5 ms·

It can't nearly be as bad as the social awkwardness around Glass.

danso 11y ago
I've never used Glass, but what it has going against it besides social awkwardness, is physical design limitations and massive cost...substantially improve 1 or 2 of those categories, then it seems like an easy sell. And if it's the case that augmented-vision glasses don't ever make it to the public mainstream (imagine legislators passing sweeping regulations/restrictions)...I think it'd still be useful to wear for a wide variety of technical tasks...for example...instead of doing a DIY project and having to hold an iPad in one hand, with Glass and a specially designed app, have your field of vision augmented by the instructions. It's possible to imagine an ideal Glass device (basically indistinguishable from normal glasses) and how that could be integrated into daily life. But it's hard to imagine how the ideal Watch, when it's finally implemented, would be drastically different than what it offers now; given its inherently small screen and its physical attachment to your wrist, what could a 5mm thin, 8-week-on-a-single-charge, heavily developer-supported Watch change how we use a watch-like device...and how would those changes compare in magnitude versus the changes brought by similar advancements in phone and eyewear technology?
- kleer001 11y ago
  Exactly right about Glass there. It blew my mind that Google dropped the ball so bad there. Why market it to drunk trustafarian boho douche bags that go hang gliding every day? Uh, there's a whole population of people that work with their hands for a living that could use an extra para-brain to do some light secretarial jobs like calling, taking a picture, texting, etc... I would say the working class is far more populous than the target audience in those original Glass-hole adds.
  - chc 11y ago
    I think the problem is that it was expensive, so they were kind of locked into marketing it toward people who go through money like socks — similar to why Tesla started insanely far upmarket and has slowly been working its way down to the ordinary consumer market, which is probably where the most benefit will happen.
    - kleer001 11y ago
      Expensive for an individual, but not for a group like a military (I understand if Google wants to stay away from that can of worms) or a big manufacturing company like aerospace or food or car repair, etc ...
- clarky07 11y ago
  Glass was pretty terrible IMO. Lots of major issues, not the least of which was battery life. People complain about the battery on the watch (which i think is great fwiw, never get below 60%). Glass couldn't even dream of 1 day battery life. it was lucky to make it to 1-2 hours, less if you wanted to do the video (basically the only thing it was good at).
msabalau 11y ago
That only means that products with more social awkwardness would need to deliver even more value. It doesn't change the cost/benefit calculation for the Apple Watch

danso 11y ago

I've never used Glass, but what it has going against it besides social awkwardness, is physical design limitations and massive cost...substantially improve 1 or 2 of those categories, then it seems like an easy sell. And if it's the case that augmented-vision glasses don't ever make it to the public mainstream (imagine legislators passing sweeping regulations/restrictions)...I think it'd still be useful to wear for a wide variety of technical tasks...for example...instead of doing a DIY project and having to hold an iPad in one hand, with Glass and a specially designed app, have your field of vision augmented by the instructions. It's possible to imagine an ideal Glass device (basically indistinguishable from normal glasses) and how that could be integrated into daily life. But it's hard to imagine how the ideal Watch, when it's finally implemented, would be drastically different than what it offers now; given its inherently small screen and its physical attachment to your wrist, what could a 5mm thin, 8-week-on-a-single-charge, heavily developer-supported Watch change how we use a watch-like device...and how would those changes compare in magnitude versus the changes brought by similar advancements in phone and eyewear technology?

kleer001 11y ago
Exactly right about Glass there. It blew my mind that Google dropped the ball so bad there. Why market it to drunk trustafarian boho douche bags that go hang gliding every day? Uh, there's a whole population of people that work with their hands for a living that could use an extra para-brain to do some light secretarial jobs like calling, taking a picture, texting, etc... I would say the working class is far more populous than the target audience in those original Glass-hole adds.
- chc 11y ago
  I think the problem is that it was expensive, so they were kind of locked into marketing it toward people who go through money like socks — similar to why Tesla started insanely far upmarket and has slowly been working its way down to the ordinary consumer market, which is probably where the most benefit will happen.
  - kleer001 11y ago
    Expensive for an individual, but not for a group like a military (I understand if Google wants to stay away from that can of worms) or a big manufacturing company like aerospace or food or car repair, etc ...
clarky07 11y ago
Glass was pretty terrible IMO. Lots of major issues, not the least of which was battery life. People complain about the battery on the watch (which i think is great fwiw, never get below 60%). Glass couldn't even dream of 1 day battery life. it was lucky to make it to 1-2 hours, less if you wanted to do the video (basically the only thing it was good at).

msabalau 11y ago

That only means that products with more social awkwardness would need to deliver even more value. It doesn't change the cost/benefit calculation for the Apple Watch