13 ms·

Google Glass took a good idea for some contexts and mass marketed it to a completely different context where it's primary feature was mostly useless. HUDs and A

Google Glass took a good idea for some contexts and mass marketed it to a completely different context where it's primary feature was mostly useless. HUDs and AR make a ton of sense when you need to augment human knowledge, intelligence, and sensory in real time with voice as the primary user interaction. Flying fighter jets, driving race cars, fighting on a battlefield, working in complex and unsafe industrial operations, etc. AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work, ordering dinner at a restaurant, taking a walk around the block, or even most forms of labor (manual or otherwise). So not only did Google Glass not have much of a benefit, but it had the drawback of annoying countless people who had to be around the glasshole who never stopped yapping at their glasses.

cLeEOGPw 12y ago
They fell into trap of "product/service that seems to be wanted by a very large amount of people a little bit", instead of making it for a niche market where small amount of people need that item very much. PG was right, even the smartest people make these mistakes.
Fuxy 12y ago
That's the problem. You actually need to talk to your glasses which can be annoying and distracting to some people. Now if you could talk to you devices without actually talking it would be great. Like they do in "Ghost in the Shell"[1]. [1] http://anidb.net/a247 http://anidb.net/a247
usrusr 12y ago
There isn't quite as much money in targeting ads at fighter jet pilots as there is in targeting ads at people riding the bus. Asking Google to not do glass for the guy on the bus (fighter pilot or not) is like asking them to not do it at all, given the nature of Google's business. Which, in hindsight, might have been the right call. The Nest division, where glass seems to be headed now, could maybe evolve into a completely new branch with a more straight forward business model, more product than platform. Maybe there glass could still be salvaged, surviving as a simple, focused HUD tool for the "jet pilot", after failing as a pervasive wearable for the guy on the bus.
- whoisthemachine 12y ago
  Actually I believe there is quite a bit of money in making HUDs for fighter pilots [0]. It just doesn't look like Google Glass and it doesn't have quite the same mainstream pull. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#Helmet-Mounted_Display_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#Helmet-M...
  - usrusr 12y ago
    There is money, but there is zero value for ad targeting. "Core Google" is famously not about selling products to the end user, it is about establishing platforms to facilitate the ad business. Jet fighter HMD fall short in this (at least I hope so - a war decided by superior ad blocking would make for some very dark fiction)
cantankerous 12y ago
This. I was really excited about the possibilities glass could bring to my desk job, or other aspects of my daily work, but was pretty let down by how it pushed to augment aspects of my daily life where it wouldn't make any sense (going for walks, commuting, jumping out of planes, etc.). Hopefully we'll see another iteration of Glass or another product with a more domain or task(s)-specific purpose. That's what I'm waiting for, anyway.
- saosebastiao 12y ago
  I definitely think that domain and task specific AR has a strong future. I would love it if Uber took to using AR instead of relying on dash-mounted iPhones. It could give them visual indicators of a destination (things like which side of the street, potential drop off zones, etc). It could help pinpoint the location of the app-user at the origin. It could augment their GPS so they don't have to type in directions or look at a tiny screen while driving.
Dylan16807 12y ago
But it wasn't HUD/AR, it was a small screen you had to look over at, wasn't it? Yes it's semi-transparent but it can't overlay the actual focus of your vision. Edit: Well I guess some people think I'm mistaken. Then I request images/video showing the full field of view of someone wearing glass. (Not the simulation marketing videos.)
- ryusage 12y ago
  I tried out google glass last fall and this matches my experience of it. It really doesn't overlay info as part of your normal view, which for me removes the AR designation. It does place information in a place that doesn't require you to move your head or look down, which is I guess where the "heads up" description comes in...but it still requires you to divert your attention, like looking at a rear-view mirror in a car. Sure, you can still see things in front of you in your peripheral vision, but that still seems less integrated than I would associate with the term HUD.
- guyzero 12y ago
  Glass is not AR. Full stop. It's HUD for some definition of HUD. Your description is correct.
  - guelo 12y ago
    HIAPWEUATTRD: Head In Any Position With Eyes Up And To The Right Display
    - dzhiurgis 12y ago
      Or True Data Whip
- AndrewKemendo 12y ago
  This is exactly right, it's not AR. What it has done though for AR is show people the idea of overlaying information on your environment which is a core tenet of AR. That has been hugely helpful in making the understanding of how AR works accessible to a much wider range of people.
jeffasinger 12y ago
I used to work in the "Self-guided tours for Museums" industry. That was an area I could see Glass being legitimately useful. Walking through a museum, seeing something you were interested in, and having more information about it read to you be someone knowledgeable almost instantly is a great User Experience.
- jameshart 12y ago
  Much like Segway became useful only for guided city tours. It's presumably only a matter of time before Segway tour operators start augmenting their operations with google glass heads-up annotations.
- kolencherry 12y ago
  Guidigo is actually doing exactly this.
- dannyr 12y ago
  Yeah, somebody already built that for Google Glass. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27234868/museum-2-0-google-glass-apps-and-interactive http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27234868/museum-2-0-g... The de Young Museum's partnership with Google, and the exhibit-tour app created specifically for Glass, is one of the most thrilling experiments yet. Billed by French app-maker GuidiGO as the first-ever tour of a complete exhibition on Glass, the augmented-reality effects unfolding within my wearable device made me feel less like a detached spectator and more like a privileged guest at an intimate salon. With one eye on the actual painting before me, I could tap and slide my finger along the Glass stem and call up text or images or an audio interpretation of the piece by Haring's sister, Kristen, who teaches history of science and technology at Stanford University.
