Why I'm Sending Back Google Glass

Pretty obvious by Carrot007 · 2014-05-21 02:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Re:Pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 03:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

But can you hack a Gibson with them?
Re:Pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 03:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is true, but hopefully, maybe this will get the critics to actually critique the device and surmise how it could be better, instead of just howling about privacy and being recorded all the time.
I mean they can fix all the issues this guy has a problem with except the one that isn't a problem, the belief that its recording everything all the time. It will never be able to do that, whether you want it too or not.
Re:Pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 03:23 · Score: 1

Low responsiveness to voice commands, low battery endurance, and high heat generation seem like they could be legitimate problems.
Everything else mentioned in the article is obvious, intentionally idiotic user error.
Hard to have eye contact during a conversation if you're looking at a screen instead of the person you're talking to? No shit. Doesn't have anything to do with Glass.
Other people can tell that you're wearing them? No shit. They aren't fucking Invisible.
Feel inadequate because you lead a boring life? Ok...?
Re:Pretty obvious by Austerity+Empowers · 2014-05-21 03:33 · Score: 2

In TFA, he surprisingly had some good criticisms of the actual device. Unfortunately all that made it to the summary was the bullshit reasons regarding people's misunderstanding and misuse of psychology, and/or his discomfort with not looking people in the eye. I see a future were we just get used to it, the same as we ignore people checking their phone already.
After we get past the nonsense, it seems the device itself has some design issues, though not all are issues i agree are issues (like maps using cellular data...I think that's the right way to do it unless the cell phone has wifi of course).
Re:Pretty obvious by Trepidity · 2014-05-21 03:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

I see a future were we just get used to it, the same as we ignore people checking their phone already.
It's possible, but at least in my social circles so far people haven't really adapted to carrying on a conversation while checking phone, at least for more than brief glances. When someone looks down at their phone for more than 3-4 seconds, the conversation pauses, and resumes when they look back up again. The explicit looking-at-the-screen aspect essentially communicates out-of-band the "am I paying attention to this conversation or not?" aspect that's used to fairly seamlessly pause and restart the conversation. So far, I've found it hard to do that with people wearing eyepieces (I've had conversations with people wearing prototype versions on and off since 2004), since you don't get the explicit notification of now-looking-at-screen, now-looking-back-up attentional state that you get with smartphones.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Pretty obvious by jeffmflanagan · 2014-05-21 03:41 · Score: 1

I'm waiting for a lot more powerful. A little text at the corner of my eye isn't much help to me. Full augmented reality across the entire lens would be.
Re: Pretty obvious by ranton · 2014-05-21 04:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo
He said Retinal Display, which means a display that is directly implanted into the eye, or perhaps intercepts the communication from the eye to the brain. That has nothing to do with the Apple retina display.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Re:Pretty obvious by geekoid · 2014-05-21 04:01 · Score: 2

"... and resumes when they look back up again. "
why? whatever you are talking about is boring.
It's like talking to some one and they go glassy eyed. You might as well just stop talking mid sentence.
" since you don't get the explicit notification of now-looking-at-screen, now-looking-back-up attentional state that you get with smartphones."
so? If they miss something ether they didn't care or they need to pay attention.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 04:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

Hard to have eye contact during a conversation if you're looking at a screen instead of the person you're talking to? No shit. Doesn't have anything to do with Glass.
Of course that has something to do with glass... That's the fundamental operating model of Glass. It indicates that the fundamental interaction model for the product is flawed completely and utterly.
Re: Pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 04:16 · Score: 1

Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo
Here we have the rational consumer who always thinks things through and doesn't fall for silly marketing ploys. He is an enlightened, thinking man!
Unless of course he misreads something as pertaining to Apple in some way, in which case he damn near knocks his own eye out with the power of his knee-jerk reaction.
Re: Pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

