Slashdot Mirror
Why I'm Sending Back Google Glass
Lucas123 (935744) writes "After using Google Glass for several weeks, Computerworld columnist Matt Lake had plenty of reasons to explain why he returned them, not the least of which was that they made him cross-eyed and avoid eye contact. Google Glass batteries also drain like a bath tub when using either audio or video apps and they run warm. And, as cool as being able to take videos and photos with the glasses may be, those shots are always at an angle. Of course, being able to do turn-by-turn directions is cool, but not something you can do without your smart phone's cellular data or a mobile hotspot. The list of reasons goes on... Bottom line, if Google Glass is in the vanguard of a future class of wearable computers, the future isn't the present."
I do want them but I am holding out until they are a little more powerful.
Anyone who expects them to be anything the than a preview of what is yet to come is an idiot.
But please feel free to clutter up the world with more pointless articles.
+----------------- | What is the question!
The BBC and NPR also talked to tech journalists that after 1-2 weeks stopped wearing them for basically the same reasons. I kind off figured this device would be a flop. I'm sure people will buy for no reason other then to say they have one, and in some instances it may be useful. But I wouldn't want to be wearing a device that is more of an annoyance, then it is useful, especially with smartphones that already do all these tasks
And they just don't seem to want to realize that Google Glass is a failure. It's not the next revolution. Move on.
Retinal display will be the key to success.
Right now it's bullshit.
I can easily see how he could have these problems. His use case is ridiculous.
I can't imagine a sane human being putting on Google Glass and thinking "hey, I'll watch video or read web pages on this thing!" That's almost the opposite of a normal use case. I can't imagine looking at the screen for more than a few seconds at a time.
The value of glass:
1. Non-distracting notifications of emergent information
I don't take my phone out of my pocket every time it buzzes. I don't constantly read twitter every time I happened to pull it out to see what that buzz was. Instead, I just live my life. If I'm walking somewhere, and glass buzzes, I can, at my leisure, cock my head slightly to turn on the display and read the message. If there's a short followup, I speak it into Glass. If there's a long one, I, at my leisure, deal with it later on my phone.
2. Navigation
I'll be honest. For driving, or especially biking/touring, the turn-by-turn is worth the current price of admission even if that is the SOLE use. Trying to mount a phone on a motorcycle/bicycle, let alone pull a phone out of one's pocket while biking, is laughable. The navigation is amazing to behold the first time you use it. For a frequent biker/traveler, it's already indispensable/
3. Candid photos
I have a large collection of interesting shots of my life now. The photos are indeed at an "angle" much of the time. Who cares? If I want to take a picture, I use my phone, or a real camera. I use Glass solely to catch, again, emergent moments. Something interesting happens, and I snap a photo discretely and immediately. For that use case, I defy a regular camera or smartphone to be deployed and used quickly enough without similar "angle" or "shot framing" issues.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/...
Glass is primarily a notification tool coupled with a navigator and a quick-draw smartphone.
I'm not saying Glass is perfect. Far from it. It has a long way to go. But this guy appears to be trying to use it in the least imaginative and least useful ways possible. He's doing the equivalent of complaining that he cant edit 4k video on his phone, or that he can't easily make toast with his flamethrower.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
While I still consider Glass to be a solution without of problem, unless people use and find problems with them, innovation will not occur. There is a process of failing that precedes success. I understood when I bought Glass there would be issues. I wear them to find these issues and attempt to improve them. That is why I love to program. I like to make things better.
I read the complaints on the Explorer board, and I am shocked that people expected a perfect product. This is meant to be beta testing. Google has been very clear about this.
If you don’t wish to seek innovation, and you are afraid of things not going perfectly, send them back. You are probably not the type of person who seeks to improve the world around them.
Opti-Grab, anyone? (see The Jerk)
I never got the impression these were supposed to be mature release devices. You buy one to experiment with developing new software for them. While an end user can still provide valuable feedback it doesn't seem like they are the target audience.
My bent $0.02...
When the last vestiges of privacy are finally destroyed, we will all live in harmony and love under the rule of Google. This guy is an idiot.
Totally unrelated, but I have to vent. I love how Slashdot now causes my browser to hang due to all the ads. Even better is when I'm logged in with no ads check, seeing ads slide in from the bottom of the screen. What the fuck has this site become?
But, the SDK and UX they are developing they will license.
I've had a set since december and worn them maybe 2 hours total. The video is cool, but in reality it is nothing more than a toy.
http://www.computerworld.com/s...
there is a possibility of neurological and eye problems from putting something like this into the field of vision. I wonder if the FDA has looked into these issues and might consider regulations, perhaps a warning label.