- stock_toaster 12y ago
  I had assumed it would be of great utility to police, fire, and emergency personnel. Of utility for the personnel themselves (pop up display of criminal record info, maps, home owner info, etc), but also for the safety of the citizens (recording, etc) they are serving.
kolencherry 12y ago
You've hit the nail on the head there. The enterprise market is actually seeing a decent uptake in Glass, as it's much more relevant there. Glass, in the iteration it's in and given current cultural/social context, was not a fit for the consumer market.
- bingobob 12y ago
  anything with a list of task glass is great for i think all the marketing etc was great to make it know what glass is its just people buying it and using a a consumer device than a dev device is the problem but maybe this is what google wanted to explorer world with glass and see what work and what doesn't.
- Steko 12y ago
  Current iteration is not fit for any market. They botched the implementation by going for the nerdgasm angle instead of actually making a good product. 100+ posts on this page and not one mentions the shit battery life. A device like this starts with battery life and uses that as the constraint on the quality of the screen, chipset and camera. We saw this with the iPad, they started with the full workday/school day as their battery standard. For a more personal device like this the standard is even higher, likely 12 to 16 hours. That is for professional or mass market use. The killer apps for glass type device are life casting and personal security and glass can't do either of those due to battery life.
cordite 12y ago
One of the neat things I hope research is able to push more is support for those that are deaf. One issue deaf people have, not knowing a spoken tongue, is that language is confusing--seriously. Vocabulary doesn't have as much exposure when written as when spoken. I found out about this when I talked with a professor before graduating. [1] The hope is that we can eventually build enough of a visual library that can represent a word when a deaf individual confronts an unfamiliar word, then they can learn about it independently and consistently. To the dreamers, the ideal situation would be where the individual spots a word, performs some 'hey, pay attention' action and they highlight or circle the word with their fingers on the written text. OCR magic, perhaps additional context gathering around the instance of the word, and then some form of conveying the meaning visually. I foresee augmented reality being more beneficial to those that are in some form disabled, before we have practical or convenient features like 'where are my friends in this cafeteria?' HUD pointers. [1]: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/15005/20140527/signglasses-system-helps-deaf-literacy.htm http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/15005/20140527/si...
- sdrothrock 12y ago
  > To the dreamers, the ideal situation As a deaf/hearing-impaired person, the ideal situation is near-instant subtitles for speech/sounds. For Deaf persons, I imagine the ASL (or JSL or what have you) equivalent of subtitles would be a godsend if they were more comfortable with that than reading.
  - Keithamus 12y ago
    As someone who isn't hearing impaired, having subtitles for speech & sounds in real life sounds awesome. Especially if I'm using my ears for other things, like listening to music.
- leoc 12y ago
  Have a look at https://plus.google.com/+ThadStarner/posts/HQfRCMALr2V https://plus.google.com/+ThadStarner/posts/HQfRCMALr2V , especially the comments. "Upton['s] '67 hack" is evidently http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/timeline.html#1967b http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/timeline.html#1967b .
ojbyrne 12y ago
As some people below have mentioned, the main problem was that it was neither a HUD or AR. Personally I loved the idea of being able to have something like Strava available while riding my bike, but the requirement of focusing at a small screen an inch away from my eye made it not tenable, and essentially unsafe.
coffeemug 12y ago
> AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work, ordering dinner at a restaurant, taking a walk around the block, or even most forms of labor (manual or otherwise). It could. Riding the bus? It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you. Ordering dinner? It could approximate calorie counts of the food on your plate. Taking a walk? It could pull up information about the flora and fauna around you, and the history of the buildings. AR could be amazing, but the tech isn't there yet. Google Glass reminds me of Apple Newton -- an amazing piece of technology that's a decade or two too early.
- GuiA 12y ago
  > Riding the bus? It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you. Jesus Christ please no. Does anyone really think this is a good idea? Addendum: of all the people replying to my post, saying how great it could be, I'd be willing to guess that none are in positions where they get harassed on the bus on an almost daily basis (eg being a woman).
  - rwallace 12y ago
    You seem to be implying that being able to know the identity of the person you're looking at will cause women to be harassed. But in small communities, everyone already has this feature (by virtue of their being few enough people that an unaided human brain can track them all). And in small communities, you don't get a lot of jerks going around randomly harassing women on a daily basis. Why not? Well, the identity of the jerk who does the harassing is also known, and social (and ultimately physical) sanctions will be applied. Now you're saying that in a large community where people are anonymous, there are jerks going around harassing women on a daily basis. But that's in a large community without identity tracking, where the jerks don't fear reprisal. So what you're saying is actually an argument in favor of implementing AR identity tracking and letting human capabilities catch up with community size.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Like their twitter bio, not a dossier. Well I mean you could but that's a different thing.
stcredzero 12y ago
> AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work, ordering dinner at a restaurant, taking a walk around the block, or even most forms of labor (manual or otherwise). I think AR could have a very significant impact in all situations where it's hard to succinctly convey the entirety of what's going on and people tend to say, "you need to be here to see it." If one could localize a dozen Google Glass like devices within a 3D model of a locale of interest, like a construction site or the site of a large public news event, then the various POV of the cameras could be represented within the 3D space. This would allow viewers to place the various POV in context. Zooming around the space then into the POV of a reporter onsite would really make such locations concrete for viewers in the way beyond what a shot with buildings in the background and a crowd in the foreground could not. I also think that AR could be used to allow a team of human experts and assistants to augment an agent, negotiator, or executive at an event or meeting, much as one sees lawyers whispering into the ears of executives and politicians. This would have the advantage of not having the whispering expert be visible. It would allow executives and politicians to project a more competent image. (The current Google Glass could not suffice for this, as it is still too obtrusive.) The same 3D virtual space could also be used to aggregate and contextualize the situation for the remote experts. It's also easy to see how aggregating various POV from security guards and bodyguards would give a much clearer picture of the security situation around a VIP. tl;dr - I agree that devices like Google Glass have the most value integrated into teams of people who are dealing with the integration of disparate information in complex situations.
- DonHopkins 12y ago
  >"It would allow executives and politicians to project a more competent image." By now, everyone is far too aware it's all about PROJECTING and IMAGE (and not into the user's eye about their environment, but into the audience's mind about the user), and at this point it's widely agreed that the image it projects is that of a Narcissistic Douchebag Glasshole.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    > at this point it's widely agreed that the image it projects is that of a Narcissistic Douchebag Glasshole. If you read the comments carefully, you will realize that I explicitly stated that the current devices would be too obtrusive for this purpose. It is possible that there would be a negative backlash over the use of such a device, but it would not be caused by the appearance of the device, if properly executed.
njharman 12y ago
> augment human knowledge, intelligence, and sensory in real time I argue that is primary feature for all the time. Every time I reach for phone (to look something up, check weather, directions, status of things, name that song, take picture, check calander, etc. etc.) I would much rather have that in a HUD, voice controlled or not. In future (and guess I'm in minority) I would LOVE full mediated reality. Sound suppression/augmentation, ad blocking, alerts of people I know, tags and notes from (geolocated, item/face recognition). So much more. I sort of doubt the tech for this will arrive mainstream in my lifetime. mostly due to low demand and individual impowerment making it anti-commercial.
- trhway 12y ago
  > ad blocking, :))) i somehow suspect that the "full mediated reality" would be an exact opposite - a new ad medium where you'd have very hard time avoiding the ads. I mean compare placing an ad on real Golden Gate Bridge vs. placing it on the Bridge in your AR.
  - njharman 12y ago
    I ad block the internet, I would not use service/tech (such as cable TV or pos Hulu) that does not let me (mostly) avoid ads.
- 7952 12y ago
  But mostly when people reach for their phone they are just looking for a distraction. When you are walking down the street you don't need to read status updates because you don't need to be distracted (most of the time). And if you want some entertainment music or audibooks are much more fun than status updates and weather information. People rarely navigate on foot and are probably not actively researching their location when they do. I agree that this kind of information is useful but the form factor is just to cumbersome for everyday use.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > When you are walking down the street you don't need to read status updates because you don't need to be distracted (most of the time). Don't you? That's exactly when I pick up my phone; unless I have something to think through, walking to/back from work, etc. feels like a waste of time for me so I do want to do something then (read, reply to emails), or at least distract myself with social media.
smrtinsert 12y ago
Arguing against AR is going to be as silly in retrospect as arguing against email/internet. It will undoubted connect people to information, which is at the very core of what we're looking to achieve with technology.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 12y ago
I'm not sure why they went after the consumer market first. I feel awkward on the street talking into a headset. But at my desk, it's my preferred technology for taking a call. There are industries where a mini heads-up display would be valuable. Consider, for example, a mechanic. Peering into an engine and seeing the parts labelled, color coded and flagged by diagnostics would be powerful. Or a policeman surveying highway traffic. Or a lawyer reviewing paper documents. In none of these cases would a Glass-like device be awkward.
- saalweachter 12y ago
  The problem is that Glass wasn't an overlay, it was a screen near your eye. The technology isn't ready for overlays; we can't take a picture, analyze it, and pipe a drawing to a display fast enough. If it's not fast enough you get lag which is confusing and distracting and wrong.
- semi-extrinsic 12y ago
  I can safely infer from your post that you have never repaired anything on a car. I'm talking about the "getting so dirty you have to use Dawn Ultra as shampoo" part of the experience. Glass wouldn't last a minute. I usually even remove my Casio G-Shock watch.
Pxtl 12y ago
Imho, they should have targeted athletes. Get it down to $200 and go after joggers and cyclists and other folks in the GoPro set.
- nevir 12y ago
  Directions are one of the things it does do really well.
  - elif 12y ago
    the only time glass has felt useful is on my bike. whether it's recording a video (to show off, document in case of accident, etc), getting sms without having to stop, getting directions... the problem is wearing it and getting in an accident is basically asking to wear an eye patch.
olalonde 12y ago
> Flying fighter jets, driving race cars, fighting on a battlefield, working in complex and unsafe industrial operations, etc. You are implying Google Glass was a failed product but I would argue that discovering those specific applications is precisely what Google sought to achieve by mass releasing the product. I doubt they ever expected Google Glass in its current form to succeed as a consumer product although I bet they'd been happy with that outcome too.