It is interesting to see this confusion.
Somehow Apple managed to get Retina trademarked in the context of displays.
Meanwhile we have a typical example here where the trademark got confused with the established term for another type of displays.
That trademark should never have been accepted and will lead to legal disputes when someone tries to bring a retinal display to the market.
Re: Pretty obvious by jellomizer · 2014-05-21 05:10 · Score: 1

Apple does have a reputation of delivering products of good quality.
Sure they have a few looser, and some problems. But overall Apple is a safe bet.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Pretty obvious by BasilBrush · 2014-05-21 05:13 · Score: 1

Anyone who wants them is an idiot.
See how that works?
Re:Pretty obvious by BasilBrush · 2014-05-21 05:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

the same as we ignore people checking their phone already.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us find people checking their phone when they are supposed to be engaged in a social context to be very annoying and rude.
But not nearly as annoying and rude as someone wearing Google Glass would be.
The kind of people that want Google Glass are the exact same people that can't work out or don't care about the etiquette of when and how to use their existing phones. The Glassholes nickname is perfect.
Re:Pretty obvious by Hognoxious · 2014-05-21 05:43 · Score: 2

A lot of us find people checking their phone when they are supposed to be engaged in a social context to be very annoying and rude.

I believe they refer to us as "old people".

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Pretty obvious by poetmatt · 2014-05-21 05:51 · Score: 1

Every display is retinal, because it uses your retinas.
Your post is bullshit, whether you're implying apple (as the poster below) implied or not.
When displays aren't retinal, that might actually be the key to success.
Re: Pretty obvious by LordLimecat · 2014-05-21 06:01 · Score: 1

If you want to pay nearly double for the same equipment, sure.
Anyone wanna run a price/performance analysis on a Nexus 5, or a Moto G, compared to the latest iPhone?
Re: Pretty obvious by Agares · 2014-05-21 06:08 · Score: 1

I will admit that the term confused me too so thanks for clearing it up. As for AC, he needs to quit being a dick. If someone likes Apple who cares? I know I don't like people insulting me for liking Linux so why should I insult people who like something else.
Re: Pretty obvious by Plammox · 2014-05-21 06:09 · Score: 1

I have a Nexus 5. It really isn't the bee's knees. It has more counterintuitive sub-sub-submenus than an old HP network analyzer and you need to root it to control app privileges. Lame.
Re:Pretty obvious by Agares · 2014-05-21 06:18 · Score: 1

The fact that people are use to phones is why I would be more worried about them than google glass. We are all so use to seeing a phone out that we think nothing of it. Which makes it easy for people to record others as well as take creep shots if the want to.
Re: Pretty obvious by Mictester · 2014-05-21 06:24 · Score: 1

Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo

It's amazing that Apple can make a feature out of displays that failed Samsung quality control! They weren't good enough for Samsung products, so they're downgraded and used for Apple products......
Re: Pretty obvious by Simon+Brooke · 2014-05-21 06:54 · Score: 1

I have never, ever bought an Apple product of any kind, but considering build quality the MacBook Air is probably better value for money than the very similar Asus Ultrabook which I do have.

--
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Re:Pretty obvious by Hussman32 · 2014-05-21 08:07 · Score: 1

I'd help clarify that comment by recommending Peter F. Hamilton's book Pandora's Star (search Amazon)...he envisioned an implanted HUD display where people could access the Internet analog and do other comp sci stuff. Pretty cool ideas there.

--
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Re: Pretty obvious by narcc · 2014-05-21 08:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

FFS, please do send it back, or give it to someone who WILL DO SOMETHING USEFUL WITH IT.
Has this happened yet? Has anyone done something useful with it?
Is such a thing even possible?

