8 ms·

>It feels very prototype-ish and I can't help but feel that it's the precursor to something better Google might even be working on now as we try these. ^^ This

by pkfrank 13y ago

>It feels very prototype-ish and I can't help but feel that it's the precursor to something better Google might even be working on now as we try these. ^^ This is totally the point of this run of Google Glass. While this is a fair and worthwhile personal essay, I don't think it's a particularly impactful statement about the potential of the product. He's basically saying that, for $1500, he wants to be blown away now. He doesn't want to pay a substantial premium "just" to be part of a privileged set of early-adopters. Everyone knows that this is still a beta, and improvements are on the way, so he's just saying the current iteration can't push him over the hump to hold onto the device (as opposed to recoup his cash).

Navarr 13y ago
I'm trying to understand why or how he got it. Was he an #ifihadglass winner? Was he just a lucky individual at Google IO that decided to plop down the cash for what was definitely a developer-device? I can understand that he doesn't think it's worth the price - because for a normal consumer it isn't. But I don't understand why he would have gotten it in the first place when it was so clearly limited in scope.
- mikeevans 13y ago
  Looks like he was an #ifihadglass winner: http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=1047&doc_id=261565 http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=1047&...
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    And it was a "whim" and his idea was to write a journal (which presumably gets page views) and so he gets one, and now he's publicly returning it, and getting lots of page views and his money back. All in all, the cynic in me thinks things are going as planned. He is effectively out no money, and yet he's picked up a bunch of traffic. Internet win.
    - jojanos 13y ago
      This guy actually does that for a living. He is currently testing a new product called Helpouts that allows you to charge for support using Hangouts in G+. Looks mildly interesting and more useful then Glass.
      - Flenser 13y ago
        I can't see anything about helpouts on that site. It might be useful for a friend. Where did you hear about it?
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  >>>>>I can understand that he doesn't think it's worth the price - because for a normal consumer it isn't. But I don't understand why he would have gotten it in the first place when it was so clearly limited in scope. Also keep in mind more and more places are banning them over privacy concerns. How bad would that suck you drop $1500 and you can't even use it most of the time since so many places are banning them? http://www.fastcompany.com/3009432/tech-forecast/tracking-the-ban-on-google-glass http://www.fastcompany.com/3009432/tech-forecast/tracking-th...
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    Let's not fall into hyperbole: there's a few places that have banned Glass, out of well, the entire world. That's a long way from "most of the time" or "many places." There's a lot more (and by that, I mean orders of magnitude more) places that ask you to not use cell phones than places that ban Glass (restaurants, movie theatres, coffee shop lines, airplanes, customs, etc). But nobody would claim that makes cell phones useless.
rsl7 13y ago
> While this is a fair and worthwhile personal essay, I don't think it's a particularly impactful statement about the potential of the product. This is an unfinished product and he wants his $ back because the user experience leaves him cold. He's not investing in Google - he's buying an actual product. And clearly he is skeptical that this particular product will ever live up to its potential. Contrast to the iPhone, yet again (the original). It showed both incredible potential and was an excellent actual product.
- larrik 13y ago
  > Contrast to the iPhone, yet again (the original). It showed both incredible potential and was an excellent actual product. Which was over twice the price at launch, and then fell off the face of the Earth once the iPhone 3G was announced, and dropped from support a year later or so. (The 3G was SOLD longer than the original was even supported) I think the original iPhone is exactly what he wants to avoid, since no one thinks Google will give him a retroactive refund like Apple did.
  - hippee-lee 13y ago
    My first gen still work with the stuff I had in it at the time I moved on from to a different phone. My daughter will find it, charge it and ask me to install games for her on it so I keep hiding it from her. And, I paid $200 for it with AT&T contract.
- Goronmon 13y ago
  >Contrast to the iPhone, yet again (the original). It showed both incredible potential and was an excellent actual product. Or as someone else mentioned, contrast this to a console devkit. Imagine someone making a blogpost about how they are returning their Xbox One devkit because there aren't any good games for it.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Is Google Glass marketed as a developer kit, or even as a prototype or "first run" device? All the FEM I've seen is very polished (leading me to believe the company wants me to think the product is polished) and seems to be catering to a mainstream audience. Compare this to the Oculus Rift, which explicitly sells a "development kit" and even requires checking a box that says "I understand this hardware is intended for developers and it is not a consumer product." And, as an aside, the Oculus Rift development kit is a much more polished and functional product than the current generation of Google Glass.
baddox 13y ago
> This is totally the point of this run of Google Glass. Is there any indication that this generation of Google Glass is intended as a prototype rather than a consumer-ready product, other than the reviews which overwhelmingly seem to describe it as such?
- ben1040 13y ago
  The fact that it doesn't work for the >50% of people who wear corrective lenses would be a start. Also, the last three months have seen numerous software updates to add features and change functionality. It is an unfinished product and they are iterating based on user feedback.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Well, non-prescription sunglasses don't work for people with corrective lenses either. I wouldn't call that definitive evidence.
  - dedward 13y ago
    Was that fact noted by google pre-purchase? Because if it was..... again, google did nothing wrong.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      Yes, it was noted that it was for developers and early testers: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57462641-1/brin-google-glass-lands-for-consumers-in-2014/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57462641-1/brin-google-g... (Note explorer edition is what the author of this post was testing)
coldtea 13y ago
>* This is totally the point of this run of Google Glass. While this is a fair and worthwhile personal essay, I don't think it's a particularly impactful statement about the potential of the product. He's basically saying that, for $1500, he wants to be blown away now.* And it's also something Google and Microsoft do all the time. Release or pre-announce half-baked stuff, just to get some publicity, years (or decades) before they are fit for consumption. That supposedly makes them look "innovative".