- Jtsummers 12y ago
  Most of those applications were dreamt of, and to some degree implemented, long before google glass. The F-35 utilizes a "smart helmet" (or whatever the thing is called) that permits the pilot to look through the aircraft in any direction they can turn their head. Cars and aircraft have utilized HUDs for many years (not worn, but that's a limitation of technology at the time). Battlefield combat in Soldier 2.0 and similar initiatives long predates the Google Glass project. These aren't applications discovered with it, these are applications potentially implemented with it or similar tech. I'd wager that video games (primarily the real-time sort) have given more inspiration for applications of AR and proper worn HUDs than Google Glass itself produced.
  - Intermernet 12y ago
    >"The F-35 utilizes a "smart helmet" (or whatever the thing is called)" The Apache helicopter pilots in 1985 had helmet mounted displays (HMDs). I remember being blown away when I first saw a demo. They could select a target by looking at it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display
  - olalonde 12y ago
    I meant novel applications they hadn't anticipated, not the ones you listed. Sorry if I was unclear in my comment.
nhance 12y ago
Having used Google Glass in a racecar, I can say that it has no place in a race cockpit. The display is too far out of the line of sight and it is less ideal than the gauges already in the car. It was able to capture neat videos, but I think a gopro stuck to the helmet would do a better job.
- turnip1979 12y ago
  Agreed. I got Google glass for the hangout feature. A few months after I got it, they removed the feature entirely. That feature was one way it was different than a Go-pro - and they took out! The explanation was crazy - "not many users use it". Seriously? I've been burned so many times on Google hardware, I'm not going to fall for it again.
  - clancy 12y ago
    I can see it now: "Our self driving cars no longer travel to Toledo because not many users go there."
    - mr_luc 12y ago
      Huh. Funny - you can probably come up with a few scenarios where that would happen, like if their large-scale deployment software for self-driving cars is heavily dependent on the wisdom of crowds, for instance.
    - deeviant 12y ago
      Actually, your statement is not too far off. Google's self driving is far less dynamic as they would have you believe. Areas are extremely heavily analysed with a massive array of sensors, analysis and even human input/sanity checking before cars are allowed to drive in a specific area. No doubt this preparation is expensive and the resources to do it are finite. I could easily see some very accessible normal place be unavailable to a self driving car. Source: 2 of my coworkers worked at the start-up that originally developed the core self-driving platform that was acquired by Google(No, Google did not develop the origin technology). The both worked for some time at Google working on the project.
jayd16 12y ago
It had some neat ideas with the glass api and card UX. Now that smart watches are here I'm sure everyone realized it works a lot better on your wrist than your face.
- Filligree 12y ago
  Speak for yourself. My wrist is gloriously free of any watches, and I'd like to keep it that way; they itch.
mc32 12y ago
Before google glass became reality I think when people discussed AR it was imagined to help in complicated manufacturing --like assembling an airliners fuselage, etc. I wonder if there's uptake in that market, if not for gglass for an alternative.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Google Glass was an awesome idea, and the only reason it seems to have failed is because of that camera, or rather because what media and bloggers did with it. They took what was a perfectly good HUD prototype and turned it into a story about obnoxious stalker dorks and Google the evil Big Brother. BTW. This situation is one of the many that make me more and more convinced that we can't have both privacy and continued technological progress; we need to pick one.
- krapp 12y ago
  Technological progress doesn't necessarily have to work against privacy. That's only the trend now because the interests of business and government happen to converge on aggressive surveillance. Technology can progress in a myriad of ways.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >Technological progress doesn't necessarily have to work against privacy. This is true, but it seems that rather than acknowledge this, many technology producers are purposely pushing the needle the other way. That is, they frequently opt for the least privacy-oriented approach, even when more privacy-oriented approaches are available at the same or lower cost. Take FitBit. I am opposed to the tracking it does on so many fronts. But, I received one as a gift, so thought I would investigate further. Here's the short: It only syncs my data to the cloud, and doesn't even provide the option to keep it locally. This, even though it requires a desktop app and USB dongle to wirelessly sync my data from the watch to my laptop. So, it could very easily provide a local dashboard, but, it's not an option. They want my data. Then, I look at their privacy policy. The usual stuff about not selling my personally identifiable data, but the right to sell it in aggregate form, give it up if compelled by subpoena, etc. But, why do I want even them to know when my heart beats or when I sleep? And, do I really want to take the risk that my information can be used against me in some insurance claim that goes to court one day? Point being, that it truly is unnecessary for their product to work against privacy, but they've opted for a longer view that sacrifices my privacy for their future profits. This erosion of privacy for commercial gain is part of the ethos that is being foisted on consumers at so many turns that it is normalizing the approach, and leaving us with fewer options where this is not the case.
espadrine 12y ago
> AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work That is both incredibly accurate (watches will already provide you with all the information you need in a less obtrusive manner), and it reminds me of that toothbrush test Google gives its products: > We ask ourselves, 'Is this something people use once or twice a day and does it solve a problem?' They might need to revisit this. Airplanes wouldn't pass the test, for instance. Glass shouldn't have; they simply tried hard to make it pass the test.