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re: Pretty obvious by Blaskowicz · 2014-05-21 10:22 · Score: 1

I thought that refered to a scanning laser projector that targets your retina.
Re: Pretty obvious by quickOnTheUptake · 2014-05-21 10:41 · Score: 1

"once no one can tell it's a whole other ball game - at which time, yeah, a lot of people could hold a conversation and be browsing the web at the same time and no one would know it. Most humans are decent at jockeying a screen and a person simultaneously - think of driving, where one can easily hold a conversation with someone in the passenger seat but be mainly paying attention to the view in front of them and operating the vehicle."
I don't think this is true. Most people suck at it. Reading directly competes with listening. Most people just can't do both at once, without failing to grasp on one of the two.
There are lots of activities we can do quite well while talking (e.g., dribbling a basketball, or keeping our car between the lines on the road), but reading isn't one of them.
Some people might be quite good at selective listening (semi-consciously giving feedback at what seem like appropriate times, or listening for key inflections or keywords that indicate the conversation requires full attention). They might be good at judging when the coming few seconds of conversation are predictable, so they can glance away for a second to read a text message without interrupting the conversation. Or they might be good at mentally recording the sounds in a sort of audio buffer while they move their attention to something else for a couple seconds before returning to listen to the buffered audio and rejoin the conversation.
But tying to hold a conversation with someone who is trying to read (continuously, like in browsing the web) through the conversation is impossible.

--
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
Re: Pretty obvious by stealth_finger · 2014-05-22 03:14 · Score: 1

Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo It's amazing that Apple can make a feature out of displays that failed Samsung quality control! They weren't good enough for Samsung products, so they're downgraded and used for Apple products......
That's apple, put a fancy name to it and tell people it's good. What does Joe Everyman know about displays? Fuck all is what.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u

Pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 03:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Retinal display will be the key to success.

Right now it's bullshit.

As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Schezar · 2014-05-21 03:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 03:19 · Score: 5, Funny

I have a large collection of interesting shots of my life now.
Yeah, I love all the shots of traffic and your rabbit's bedding. Priceless memories there.
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Dan+East · 2014-05-21 03:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

Okay, so explain to me why Google Glass has to be a stand-alone computing device (requiring wlan connectivity, more powerful CPU, larger batteries, etc) to meet your 3 points, instead of a simple optional display / camera peripheral that is used with an existing cell phone? I don't remember any genius deciding that cell phones should all be crammed into bluetooth headsets because a certain portion of the population likes to wear bluetooth headsets all the time.
Google Glass is in the form factor of a display device that has been overextended into the all-in-one device. That makes more sense for a less obtrusive form factor like a wristwatch, but not for something that you have to wear like a cyborg. It will never, ever gain traction as the core mobile computing device, because people that don't want to wear it on their head all the time won't tolerate having to switch back and forth between it and their cell phone. I think the adoption rate will be no better than bluetooth headsets at best.
How much less would Google Glass cost (and weigh) if it was just a low-power bluetooth peripheral with a display and camera? 1/5th the price?

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by CastrTroy · 2014-05-21 03:23 · Score: 4, Informative

You can get turn by turn navigation in a bike specific GPS for way less than the price of Google Glass. And you load the maps right on the device so you don't have to worry about data plans or losing cell reception. Personally, I would love it if my cell phone could do everything, but GPS seems to be one of those things where a dedicated device just works so much better. The GPS on my phone will work ok in a pinch, but for things like cycling and hiking, there's no comparison to using a real GPS.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by SenatorPerry · 2014-05-21 03:32 · Score: 2

+1 to this comment.

I have a 1 year old that loves reacting to a camera. Hold out a cellphone and she smiles. Hold out a lense and she stops doing whatever and watches the camera. With Glass I have captured tons of videos with her in unique and interesting ways that tell a better story of her. Try recording this with a regular camera:
http://youtu.be/scEJJK7cxGg
or here:
http://youtu.be/jDLCQJluNAQ

The problem is that it took me nearly two weeks to get adjusted to Google Glass. My battery regularly lasts all day without charging after the XE17 upgrade. I live in South Carolina and have NEVER run into anyone wearing them in the wild. Still, nobody ever seems uncomfortable around them and there has only been a handful of people actually ask me about them.

