Slashdot Mirror
What Will Google Glass 2.0 Need To Actually Succeed?
Nerval's Lobster writes As previously rumored, Google has discontinued selling Google Glass, its augmented-reality headset... but it could be coming out with something new and (supposedly) improved. The company has placed a relentlessly positive spin on its decision: "Glass was in its infancy, and you took those very first steps and taught us how to walk," reads a posting on the Google+ page for Glass. "Well, we still have some work to do, but now we're ready to put on our big kid shoes and learn how to run." Formerly a project of the Google X research lab, Glass will now be overseen by Tony Fadell, the CEO of Google subsidiary (and Internet of Things darling) Nest; more than a few Glass users are unhappy with Google's decision. If Google's move indeed represents a quiet period before a relaunch, rather than an outright killing of the product, what can it do to ensure that Glass's second iteration proves more of a success? Besides costing less (the original Glass retailed for $1,500 from Google's online storefront), Google might want to focus on the GoPro audience, or simply explain to consumers why they actually need a pair of glasses with an embedded screen. What else could they do to make Glass 2.0 (whatever it looks like) succeed?
The hardest problem I've seen people have with Google Glass is how obvious it is you are wearing the glasses. People in public assume you are recording them and it bothers them.
If you over come that, I think it would be a fantastic barrier to remove.
After that, give me a utility for these glasses that make me want to buy them/wear them/use them that benefits me beyond what I have or can have now.
That will make them much more attractive in many ways.
It's essentially a smartwatch that you don't need to look to your wrist for.
It has a camera the watch doesn't, but input is more awkward.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Seriously. That camera is the source of most of the hostility users wearing the thing face.
Obviously that would be a huge functional hit, but I for one intend to be as hostile as I can without getting arrested (thrown out is fine) to anyone who comes into a bar with a camera strapped to their face. I suspect I'm not alone.
As long as it has an integrated camera, no one will be comfortable with it.
I have to wear glasses and would rather not, gas perms and other contacts that I've tried suck - so why would anyone need to wear glasses when they don't need to, or invest in a pair that still has to be upgraded to prescription lenses?
This whole "glass" thing reminds of ten years ago when the rage was three d gaming in Unreal Tournament - a thing of the future (just like flying cars for everyone).
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I've only been around a few people wearing Google Glass, and I had the stress / self-consciousness of constantly wondering if I was being filmed. That was not an enjoyable sensation.
Unless Glass 2.0 can make that issue go away, people are still going to want to punch Glassholes.
It needs a killer app... like one that shoots lasers that kills people.
.
Unfortunately, google cannot control the people who use google glass, so there will always be glassholes and google glass won't succeed.
They should stop and go the direction MS is with the HoloLens.
"Unless Glass 2.0 can make that issue go away, people are still going to want to punch Glassholes."
--
As people should!
A visible physical shutter that can be moved over the camera lens to prove that one is not recording video. I realize that it does not deal with people not near enough to see the shutter but at least it will put the people at the table at ease. This is not a perfect solution but it might help.
A compelling use case, a way to use it without looking like a total glasshole, good battery life, no pictures of screaming Robert Scoble in the shower?
That's what glassholes' glass will need to succeed. The idea behind that "product" is simply stupid, dangerous for people's privacy, and fundamentally vulgar.
All Google needs to do is remove the camera. That way, it can still be used for notifications, searches of information and other overlays, and nobody needs to be worried about constantly being recorded. This reduces it to a simple HUD, but let's face it, everybody's smartphone is already a camera.
There are a number of markets/professions where the Google Glass would be ideal (a big one that I keep reading about is aircraft maintenance, have drawings and manuals available on command in front of the technician's eyes).
Rather than trying to come up with something that is designed for everybody on the planet, figure out who could get the most advantage out of it in the short term and, working with that demographic, develop the hardware, the UI and database operation and work with the users to understand exactly the human factors issues. A number of people indicated that the camera was the problem, but I suspect that there are much deeper issues that need to be addressed.
Once you have become indispensable in one area, others applications will start becoming obvious and the product will seem less "creepy" and intrusive for other areas.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Stop targeting Consumers first. Target the industrial sector instead, make them more resilient, bulkier (more obvious) and integrate programs to make these people's jobs easier to do, especially in human-only environments. Augmented reality is more use to business right now, go there first. Then let it trickle to users. Yes, Apple made the smartphone ubiquitous, but business made it necessary in the first place.