cLeEOGPw 12y ago

They fell into trap of "product/service that seems to be wanted by a very large amount of people a little bit", instead of making it for a niche market where small amount of people need that item very much. PG was right, even the smartest people make these mistakes.

Fuxy 12y ago

That's the problem. You actually need to talk to your glasses which can be annoying and distracting to some people. Now if you could talk to you devices without actually talking it would be great. Like they do in "Ghost in the Shell"[1]. [1] http://anidb.net/a247 http://anidb.net/a247

usrusr 12y ago

There isn't quite as much money in targeting ads at fighter jet pilots as there is in targeting ads at people riding the bus. Asking Google to not do glass for the guy on the bus (fighter pilot or not) is like asking them to not do it at all, given the nature of Google's business. Which, in hindsight, might have been the right call. The Nest division, where glass seems to be headed now, could maybe evolve into a completely new branch with a more straight forward business model, more product than platform. Maybe there glass could still be salvaged, surviving as a simple, focused HUD tool for the "jet pilot", after failing as a pervasive wearable for the guy on the bus.

whoisthemachine 12y ago
Actually I believe there is quite a bit of money in making HUDs for fighter pilots [0]. It just doesn't look like Google Glass and it doesn't have quite the same mainstream pull. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#Helmet-Mounted_Display_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#Helmet-M...
- usrusr 12y ago
  There is money, but there is zero value for ad targeting. "Core Google" is famously not about selling products to the end user, it is about establishing platforms to facilitate the ad business. Jet fighter HMD fall short in this (at least I hope so - a war decided by superior ad blocking would make for some very dark fiction)

cantankerous 12y ago

This. I was really excited about the possibilities glass could bring to my desk job, or other aspects of my daily work, but was pretty let down by how it pushed to augment aspects of my daily life where it wouldn't make any sense (going for walks, commuting, jumping out of planes, etc.). Hopefully we'll see another iteration of Glass or another product with a more domain or task(s)-specific purpose. That's what I'm waiting for, anyway.

saosebastiao 12y ago
I definitely think that domain and task specific AR has a strong future. I would love it if Uber took to using AR instead of relying on dash-mounted iPhones. It could give them visual indicators of a destination (things like which side of the street, potential drop off zones, etc). It could help pinpoint the location of the app-user at the origin. It could augment their GPS so they don't have to type in directions or look at a tiny screen while driving.

Dylan16807 12y ago

But it wasn't HUD/AR, it was a small screen you had to look over at, wasn't it? Yes it's semi-transparent but it can't overlay the actual focus of your vision. Edit: Well I guess some people think I'm mistaken. Then I request images/video showing the full field of view of someone wearing glass. (Not the simulation marketing videos.)

ryusage 12y ago
I tried out google glass last fall and this matches my experience of it. It really doesn't overlay info as part of your normal view, which for me removes the AR designation. It does place information in a place that doesn't require you to move your head or look down, which is I guess where the "heads up" description comes in...but it still requires you to divert your attention, like looking at a rear-view mirror in a car. Sure, you can still see things in front of you in your peripheral vision, but that still seems less integrated than I would associate with the term HUD.
guyzero 12y ago
Glass is not AR. Full stop. It's HUD for some definition of HUD. Your description is correct.
- guelo 12y ago
  HIAPWEUATTRD: Head In Any Position With Eyes Up And To The Right Display
  - dzhiurgis 12y ago
    Or True Data Whip
AndrewKemendo 12y ago
This is exactly right, it's not AR. What it has done though for AR is show people the idea of overlaying information on your environment which is a core tenet of AR. That has been hugely helpful in making the understanding of how AR works accessible to a much wider range of people.

jeffasinger 12y ago

I used to work in the "Self-guided tours for Museums" industry. That was an area I could see Glass being legitimately useful. Walking through a museum, seeing something you were interested in, and having more information about it read to you be someone knowledgeable almost instantly is a great User Experience.

jameshart 12y ago
Much like Segway became useful only for guided city tours. It's presumably only a matter of time before Segway tour operators start augmenting their operations with google glass heads-up annotations.
kolencherry 12y ago
Guidigo is actually doing exactly this.
dannyr 12y ago
Yeah, somebody already built that for Google Glass. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27234868/museum-2-0-google-glass-apps-and-interactive http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27234868/museum-2-0-g... The de Young Museum's partnership with Google, and the exhibit-tour app created specifically for Glass, is one of the most thrilling experiments yet. Billed by French app-maker GuidiGO as the first-ever tour of a complete exhibition on Glass, the augmented-reality effects unfolding within my wearable device made me feel less like a detached spectator and more like a privileged guest at an intimate salon. With one eye on the actual painting before me, I could tap and slide my finger along the Glass stem and call up text or images or an audio interpretation of the piece by Haring's sister, Kristen, who teaches history of science and technology at Stanford University.
stock_toaster 12y ago
I had assumed it would be of great utility to police, fire, and emergency personnel. Of utility for the personnel themselves (pop up display of criminal record info, maps, home owner info, etc), but also for the safety of the citizens (recording, etc) they are serving.