by pkfrank 13y ago

Navarr 13y ago

I'm trying to understand why or how he got it. Was he an #ifihadglass winner? Was he just a lucky individual at Google IO that decided to plop down the cash for what was definitely a developer-device? I can understand that he doesn't think it's worth the price - because for a normal consumer it isn't. But I don't understand why he would have gotten it in the first place when it was so clearly limited in scope.

mikeevans 13y ago
Looks like he was an #ifihadglass winner: http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=1047&doc_id=261565 http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=1047&...
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  And it was a "whim" and his idea was to write a journal (which presumably gets page views) and so he gets one, and now he's publicly returning it, and getting lots of page views and his money back. All in all, the cynic in me thinks things are going as planned. He is effectively out no money, and yet he's picked up a bunch of traffic. Internet win.
  - jojanos 13y ago
    This guy actually does that for a living. He is currently testing a new product called Helpouts that allows you to charge for support using Hangouts in G+. Looks mildly interesting and more useful then Glass.
    - Flenser 13y ago
      I can't see anything about helpouts on that site. It might be useful for a friend. Where did you hear about it?
at-fates-hands 13y ago
>>>>>I can understand that he doesn't think it's worth the price - because for a normal consumer it isn't. But I don't understand why he would have gotten it in the first place when it was so clearly limited in scope. Also keep in mind more and more places are banning them over privacy concerns. How bad would that suck you drop $1500 and you can't even use it most of the time since so many places are banning them? http://www.fastcompany.com/3009432/tech-forecast/tracking-the-ban-on-google-glass http://www.fastcompany.com/3009432/tech-forecast/tracking-th...
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  Let's not fall into hyperbole: there's a few places that have banned Glass, out of well, the entire world. That's a long way from "most of the time" or "many places." There's a lot more (and by that, I mean orders of magnitude more) places that ask you to not use cell phones than places that ban Glass (restaurants, movie theatres, coffee shop lines, airplanes, customs, etc). But nobody would claim that makes cell phones useless.

rsl7 13y ago

> While this is a fair and worthwhile personal essay, I don't think it's a particularly impactful statement about the potential of the product. This is an unfinished product and he wants his $ back because the user experience leaves him cold. He's not investing in Google - he's buying an actual product. And clearly he is skeptical that this particular product will ever live up to its potential. Contrast to the iPhone, yet again (the original). It showed both incredible potential and was an excellent actual product.

larrik 13y ago
> Contrast to the iPhone, yet again (the original). It showed both incredible potential and was an excellent actual product. Which was over twice the price at launch, and then fell off the face of the Earth once the iPhone 3G was announced, and dropped from support a year later or so. (The 3G was SOLD longer than the original was even supported) I think the original iPhone is exactly what he wants to avoid, since no one thinks Google will give him a retroactive refund like Apple did.
- hippee-lee 13y ago
  My first gen still work with the stuff I had in it at the time I moved on from to a different phone. My daughter will find it, charge it and ask me to install games for her on it so I keep hiding it from her. And, I paid $200 for it with AT&T contract.
Goronmon 13y ago
>Contrast to the iPhone, yet again (the original). It showed both incredible potential and was an excellent actual product. Or as someone else mentioned, contrast this to a console devkit. Imagine someone making a blogpost about how they are returning their Xbox One devkit because there aren't any good games for it.
- baddox 13y ago
  Is Google Glass marketed as a developer kit, or even as a prototype or "first run" device? All the FEM I've seen is very polished (leading me to believe the company wants me to think the product is polished) and seems to be catering to a mainstream audience. Compare this to the Oculus Rift, which explicitly sells a "development kit" and even requires checking a box that says "I understand this hardware is intended for developers and it is not a consumer product." And, as an aside, the Oculus Rift development kit is a much more polished and functional product than the current generation of Google Glass.

baddox 13y ago

> This is totally the point of this run of Google Glass. Is there any indication that this generation of Google Glass is intended as a prototype rather than a consumer-ready product, other than the reviews which overwhelmingly seem to describe it as such?

ben1040 13y ago
The fact that it doesn't work for the >50% of people who wear corrective lenses would be a start. Also, the last three months have seen numerous software updates to add features and change functionality. It is an unfinished product and they are iterating based on user feedback.
- baddox 13y ago
  Well, non-prescription sunglasses don't work for people with corrective lenses either. I wouldn't call that definitive evidence.
- dedward 13y ago
  Was that fact noted by google pre-purchase? Because if it was..... again, google did nothing wrong.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Yes, it was noted that it was for developers and early testers: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57462641-1/brin-google-glass-lands-for-consumers-in-2014/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57462641-1/brin-google-g... (Note explorer edition is what the author of this post was testing)

coldtea 13y ago

>* This is totally the point of this run of Google Glass. While this is a fair and worthwhile personal essay, I don't think it's a particularly impactful statement about the potential of the product. He's basically saying that, for $1500, he wants to be blown away now.* And it's also something Google and Microsoft do all the time. Release or pre-announce half-baked stuff, just to get some publicity, years (or decades) before they are fit for consumption. That supposedly makes them look "innovative".