Now if they would get the video calls back into them....
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Altus · 2014-05-21 03:35 · Score: 1

People who have not used glass usually have expectations of ti that are not realistic... like they believe its a HUD that will overlay useful information over your field of vision, put peoples names above their heads and other magical things when the reality is it is a small, low res screen hovering at the edge of your vision that doesn't do a particularly good job of much of anything while not being very reactive to user input.
Part of those expectations are thanks to hollywood but you see the same thing in articles about the tech like the ones recently about doctors using them. People expect more than a few lines of text hovering off to their right because hell... these things are going to be used by doctors performing surgery, they must do something magic!
Oh yea, also they are insanely expensive, which also adds to the belief that they will be mind blowing and adds to the disappointment when they are not.
Generally speaking, given those expectations, it is not surprising that the reality is disappointing.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Lumpy · 2014-05-21 03:41 · Score: 1

Yea and No...
dedicated GPS devices fail on "fuzzy" information.
ME: Take me to the nearest Library
Phone: give me choices, I click and off I go.
Dedicated GPS : ........ DOES NOT COMPUTE! ERROR! ERROR! EXTERMINATE!

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by shikaisi · 2014-05-21 03:41 · Score: 2

I have a large collection of interesting shots of my life now.
Yeah, I love all the shots of traffic and your rabbit's bedding. Priceless memories there.
Now, if the rabbit had a pancake on its head...

--
No left turn unstoned.
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by sadboyzz · 2014-05-21 03:45 · Score: 1

I don't think bluetooth has enough bandwidth for smooth video streaming.
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Sockatume · 2014-05-21 03:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Take all those useful features, put them somewhere other than my face. Problem solved.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by internerdj · 2014-05-21 04:04 · Score: 4, Informative

From the Head mounted displays that I've worked with, the optics portion tends to be the limiting factor for dimensionality and weight. It isn't like going with just a GPU on the thing is going to make it into a set of eyeglasses. You've also got a lot of overlap in passing/processing video and general information passing/processing. You probably aren't going to save a lot by making it just a phone accessory. You definitely aren't going to see a lot of difference from an aesthetic perspective.
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by avandesande · 2014-05-21 04:06 · Score: 1

I think your example extends to smart watches as well- what other use would you have for them then to see an incoming text or who is calling you so you don't have to pull your phone out?

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by geekoid · 2014-05-21 04:08 · Score: 2

I think BT 3 and 4. can do 25MBits.
Granted, 4 wasn't out during Glass development.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Hognoxious · 2014-05-21 04:59 · Score: 1

explain to me why Google Glass has to be a stand-alone computing device (requiring wlan connectivity, more powerful CPU, larger batteries, etc) to meet your 3 points, instead of a simple optional display / camera peripheral that is used with an existing cell phone?

Because that would make sense[1] and this is Google we're talking about.
[1] Assuming you think the concept itself is any good, which I don't particularly.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by wagnerrp · 2014-05-21 05:02 · Score: 1

I think a lot of people fail to realize that it's not just a display an inch away from their eye. You really have to use a reflex display at least once to grasp their purpose.
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by spire3661 · 2014-05-21 05:23 · Score: 1

"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"

The big differentiator here is that you are using dedicated hardware. You could easily mount a cheap dedicated nav package to your car, boat, snowmobile and jetski for less than the cost of one Glass.

--
Good-bye
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by spire3661 · 2014-05-21 05:27 · Score: 1

Do you understand your command is INCREDIBLY context based where standalone GPS works best on empirical data. Also in your GPS scenario, internet connectivity is required. Thats not navigation, thats touring.