Move to the proper target and let the marketplace ask to move it out of the workplace.
Put in more apps, a better programming environment that ties into existing infrastructure for additional computing power, etc.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/21/microsoft-hololens/
a different userbase?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Wrapped with shares of GOOG.
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
According to a variety of reports, Google Glass has very bad battery runtime, only a couple of hours.
Less Google, more cowbell. I consider it a win for society that we are not just running out to buy gadgets to wear on our faces. It was an interesting experiment, but it doesn't belong in daily life. I can't rationally justify why it bothers me, but don't ever expect me to be OK with people walking around with those on their faces. I prefer to live in a camera free zone as much as possible and not be confronted with one strapped the the head of some jackass at Starbuck's.
Add GPS, drop the video and keep the weight to a minimum, run time of at least 5 hours. Display running data, distance, time, pace, etc... Add an option for ear phones and the runners will buy it...
2) Make it look like a REGULAR pair of glasses. Don't try to make it all Apple-chiq. There is a difference between a signature piece of technology that you take out to be cool, and something you are wearing all/most of the time. The first wearable tech should be unassuming and blend in, not stick out like a sore thumb.
Now for the stuff you should add in that only a face worn PDA can/should have. A) Project to both eyes for real 3D displays
B) Monitor your eyes. Not only should blinking be a command, but a solid camera pointed at your eyeball should be able to detect health issues.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
...that is, someone other than Jason Belmonte needs to wear the next version on TV doing something other than bowling.
Focus on things like HUD's for combat armor, and let the tech mature a bit. I have a feeling they could do a lot more if they integrate it into helmets rather than glasses first.
It should show us sentences to say to the girl in front of us and analyzing her response and microfacial expressions and adapt the responses accordingly.
Otherwise the nerds will never get laid.
There aren't really many applications for it beyond professional design or perhaps firemen using it for imaging when they can't see beyond smoke, etc... Just niche applications so far. Perhaps a steep price drop could spur adoption and then the applications would emerge.
Twinstiq, game news
Preferably in black, unstylish eyeglass frames.
I don't want to advertise the fact that I'm wearing this thing. Google geeks may think it's the coolest status symbol ever. I don't. And I don't care. I want to use the map feature, get the weather report.
Yes, I know it can give me automatic Yelp reports, tell me who and what's around, get me dates, show me movies and deliver specs on my computer by looking.
I could care less. I'll use the maps. And the weather. Maybe news, if I'm waiting for a bus. If they want me to buy it, it has to be cheap and boring.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Why this? I'd rather have an article on the MS Hololens.
The cognitive dissonance in the posts today is amazing. (A lot of plain old stupid too).
There are cameras in every bar and restaurant filming you all the time. But nobody will acknowledge this fact. If they did, they would have to a) accept that they are ok with being filmed and that they are being total hypocrites about google glass, b) decide that it is not ok and not go to bars and restaurants any more.
The guy with the Google glass may or may not be filmiing you. The restaurant certainly is, and every person in the the place has a smart phone with a camera. If I hold my phone up at face height am I taking a selfie or filming you?
But we all hate to accept uncomfortable truths about ourselves, so we will deflect our mental stress on someone else. Lets de-humanize them first. They are not a person with smart glasses, they are a "Glasshole", and therefore we can punch them. You guys make me sick sometimes.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
There is a potential userbase for augmented reality devices. But what those potential users expect is an full field of vision display that responds to head & eye movement in real time. A smart phone monocle just isn't going to cut it.
The worst thing about Google Glass is the voice command interface. People shouldn't be able to listen in on the commands you're issuing to the machine. Integrate some kind of an EEG for basic neural input.
Also, set it up so there's an indicator light that subtly indicates to anyone nearby when the Glass is recording. Assuming people don't hack Glass 2.0 to remove (or subvert) the indicator, you're fine.
Finally, take all the control logic off the glass structure itself and move it to a fanny pack or some other wearable accessory. Trying to fit that much computing power in the glasses themselves makes them bulky and awkward.
Needs to be 100% invisible, the stigma of wearing one of those things was just intense.
