no others will be considered. This is quite a forgiving attitude; I'd expect both to work.

jaibot 14y ago
Could be that having more command versions results in too many false positives.
jiggy2011 14y ago
I think the idea is to match very specific phrases so you are less likely to accidently trigger it in normal speech.
hornetblack 14y ago
They should probably add some more built in commands. But I think locking the commands may help privacy issues. If you could get it to trigger on something common like "and" you may have issues with people using it for "bad" things.
thomholwerda 14y ago
No, you shouldn't. Ever wonder why Palm succeeded where Newton and other failed? It's because Palm used a standardised, single-stroke learned script, whereas its competitors used full natural handwriting recognition that sucked balls. Glass is clearly going for the same thing.
- cremnob 14y ago
  The difference is that it's 2013.

nikolakirev 14y ago

I am really interested in the whole "smart glasses" idea and Google's implementation. What I am concerned about are all those cellular/radio antennas strapped to your head and how do they affect a person's health. I have not found any discussions about this topic yet.

Luyt 14y ago
Radio waves are non-ionizing.
illuminate 14y ago
"I have not found any discussions about this topic yet" Because cellular phones do not affect a person's health, no matter what a small group of tin-foil hat wearers may believe.

ivanb 14y ago

Wearing even 0-dioptries glasses for long periods can be detrimental to eye health. Glasses limit peripheral vision and restrict eye movement. This can lead to weakened muscles, worse blood flow and worse eyesight.

nodata 14y ago
cite?
Adirael 14y ago
Citation needed. What happens to the muscles, blood flow and eyesight of people that need to wear glasses every minute they're not asleep? Why their eyesight and general eye health doesn't deteriorate over time if it "can lead to weakened muscles, worse blood flow and worse eyesight"?
- ivanb 14y ago
  Unfortunately I have no citation to prove my statement. It is just my concern and opinion. I remember that I read something about this in books on eye exercises and health. It may or may not be true.
  - jbri 14y ago
    Anecdotally, as someone who wears (prescription) glasses 24/7 already, I haven't noticed anything like this. It might be worth mentioning that the authors of "health books" generally tend to be more concerned with selling more books than they do about actually improving your health. I would be very skeptical about claims made in a self-help health book that weren't backed up by actual studies.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    Ah, that would be because those "eye exercises" are snake oil.

julianpye 14y ago

I love technology and my gadgets as much as the next one, but I would never want to get that dependent on one type of technology. Scientists have long warned us about solar storms and there is a chance that one day all your technology could go out. I was recently asked if I was a luddite, because I didn't want to get rid of my box of printed maps, but hey, maybe one day I need them. So every once in a while, take a weekend and switch off your gadgets and see if you can cope.

nutanc 14y ago

Point 2:As the price got down to $200 literally every hand went up. At $500 a few hands went up. Point 3: Nearly everyone had an emotional outburst of "wow" or "amazing" or "that's crazy" or "stunning." Takeaway: $200 is the going rate for people willing to be "wow"ed or amazed

lucb1e 14y ago
And yet we all buy $750 computers or something. I think it's a little more complicated than "you can ask $200 for something amazing".
danpalmer 14y ago
I think that $200 depends on the crowd, and on the device or software. I wouldn't pay $100 for a game that wow'ed me with it's graphics for example, but (if I had the money) I might pay $50,000 for a car that wow'ed me.

Cthulhu_ 14y ago

I wonder if he's so excited about the device because it's awesome in itself, or because of all the attention and interest he gets showered with wearing it and using it to publish things online. It's a novelty; I'm sure the first people with mobile phones and later on smartphones experienced something similar, before they became a common sight. Even now, people with the newest, shiniest new phone will get some measure of attention, a confirmation for their expense.

Kurtz79 14y ago
No doubt, but that is already saying a lot about the device in itself. If it generates such interest and attention the way the first mobile phones or the first iPhone did, then it might really be something that in a few years will be a "common sight". I think it's really something that excites the imagination, and rightly so, it remains to be be seen if it will be a substantial improvement in terms of functionality compared to current mobile devices.

nicholassmith 14y ago

Interesting how many people have admitted to letting others use them when Google has expressly forbidden that. I think at this stage they'll be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I'm not surprised Robert Scoble loves them, he's a hardware lover and an early adopter. I'm not surprised audiences at places Scoble has been too love it. I'm not sure my parents would love it. I think they'd actively avoid it for the most part, and whilst there's lots of geeks like me who'll get them to at least experiment I'm still unsure of whether it's got significant mass market appeal. Maybe v2 or v3, but it'll take time.

illuminate 14y ago
"I think at this stage they'll be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted." Naw, they love it. You have to keep a false sense of exclusivity to make a product look sexy before it becomes a commodity device.

uptown 14y ago

Previous discussion of same article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617165

tellarin 14y ago
Hadn't seen that one. :-/

pinaceae 14y ago

1., This is Scoble. He hypes professionally, literally anything. Try following him on Twitter or G+ and say goodbye to your newsfeed. 2., Valid critique - wearing Google Glass is like wearing Bluetooth headset all the time. Which guys like Scoble probably did, way before anyone else. Anyone being pretentious assholes.

illuminate 14y ago
The very definition of persons who wear novelty devices just to have something to talk about. I wonder how quickly people move away from him at a cocktail party?

jdrobins2000 14y ago

I just wore Google's glasses for 2 weeks and I'm never taking them off* *until they stop getting me attention

danpalmer 14y ago

I can't justify buying a Google Glass. I doubt they will be $200, I think $800 is more likely at launch. But then I couldn't justify my iPad when I bought it. $600 for something I can check email on and browse the web? I already have a laptop for that right? Well I ended up using my iPad loads for far more than I could have imagined. I really shouldn't have bought my MacBook Pro. It was twice the price of a Windows laptop that would have suited me fine, and I could have even installed Linux and had a great development setup right? Well yes, but I'm so much more productive on a Mac now than I ever was on Windows, and I have to fix the software a lot less than I do on my Linux computers. Just because I can't justify buying a Google Glass doesn't mean it's not worth buying. I've got that feeling of excitement about a technology that I haven't had since I bought my first smartphone. Is it worth it right now? Maybe not. But if no one bets on it, it's not going to happen, so I'll give it a shot.

codva 14y ago

He also proclaimed RSS and Podcasts as world changing technologies back in the day. And he proclaimed Netflix dead in 2007. That's 3 huge misses right there. There are probably more, and he may have got a couple right along the way too.

danpalmer 14y ago
RSS might not be world-changing, but it is absolutely crucial to the web.

uptown 14y ago

I haven't used Glass yet, but I do know I don't want drivers of cars or motorcycles using them on the road while they're supposed to be driving: http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/28/living-with-glass-day-four http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/28/living-with-glass-day-fou... This has the potential to be a huge safety problem.