--
Good-bye
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Ravaldy · 2014-05-21 05:55 · Score: 1

I like your assessment of the article. I believe you are correct in saying the writer's use was wrong. It's like using a hammer to put in a screw.
On the flip side, the glasses DO NOT solve the enormous amount of data coming to us daily through our smart phone. Instead I believe those who manage to pay attention to the device based on priorities will be more efficient. I use a Windows phone and at a glance I know if I have facebook notifications, emails in 3 different accounts, twitter and items due today. I only get sound notifications for inbound calls, missed calls and meeting notifications. I have developed the habit of looking at my phone every 30 - 60 minutes. While I'm at work I'll only look at critical items which include todo list and emails. After hours I may have a minute to kill so I'll look at facebook or other lesser important notifications I have.
When you do intellectual work having a notifications popup randomly takes you out of "the zone". I'd rather be disciplined into check regularly when I'm not "in the zone".
I think the glasses are very nice for taking pictures, providing directions while driving and providing the WHO IS CALLING notification. My arguments above don't contradict the usefulness of glasses but instead shows the need to decide what information gets to invade your eyes. Currently none of the eye wear devices offer in depth configuration either due to lagging software or lack of integration with smart phones.
My 2 cents.
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Drethon · 2014-05-21 06:18 · Score: 1

Yep, I think its time to disconnect the I/O of a computer from its processor. Seems like we only need a mobile (low power) and non mobile (high performance) processor that talks to a bunch of I/O devices.
Re: As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Namarrgon · 2014-05-21 10:32 · Score: 1

I'm sure it was considered (it's a fairly obvious approach after all), but I really doubt that streaming live video to a radio receiver+H.264 decoder for a few seconds uses much less power than popping up a card with an SoC and keeping it there. Then there's the issues of bandwidth, range, responsiveness, reliability, battery drain on your phone as well, and your phone having to be in range to do *anything* as opposed to just transferring the occasional notification or GPS co-ord.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by praxis · 2014-05-21 10:59 · Score: 1

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 (sic), I speak it into Glass. If there's a long one, I, at my leisure, deal with it later on my phone.
I too just live my life. If I'm walking somewhere, and a message arrives in one of my inboxes, I can, at my leisure process my inboxes and respond to those messages as appropriate in long- or short- form. I configured my notifications on my phone such that important and urgent notifications vibrate my phone and everything else makes no notification at all. I prefer to focus on what I am doing and who I am doing it with rather than extraneous information without fearing I'll miss something important and urgent (of which few things are).
The other two use cases are enabled by glass but the first use-case is already possible today in a superior way.
Re: As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Zynder · 2014-05-21 13:49 · Score: 1

Dude! Do you know where I can get a motorized pocket protector????? That would be rad!
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Zynder · 2014-05-21 14:09 · Score: 1

You've hit the nail on the head. The problem is, what you think we think we want, is exactly what we want!!!! So Goog needs to make a real HUD with peoples names and big ol tom tom arrows to herd us around. Give me a pop up saying I'm about to get rained on. Tell me when I am approaching the store that I am supposed to buy something for dinner. Ya know, all the stuff my cellphone can already do- just do it on a HUD.
I have to lay the blame squarely on Google. Their marketing people are the ones who've drawn this grand picture of a device that knows and sees everything. If I am underwhelmed once I see a real one, it'll be their fault. Especially for the price. I'm not paying $2k for something I can buy off of Alibaba for $40 (Bluetooth watches that just show incoming calls and little else). They're gonna have to build that stairway that reaches the insanely high pedestal they've put Glass on!
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Lumpy · 2014-05-22 01:11 · Score: 1

99.9765% of people that use GPS's dont care about that, they just want it to work.
and you are incorrect, because libraries are not roving beasts that require constant location database updates, standalone GPS devices can easily hold a POI database with this information.
Now if Standalone GPS makers would hire competent programmers, we could have this.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off by Altus · 2014-05-22 02:51 · Score: 1

Not really, apparently they cost about $100 to produce as is. I suppose they would get cheeper if you took out some of the computing based functionality.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

Solution without a problem, for now... by milgram · 2014-05-21 03:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... by justthinkit · 2014-05-21 03:33 · Score: 1

a solution without of problem

I wonder if the purpose of being there first with a product like this is to register some patents & copyrights. Microsoft seems to introduce plenty of lame products...but I wonder if the patent royalty stream is the most profitable of a new product line. Much like their P.O. Box approach to DOS licensees -- just send me the money.