Stop trying (for now) to make it into a product for the general consumer. Focus on industrial uses to develop the technology. Work instructions, stock picking, etc. Keep working on shrinking the product down further.
As a consumer item this suffers from several problems.
1) It's still bulky, conspicuous and not attractive. Fashion matters like it or not.
2) People don't like talking to their devices out loud unless it is a phone call to another person. Yes some people are ok with it (see Siri) but you rarely see it in the real world. I REALLY do not want to walk around saying "Ok Google" constantly. I honestly don't think I've seen anyone use Siri in public ever.
3) It doesn't really solve most problems people have better than a smartphone already does. How often do your really truly need a screen in view at all times? For most people the answer is seldom. There are very very few use cases in real life where google glass provides a real world advantage of a smartphone.
4) Glasses are not so terribly comfortable. I wore them for 17 year (until lasik) and have NO interest in wearing them again unless I absolutely must.
5) Voice interfaces are coming along but still quite unreliable.
FBI, CIA and 50 other government agencies need this to spy on the citizens that don't trust them.
I've already given more data to Google than I would like. I'm not buying Glass unless I can use it as MY device, not theirs. No uploading shit to the cloud. No monitoring my location or what I look at or what apps I use.
I'm not worried about people recording me with Glass. I actually think that could do more good than harm (mainly by recording police). So I'd be recording anything I think interesting (fortunately for you all, I find humans incredibly dull). But those recordings would have to remain MINE, under MY control.
A Google(R) brand anti-Google Glass(R) device will create a 10' hole in space within Google Glass' field of view. The user of Google Glass will be able to see the subject, but Google Glass will not record the subject or respond to any queries about the subject. This device must be freely available, handed out like take-a-penny-leave-a-penny at convenience stores. Then Google Glass might be accepted. I thought I'd be okay with Google Glass until some hipster walked into my office with a pair on. Got me agitated quickly.
There appears to be a huge physiological difference between fixed cameras and Google Glasses. I have speculated that it may trigger alarming predator/prey response in the brain that says "Hey somebody is watching you!!!!". Anyways some people just want to point out how illogical it is that you find it "creepy". I suspect that if we understood the human brain better we would find that the "creepy" response is quite natural.
By analogy If I was to scream at the top of my lungs everyone would find it very annoying and possibly even become quite angry. If I just point out that is just "sound waves" and I am not touching you so what the heck is there problem and they go to sports games and rock concerts all the time and there is more noise. So obviously if they cannot tolerate a little yelling then they are stupid hypocritical assholes. /S
A few things come to mind.
The first is the price tag. $1500 is a laughable sum for a consumer electronics toy that doesn't have a clear niche.
Another is artificially restricting what it can do. One of the killer features for Glass could be facial recognition that floats someone's name over them. No more awkwardly trying to remember someone's name that you met earlier at the party.
The battery life was also apparently quite bad, as was the performance of the device. Not a surprise given the form factor, but this needs to be addressed.
I want it to be powerful enough that it can do everything locally and not have to phone lots of info back to Google to get work done. People would be a lot less freaked out about the camera if the data couldn't be exported from the device.
Google glass was ahead of its time IMHO. The technology wasn't there to make it work properly, and everybody fixated on the camera so much that it was hard to see anything else about it. However, the Camera is necessary for the device to be more than a smartwatch that looks even more dumb. Augmented reality is the killer feature for glass and you can't do that without a camera.
I read the internet for the articles.
Along with a case, the user needs the good judgement to know when
to put the things in the case when you are in a place where others will not like
even the possibility of being on video. Telling people "it's turned off"
is NOT going to cut it. Show some respect and put the things AWAY
when it is a good idea to do so. Otherwise, expect trouble. The problem
with that is you don't get to pick how much trouble you get, and it might
be a whole lot more than you'd like.
And then you have questions about obvious face camera guy:
1) Is he a dork that likes those kind of things?
2) Is he insurgent disruptive attention whore that likes the problems caused by his presence?
3) Is he an idiot that "Thinks Differently" in way you do not particularly care for?
The product is socially flawed to begin with, and ahead of its time like the idea of touchscreens in the 1990s.
The technology is not here yet to do this conspicuously. Give it 15 years and then it will be done right.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
1) Discrete physical design.