Thje google glass concept is creepy in my opinion, as if people walking around with eyes glued to little smartphones wasnt creepy enogh (tracking and monitoring devices in reality). People need to get out, live more, and get untangled from the grid for more of their lives. I am a computer programmer, mind you, but I dont think this idea of always being in some virtual reality, with eyes glued to a screen, is healthy. I leave behind my computer work when I leave the office and go hiking or something, not paying attention to a smartphone.
The biggest reason he's returning it is because he got punched in the face too many times by Slashdot-reading privacy tough-guys.
Glass is primarily a notification tool coupled with a navigator and a quick-draw smartphone.
How did you EVER survive without such help?
SMH
So because some unknown guy does not like them, it's solid proof that it's a failure? Honestly he is someone that has a sensitivity to them and is having issues, I know a lot of people with Glass that do not suffer from the eye strain or the inability to not look at it when talking to others. And I am sure there are others that have the same eye strain and sensitivity problems. I know as a glasses wearer I do find shifting focus to be difficult for Glass
Lastly, the things are in OPEN BETA, If anyone expects it ti be perfect and ready for prime time, then they are being mential. He is damn lucky they will give him a full refund. I cant get HTC to give me a full refund on my HTC ONE M8 after a few weeks when I discover it's a big steaming pile of crap. (and it is, I do have one. The nexus 5 is twice the phone and overall better in every way)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
#1: is the same with a cellphone. You can, at your leisure, read the notification or deal with it later. I usually deal with it later, but YMMV.
#2: the cellphone can speak navigation instructions to you. You can also use a wireless headset or wired, or attach the phone to your bicycle and so on.
#3: that's nice but it is a bit creepy. Why not just enjoy the moment? You're missing your life when you're busy filming it and uploading to Flickr for strangers and the NSA to see.
Also, what the heck is an "emergent moment"? You're using the word "emergent" a lot but I don't think it means what you think it does.
Prototype not behaving like a finished product, story at 11.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
That's a pretty lame attempt at a troll, considering that you can buy video cameras about the size of your thumb on Amazon.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I'm amazed you tried to think of it as a real product, rather than as an inspirational toy. Google Glass is what I think of as a "somewhat neat idea" and using it might give you a few clues about what people will be doing in a decade or two. But if you bought it thinking, "This is going to be good," then you're every bit as dumb as people who bought an iPhone 1. It's a preview. A prototype. A showcase for trying things out. It's guaranteed to suck, without the slightest possibility of not horribly sucking, and you shouldn't CARE about the suck, because not-sucking isn't among its goals. It's an iPhone 1, except on your face. It's "neat" and also impractical. It's restrictive and primitive compared to what would happen in a normal world, while also letting you see some hopefully-cool things that normal people don't get to see. It's for researchers and the people who want a head start on the 2022 market.
I like my new Skyzone goggles. They're cool!
The biggest complaint seems to be the camera. It would be nice to have a version that did NOT have a camera. I would prefer this as the world is not ready for ubiquitous spying yet (but the NSA is working on that).
Yes, I've tried these and even though I did get an invite, did not purchase a pair. It seems like they want to make it a monitor when it is really a heads-up display (HUD). It needs to be unobtrusive. And not even close to being worth $1500.
You don't sell prototypes to the public. That's called a production model.
But please feel free to clutter up the world with more pointless articles.
The article sums up two fundamental problems for Google Glass:
It's called glassing out. You look cross-eyed. People can't make eye contact with you, and they read things into your lack of eye contact.
I had surgery to gain control over a "wandering" eye when it became obvious how much my inability to maintain eye contact was costing me both at home and at work.
People fear surveillance. They don't want a recording device waved in front of them. And that's how many people see Google Glass. People avoid talking to you when you wear them.
No amount of frames or shades conceals the glowing prism at the front that brands you a Glass-exploring neo-cyborg.
Loss of eye contact makes it difficult to build trust --- and the ever-present "in-your-face" camera only makes things worse.
You confirm you're a douche when you're wearing them.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
2) Provide 3d visual effects by granting different views to different eyes. (not relevant to google glass - yet)
3) Discrete use of the device.
While the complaints mentioned are insightful, they do not bear on the benefits of wearable computers.
Wearable computing is coming. People don't want to use hands and we want to be able to check our messages, email, txts, discretely.
The only real thing holding us back is a good discrete input device. Possibly something blue toothed to the google glass, so we will be truly discrete instead of having to whisper commands to the google glass.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Ecclesiastes 10:19
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I am returning my Apple Newton, as tablet computers with touch screens will never work.
can you look this beautiful http://www.google.com/glass/st... while hacking the Gibson?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It seems like the main issue is that there is no good use case.