--
I come here for the love
Re:Solution without a problem, for now... by Lumpy · 2014-05-21 03:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have Glass and I rarely use it anymore... I replaced it with a product that I dont worry about losing or damaging and provides what I need in the same really easy to get format.
I replaced my Glass with a Pebble watch. Quick glance at any of the info I need, plus I can easily interact. And It's $129 (whine at Best Buy and they will discount it) so if I smash it or get robbed, I dont care.
I still wear Glass for special occasions or if we dress up to go out, Nothing screams rich like wearing a $1500 toy on your head, It's the same as wearing a Rolex only you get more nods from the other rich guys.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Solution without a problem, for now... by ShanghaiBill · 2014-05-21 04:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

While I still consider Glass to be a solution without of problem
A local school is testing them in flipped classrooms. The teacher wears GG as the students attempt to solve problems and type the solutions into a computer. GG displays a grid of the classroom that indicates which students are struggling. The teacher moves around the classroom, quickly going to where help is needed most. It seems to work well with most of the teachers, although some don't like it. This is still a research project (no education money is being spent), and the cost of the device will have to come way down before classroom use becomes widespread.
Re:Solution without a problem, for now... by mlts · 2014-05-21 04:35 · Score: 1

Glass is a pioneer product, and the guys with the arrows in the back are always the pioneers (Compaq with their HDD based MP3 player, Diamond with their serial based player, Creative with their Nomad Jukebox, and so on.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the "settlers" (the guys that come on the trails blazed by the pioneers) come along with a decent product eventually. Maybe the next iteration of Glass will use arrays of cameras to make a composite view, or one camera for depth of field, one for the image (like the HTC One M8.) An array of smaller cameras and some software might be better than a larger, bulkier one.
Then there is the uphill battle for acceptance, and already there are people highly turned off on the concept of having yet another camera shoved in their face.
Pioneer devices are never perfect. My HTC Wizard smartphone did everything the first gen iPhone could, but it required a stylus, or very precise finger pressing (good luck.) It takes several generations of research/design/feedback from consumers to get a product suitable for mass consumption.
Re:Solution without a problem, for now... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

I still wear Glass for special occasions or if we dress up to go out, Nothing screams rich like wearing a $1500 toy on your head, It's the same as wearing a Rolex only you get more nods from the other rich guys.
And this is the reason the term "glasshole" was coined.
Re:Solution without a problem, for now... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 06:57 · Score: 1

Pretty sure that nod indicates you are a giant douche.
Re:Solution without a problem, for now... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 16:47 · Score: 1

Nothing screams rich like wearing a $1500 toy on your head
This screams tacky nouveau riche. In reality everyone thinks you're a huge fucking plebeian faggot.

Cross eyed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 03:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Opti-Grab, anyone? (see The Jerk)

Re:Cross eyed by scuzzlebutt · 2014-05-21 03:36 · Score: 1

"Pay to the order of 'Iron Balls' McGinty... One dollar and NINE CENTS!"

--
In C++, your friends can see your privates.

Development Prototype by Drethon · 2014-05-21 03:10 · Score: 1

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...

What a Luddite... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-21 03:13 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

Google will abandon glass itself by hsmith · 2014-05-21 03:19 · Score: 1

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.

link to the all one page article by tomlouie · 2014-05-21 03:21 · Score: 1

http://www.computerworld.com/s...

Has FDA considered the health implications? by Eravnrekaree · 2014-05-21 03:21 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Has FDA considered the health implications? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2014-05-21 03:37 · Score: 1

He said: "that they made him cross-eyed and avoid eye contact"
Which is the way most geeks naturally are anyway. So maybe wearing Goggle Glasses will correct those problem on geeks:
"By wearing Google Glasses, I can see straight! And I try to get eye contact!"
FDA studies with geeks are needed. And maybe normal folks don't want eye contact with us anyway . . . ?