kolencherry 12y ago

You've hit the nail on the head there. The enterprise market is actually seeing a decent uptake in Glass, as it's much more relevant there. Glass, in the iteration it's in and given current cultural/social context, was not a fit for the consumer market.

bingobob 12y ago
anything with a list of task glass is great for i think all the marketing etc was great to make it know what glass is its just people buying it and using a a consumer device than a dev device is the problem but maybe this is what google wanted to explorer world with glass and see what work and what doesn't.
Steko 12y ago
Current iteration is not fit for any market. They botched the implementation by going for the nerdgasm angle instead of actually making a good product. 100+ posts on this page and not one mentions the shit battery life. A device like this starts with battery life and uses that as the constraint on the quality of the screen, chipset and camera. We saw this with the iPad, they started with the full workday/school day as their battery standard. For a more personal device like this the standard is even higher, likely 12 to 16 hours. That is for professional or mass market use. The killer apps for glass type device are life casting and personal security and glass can't do either of those due to battery life.

cordite 12y ago

One of the neat things I hope research is able to push more is support for those that are deaf. One issue deaf people have, not knowing a spoken tongue, is that language is confusing--seriously. Vocabulary doesn't have as much exposure when written as when spoken. I found out about this when I talked with a professor before graduating. [1] The hope is that we can eventually build enough of a visual library that can represent a word when a deaf individual confronts an unfamiliar word, then they can learn about it independently and consistently. To the dreamers, the ideal situation would be where the individual spots a word, performs some 'hey, pay attention' action and they highlight or circle the word with their fingers on the written text. OCR magic, perhaps additional context gathering around the instance of the word, and then some form of conveying the meaning visually. I foresee augmented reality being more beneficial to those that are in some form disabled, before we have practical or convenient features like 'where are my friends in this cafeteria?' HUD pointers. [1]: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/15005/20140527/signglasses-system-helps-deaf-literacy.htm http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/15005/20140527/si...

sdrothrock 12y ago
> To the dreamers, the ideal situation As a deaf/hearing-impaired person, the ideal situation is near-instant subtitles for speech/sounds. For Deaf persons, I imagine the ASL (or JSL or what have you) equivalent of subtitles would be a godsend if they were more comfortable with that than reading.
- Keithamus 12y ago
  As someone who isn't hearing impaired, having subtitles for speech & sounds in real life sounds awesome. Especially if I'm using my ears for other things, like listening to music.
leoc 12y ago
Have a look at https://plus.google.com/+ThadStarner/posts/HQfRCMALr2V https://plus.google.com/+ThadStarner/posts/HQfRCMALr2V , especially the comments. "Upton['s] '67 hack" is evidently http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/timeline.html#1967b http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/timeline.html#1967b .

ojbyrne 12y ago

As some people below have mentioned, the main problem was that it was neither a HUD or AR. Personally I loved the idea of being able to have something like Strava available while riding my bike, but the requirement of focusing at a small screen an inch away from my eye made it not tenable, and essentially unsafe.

coffeemug 12y ago

> AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work, ordering dinner at a restaurant, taking a walk around the block, or even most forms of labor (manual or otherwise). It could. Riding the bus? It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you. Ordering dinner? It could approximate calorie counts of the food on your plate. Taking a walk? It could pull up information about the flora and fauna around you, and the history of the buildings. AR could be amazing, but the tech isn't there yet. Google Glass reminds me of Apple Newton -- an amazing piece of technology that's a decade or two too early.

GuiA 12y ago
> Riding the bus? It could automatically pull up the bio of a person sitting next to you. Jesus Christ please no. Does anyone really think this is a good idea? Addendum: of all the people replying to my post, saying how great it could be, I'd be willing to guess that none are in positions where they get harassed on the bus on an almost daily basis (eg being a woman).
- rwallace 12y ago
  You seem to be implying that being able to know the identity of the person you're looking at will cause women to be harassed. But in small communities, everyone already has this feature (by virtue of their being few enough people that an unaided human brain can track them all). And in small communities, you don't get a lot of jerks going around randomly harassing women on a daily basis. Why not? Well, the identity of the jerk who does the harassing is also known, and social (and ultimately physical) sanctions will be applied. Now you're saying that in a large community where people are anonymous, there are jerks going around harassing women on a daily basis. But that's in a large community without identity tracking, where the jerks don't fear reprisal. So what you're saying is actually an argument in favor of implementing AR identity tracking and letting human capabilities catch up with community size.
- sp332 12y ago
  Like their twitter bio, not a dossier. Well I mean you could but that's a different thing.