Google glass = Project Ginger.
"Of course, being able to do turn-by-turn directions is cool, but not something you can do without your smart phone's cellular data or a mobile hotspot."
And one is exactly that why to get them.
Smartphone or navigator can't do it what Google Glass does. And that is give navigation turn-by-turn guidance visually without requiring to take eye off the road or keeping both hands on the wheel and continue giving those when you leave the car/bicycle/motorcycle and move on.
Sorry but Google Glass, like any VR glass, potential is very limited but very useful, like exactly navigation, incoming call notification, time for bus/tram etc.
But for photos and video they are useless. Sure it sounds fancy you could take shots and record video. But they really are useless for it. Google should go and remove the camera from them. Just give the glass the eye piece and headphones with microphone for calls.
And if that "made me cross-sighted" is one of the stupidest reason I have read against it. When the Google Glass is set correctly, you need to look to infinity and you do it by just looking little up. Not to try to focus something close just centimeters away from your eye.
But this is what I want: http://i.imgur.com/9YONA3J.jpg
Because you are a cheap attention whore. /thread
Glass is primarily a notification tool coupled with a navigator and a quick-draw smartphone.
If the battery was known to be inadequate for video recording and playback, why did Google tack that bullshit onto the beta product when simple performance testing could have shown them a useless (i.e., 3-4 hr) battery life when used to it's full capabilities - that's no-go levels of charge for a "wearable". I had a Palm/Fossil watch a while back - was sweet except that it kept needing a charge every 4 hrs.
I would be 10x more interested in Glass if it had no video recording capabilities (hell, I don't even think a camera is needed).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
" made him ... avoid eye contact."
I guess he sent back his MP3 player because it made him not hear his fellow people.
High price, low resolution, short battery life, lack of augmented reality 3D girlfriend.
that is exactly what happened to steve martin.
It is what it is.
You're not a fucking dipshit.
Now, may I have the returned glasses (for free)?
wearable computing is coming and its going to be so awesome. However google's version is such an abomination, it threatens to give the concept of a HUD a bad name. $1500 for a piece of crap you could of bought 5 years ago for $200. Any one that has bought one has been scammed with the old eric cartman owning a theme park tactic; make it seem exclusive and special, tell a bunch of people they cant have one yet, then watch as the geek sheep throw their money at you.
You come to THIS SITE and make a statement like that? You can actually say that with out falling out of your chair? Preposterous! Most of us (probably you too) were reading all of this while we're supposed to be "working". Watching porn and reading forums whenever/wherever I want was the first thing I thought would be cool about Glass. Now did you make that statement because you actually don't think people would want to do that activity or are you saying it sarcastically because you know the hardware limitations and just how difficult that would be? Because if it's the latter, don't bet on it. I know nothing about a real Glass. I've only seen the videos and the articles about it. Never touched a real one. As an uniformed consumer (which most all of us actually are) I would think that it could do both of those things well. And if you're a salesman trying to get me to buy it, you'll tell me it will. Thanks for the info. I want a device similar to Glass but it has to be able to watch a movie, play a game, or browse a webpage. If it can't it just won't sell imho.
You're 100% correct in only the way us nerds can be. You're arguing a technicality when the general population doesn't give a shit. The muggles want to just tell the "thingy" to take them to the damned library. They don't care if it has a map onboard or if there is an atomic sized dinosaur inside drawing it directly on the screen. They just want to go to the library. The company that takes them to the library with the fewest annoyances and questions will get rich. Citation? Apple. Remember? "It just works" It isn't touring or navigation from their pov. It's just going to the damned library!
You can buy glasses with cameras that look like glasses not computers. If you are using Google Glasses to build up a video recording of everyone and everything then you can do so cheaper and with less looking-like-a-twat-ness.
It's not a field in which I've conducted extensive research but that doesn't surprise me.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Wordnik's recent collection of commonly confused words reminded me that it's been a while since I wrote a post of this sort. Time for another.
Discreet and discrete are often mixed up. It's easily done: not only are they homophones with near-identical spelling, they're also doublets, meaning they diverged from the same original word. In modern English, their spellings and meanings are distinct.
Discreet is probably the more familiar word, and is usually used to refer to people, especially their speech, appearance, or behavior. It means unobtrusive, circumspect and prudent, careful not to attract attention or cause embarrassment, able to keep a secret. Discretion is the noun form.
Discrete generally means separate, non-continuous, individually distinct; it also has technical usages relating to possible parts or values. Discreteness is the related noun.
Keeping 'discreet' and 'discrete' discreetly discrete
... is a Google Glass monocle. It would have a cord (replacing the traditional chain) that powers the device off of a battery back or something in my vest pocket.