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:Has FDA considered the health implications? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-05-21 03:47 · Score: 1

The probable future of the human race is merging with machines. We have to start sometime.
Sez you.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Has FDA considered the health implications? by jeffmflanagan · 2014-05-21 03:50 · Score: 1

>He said: "that they made him cross-eyed and avoid eye contact"
>Which is the way most geeks naturally are anyway. So maybe wearing Goggle Glasses will correct those problem on geeks:

Anyone here who fits this description, talk to your doctor. 60mg citalopram daily completely fixed my aspergers-like social dysfunction. Not only did eye-contact suddenly become natural and automatic, it made me extremely outgoing and friendly. There have been no negative side-effect, other than light-sensitivity in the 1st few months, or loss of effect over the 7ish years I've been medicated. My life is far better than it would have been if I had done nothing about my social problems.
Re:Has FDA considered the health implications? by necro81 · 2014-05-21 06:08 · Score: 1

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
Reminds me of The Jerk .

Re:Frustrating by tbuddy · 2014-05-21 03:22 · Score: 1

Log in and moderate and you can block them or get a hosts file or browser that runs AdBlock. There is no reason you need to see ads on any site since damned near the invention of online advertisement.

Re:Not the only one by flyingfsck · 2014-05-21 03:32 · Score: 2

I'm pretty sure he won't get it.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!

One guy now speaks for the entire world? by Lumpy · 2014-05-21 03:35 · Score: 1

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.

This just in by RobbieCrash · 2014-05-21 03:44 · Score: 1

Prototype not behaving like a finished product, story at 11.

--
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me

Re:Be honest, perv. by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-05-21 03:46 · Score: 1

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.

Skyzone goggles are cool by AndyKron · 2014-05-21 03:52 · Score: 1

I like my new Skyzone goggles. They're cool!

Prototype? by Lucas123 · 2014-05-21 03:57 · Score: 1

You don't sell prototypes to the public. That's called a production model.

Re:Prototype? by geekoid · 2014-05-21 04:11 · Score: 1

Where have you been in the last 20 years?
People pay to beta test now.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Prototype? by RobbieCrash · 2014-05-21 04:12 · Score: 1

s/prototype/beta/g

--
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me

Not pointless at all. by westlake · 2014-05-21 04:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Not pointless at all. by bitt3n · 2014-05-21 06:31 · Score: 1

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
Why didn't you just send an anonymous message to HR requesting they enforce the cleavage policy?

--
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?

Plus (no pun intended) by koan · 2014-05-21 04:04 · Score: 1

You confirm you're a douche when you're wearing them.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Reasosn for wearable computer by gurps_npc · 2014-05-21 04:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

1) Free up hands

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

Re:Luke 15:7 by koan · 2014-05-21 04:14 · Score: 1

Ecclesiastes 10:19

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

In other news... by Minwee · 2014-05-21 04:14 · Score: 1

I am returning my Apple Newton, as tablet computers with touch screens will never work.

The real question is by future+assassin · 2014-05-21 04:20 · Score: 1

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*

Project Ginger by Primate+Pete · 2014-05-21 04:23 · Score: 1

It seems like the main issue is that there is no good use case.

Google glass = Project Ginger.

Then why did Google set it up to fail? by rsborg · 2014-05-21 05:49 · Score: 1

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

the jerk by MossStan · 2014-05-21 07:32 · Score: 1

that is exactly what happened to steve martin.

--
It is what it is.

Great by cyberthanasis12 · 2014-05-21 08:30 · Score: 1

Now, may I have the returned glasses (for free)?

nerds gonna nerd by Zynder · 2014-05-21 13:57 · Score: 1

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!

Re:Be honest, perv. by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-05-21 23:33 · Score: 1

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.

The discreet grammar nazi. by westlake · 2014-05-22 01:29 · Score: 1

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

Slashdot Mirror

Why I'm Sending Back Google Glass

96 of 166 comments (clear)