stcredzero 12y ago

> AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work, ordering dinner at a restaurant, taking a walk around the block, or even most forms of labor (manual or otherwise). I think AR could have a very significant impact in all situations where it's hard to succinctly convey the entirety of what's going on and people tend to say, "you need to be here to see it." If one could localize a dozen Google Glass like devices within a 3D model of a locale of interest, like a construction site or the site of a large public news event, then the various POV of the cameras could be represented within the 3D space. This would allow viewers to place the various POV in context. Zooming around the space then into the POV of a reporter onsite would really make such locations concrete for viewers in the way beyond what a shot with buildings in the background and a crowd in the foreground could not. I also think that AR could be used to allow a team of human experts and assistants to augment an agent, negotiator, or executive at an event or meeting, much as one sees lawyers whispering into the ears of executives and politicians. This would have the advantage of not having the whispering expert be visible. It would allow executives and politicians to project a more competent image. (The current Google Glass could not suffice for this, as it is still too obtrusive.) The same 3D virtual space could also be used to aggregate and contextualize the situation for the remote experts. It's also easy to see how aggregating various POV from security guards and bodyguards would give a much clearer picture of the security situation around a VIP. tl;dr - I agree that devices like Google Glass have the most value integrated into teams of people who are dealing with the integration of disparate information in complex situations.

DonHopkins 12y ago
>"It would allow executives and politicians to project a more competent image." By now, everyone is far too aware it's all about PROJECTING and IMAGE (and not into the user's eye about their environment, but into the audience's mind about the user), and at this point it's widely agreed that the image it projects is that of a Narcissistic Douchebag Glasshole.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  > at this point it's widely agreed that the image it projects is that of a Narcissistic Douchebag Glasshole. If you read the comments carefully, you will realize that I explicitly stated that the current devices would be too obtrusive for this purpose. It is possible that there would be a negative backlash over the use of such a device, but it would not be caused by the appearance of the device, if properly executed.

njharman 12y ago

> augment human knowledge, intelligence, and sensory in real time I argue that is primary feature for all the time. Every time I reach for phone (to look something up, check weather, directions, status of things, name that song, take picture, check calander, etc. etc.) I would much rather have that in a HUD, voice controlled or not. In future (and guess I'm in minority) I would LOVE full mediated reality. Sound suppression/augmentation, ad blocking, alerts of people I know, tags and notes from (geolocated, item/face recognition). So much more. I sort of doubt the tech for this will arrive mainstream in my lifetime. mostly due to low demand and individual impowerment making it anti-commercial.

trhway 12y ago
> ad blocking, :))) i somehow suspect that the "full mediated reality" would be an exact opposite - a new ad medium where you'd have very hard time avoiding the ads. I mean compare placing an ad on real Golden Gate Bridge vs. placing it on the Bridge in your AR.
- njharman 12y ago
  I ad block the internet, I would not use service/tech (such as cable TV or pos Hulu) that does not let me (mostly) avoid ads.
7952 12y ago
But mostly when people reach for their phone they are just looking for a distraction. When you are walking down the street you don't need to read status updates because you don't need to be distracted (most of the time). And if you want some entertainment music or audibooks are much more fun than status updates and weather information. People rarely navigate on foot and are probably not actively researching their location when they do. I agree that this kind of information is useful but the form factor is just to cumbersome for everyday use.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > When you are walking down the street you don't need to read status updates because you don't need to be distracted (most of the time). Don't you? That's exactly when I pick up my phone; unless I have something to think through, walking to/back from work, etc. feels like a waste of time for me so I do want to do something then (read, reply to emails), or at least distract myself with social media.

smrtinsert 12y ago

Arguing against AR is going to be as silly in retrospect as arguing against email/internet. It will undoubted connect people to information, which is at the very core of what we're looking to achieve with technology.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 12y ago

I'm not sure why they went after the consumer market first. I feel awkward on the street talking into a headset. But at my desk, it's my preferred technology for taking a call. There are industries where a mini heads-up display would be valuable. Consider, for example, a mechanic. Peering into an engine and seeing the parts labelled, color coded and flagged by diagnostics would be powerful. Or a policeman surveying highway traffic. Or a lawyer reviewing paper documents. In none of these cases would a Glass-like device be awkward.

saalweachter 12y ago
The problem is that Glass wasn't an overlay, it was a screen near your eye. The technology isn't ready for overlays; we can't take a picture, analyze it, and pipe a drawing to a display fast enough. If it's not fast enough you get lag which is confusing and distracting and wrong.
semi-extrinsic 12y ago
I can safely infer from your post that you have never repaired anything on a car. I'm talking about the "getting so dirty you have to use Dawn Ultra as shampoo" part of the experience. Glass wouldn't last a minute. I usually even remove my Casio G-Shock watch.

Pxtl 12y ago

Imho, they should have targeted athletes. Get it down to $200 and go after joggers and cyclists and other folks in the GoPro set.

nevir 12y ago
Directions are one of the things it does do really well.
- elif 12y ago
  the only time glass has felt useful is on my bike. whether it's recording a video (to show off, document in case of accident, etc), getting sms without having to stop, getting directions... the problem is wearing it and getting in an accident is basically asking to wear an eye patch.

olalonde 12y ago

> Flying fighter jets, driving race cars, fighting on a battlefield, working in complex and unsafe industrial operations, etc. You are implying Google Glass was a failed product but I would argue that discovering those specific applications is precisely what Google sought to achieve by mass releasing the product. I doubt they ever expected Google Glass in its current form to succeed as a consumer product although I bet they'd been happy with that outcome too.

Jtsummers 12y ago
Most of those applications were dreamt of, and to some degree implemented, long before google glass. The F-35 utilizes a "smart helmet" (or whatever the thing is called) that permits the pilot to look through the aircraft in any direction they can turn their head. Cars and aircraft have utilized HUDs for many years (not worn, but that's a limitation of technology at the time). Battlefield combat in Soldier 2.0 and similar initiatives long predates the Google Glass project. These aren't applications discovered with it, these are applications potentially implemented with it or similar tech. I'd wager that video games (primarily the real-time sort) have given more inspiration for applications of AR and proper worn HUDs than Google Glass itself produced.
- Intermernet 12y ago
  >"The F-35 utilizes a "smart helmet" (or whatever the thing is called)" The Apache helicopter pilots in 1985 had helmet mounted displays (HMDs). I remember being blown away when I first saw a demo. They could select a target by looking at it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display
- olalonde 12y ago
  I meant novel applications they hadn't anticipated, not the ones you listed. Sorry if I was unclear in my comment.

nhance 12y ago

Having used Google Glass in a racecar, I can say that it has no place in a race cockpit. The display is too far out of the line of sight and it is less ideal than the gauges already in the car. It was able to capture neat videos, but I think a gopro stuck to the helmet would do a better job.

turnip1979 12y ago
Agreed. I got Google glass for the hangout feature. A few months after I got it, they removed the feature entirely. That feature was one way it was different than a Go-pro - and they took out! The explanation was crazy - "not many users use it". Seriously? I've been burned so many times on Google hardware, I'm not going to fall for it again.
- clancy 12y ago
  I can see it now: "Our self driving cars no longer travel to Toledo because not many users go there."
  - mr_luc 12y ago
    Huh. Funny - you can probably come up with a few scenarios where that would happen, like if their large-scale deployment software for self-driving cars is heavily dependent on the wisdom of crowds, for instance.
  - deeviant 12y ago
    Actually, your statement is not too far off. Google's self driving is far less dynamic as they would have you believe. Areas are extremely heavily analysed with a massive array of sensors, analysis and even human input/sanity checking before cars are allowed to drive in a specific area. No doubt this preparation is expensive and the resources to do it are finite. I could easily see some very accessible normal place be unavailable to a self driving car. Source: 2 of my coworkers worked at the start-up that originally developed the core self-driving platform that was acquired by Google(No, Google did not develop the origin technology). The both worked for some time at Google working on the project.

jayd16 12y ago

It had some neat ideas with the glass api and card UX. Now that smart watches are here I'm sure everyone realized it works a lot better on your wrist than your face.

Filligree 12y ago
Speak for yourself. My wrist is gloriously free of any watches, and I'd like to keep it that way; they itch.

mc32 12y ago

Before google glass became reality I think when people discussed AR it was imagined to help in complicated manufacturing --like assembling an airliners fuselage, etc. I wonder if there's uptake in that market, if not for gglass for an alternative.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

Google Glass was an awesome idea, and the only reason it seems to have failed is because of that camera, or rather because what media and bloggers did with it. They took what was a perfectly good HUD prototype and turned it into a story about obnoxious stalker dorks and Google the evil Big Brother. BTW. This situation is one of the many that make me more and more convinced that we can't have both privacy and continued technological progress; we need to pick one.

krapp 12y ago
Technological progress doesn't necessarily have to work against privacy. That's only the trend now because the interests of business and government happen to converge on aggressive surveillance. Technology can progress in a myriad of ways.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >Technological progress doesn't necessarily have to work against privacy. This is true, but it seems that rather than acknowledge this, many technology producers are purposely pushing the needle the other way. That is, they frequently opt for the least privacy-oriented approach, even when more privacy-oriented approaches are available at the same or lower cost. Take FitBit. I am opposed to the tracking it does on so many fronts. But, I received one as a gift, so thought I would investigate further. Here's the short: It only syncs my data to the cloud, and doesn't even provide the option to keep it locally. This, even though it requires a desktop app and USB dongle to wirelessly sync my data from the watch to my laptop. So, it could very easily provide a local dashboard, but, it's not an option. They want my data. Then, I look at their privacy policy. The usual stuff about not selling my personally identifiable data, but the right to sell it in aggregate form, give it up if compelled by subpoena, etc. But, why do I want even them to know when my heart beats or when I sleep? And, do I really want to take the risk that my information can be used against me in some insurance claim that goes to court one day? Point being, that it truly is unnecessary for their product to work against privacy, but they've opted for a longer view that sacrifices my privacy for their future profits. This erosion of privacy for commercial gain is part of the ethos that is being foisted on consumers at so many turns that it is normalizing the approach, and leaving us with fewer options where this is not the case.

espadrine 12y ago

> AR doesn't significantly augment your experience of riding the bus to work That is both incredibly accurate (watches will already provide you with all the information you need in a less obtrusive manner), and it reminds me of that toothbrush test Google gives its products: > We ask ourselves, 'Is this something people use once or twice a day and does it solve a problem?' They might need to revisit this. Airplanes wouldn't pass the test, for instance. Glass shouldn't have; they simply tried hard to make it pass the test.