2) Compatible with prescription lenses.
3) Reasonable Battery Life
4) Well under $500. If they can price it around $200, they will sell, sell, sell...
I don't get it. What the F... are they doing?
They release Glass.. at a rediculous price for early developers to check it out.
They got a bunch of negative attention because people feared the camera. (Lions Tigers, Bears and Cameras, Oh My)
Everyone talks about it like it was a failure to sell.
They start looking for how to make version 2 sell like version 1 didn't.
But... they never even tried to sell it at a normal price? Right? That "explorer" price wasnt supposed to be anywhere near representative of Glass's price as a real product right?
So what if a very vocal number of people keep talking about how much they hate it? Any attention is attention. Maybe there are enough of us who WOULD buy it if it were at a reasonable price. Maybe the naysayers rants just keep reminding us how much we want one! Free marketing!
Or maybe that's just me. I don't see how they can know anything about sales when it has only ever been offered for $1,500! Who the F buys a toy like that for $1500?!?
Generation 1 should be old news now, having been sold for something like $200 to $250. Generation 2 should be almost out and people like me who will never spend the money for a device that will be obsolete in a year should be chomping at the bit to go buy a gen 1 for $50 or so soon.
Or is $1500 really what it costs to make and sell a device like that? Is the tech required still that expensive? If so then they should give up. And.. the rest of us should go through eggs at Google headquarters for producing (and I assume patenting) something so far ahead of it's time that in a few years when the components ARE available for a reasonable price nobody can/will produce it b/c the one company which now hogs all the IP marketed too soon, lost money and is now afraid to try again!
What do you mean "besides costing less"? It's really that simple. Google Glass would actually catch on they it needs to be in the sub-$200 price range
My wife was a glass "explorer" and bought one, so I've got to try it some and watched her use it. Problems that I see are:
- Poor battery life
- Slow processor (what people really want to do with this is like augmented reality, and it's not quite got the horsepower)
- Lack of any apps that do something useful to most people that you can't do with a standard android device (just a gimmick at this point).
- Small and low-res screen, can't fit much useful info on it.
- Fragile
Honestly, the dorky looks and people freaking out because of privacy issues weren't an issue that we saw.
Most of the "explorers" are pretty mad that they spent $1500 to be abandoned. Google should at least offer a seriously discounted trade-up to the release model for them, but there is no talk of that. I doubt most explorers will buy it again.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
Google's bar for its internally developed minimal viable product is usually pretty low. That's fine when something is free, and it's purpose is to devalue the competing products in a market, and acquire data for Google to sell advertising. (Some of the stuff they bought in, like Android, Nest and Maps had higher production values early)
The free gift to listen to a timeshare sales pitch, or the promotional swag from a stand at a conference isn't that great either, but it's free, and it might be good enough for a while to use.
The key early adopter markets for HUD/wearable tech are not likely to be as tolerant of these characteristics :
- military likes a HUD , but it's a niche market , with rigid specs and high expectations of ruggedisation
- police and other elements of emergency services have similar needs
- maintenance workers & technicians (this includes doctors, as they are just biomechanics)
- athletes
It all gets a bit thin after that.
eg my parents have no use for a HUD, and neither does the vast majority of the population
So you have a product that fills a number of niche needs, but to fit into the Googlesphere needs to fuel or facilitate the advertising engine, which means it has to be mass market.
If they pull the camera , it becomes more like Recon HUD (which is pitched at athletes in triathlon, cycling & snow sports)
It's basically like the Apple Newton : imperfect tech, both cool & worthy of ridicule , whose users outside of certain niche markets were some combination of elitist arseholes or über geeks. Give it 10 years and it might be able to emerge from the ashes like iPhone & iPad, because the enabling tech has hit the the right combination of enabling capability, and society in general accepts the product concept better.
Glass is a great example of something that only makes sense as a mass market product in the vacuum of SF & Silicon Valley.
How about just remove the camera? That's the creepiest part of Google Glass.
I'm all for exploring the potential of having a display in my line of site for getting information on demand or for AR applications. You don't need a camera for either of those. For AR, the GPS in the phone gives you position, accelerometers in the headset give you orientation, and public database of roads and buildings gives the apps spatial awareness. If you want to be able to highlight people or cars, they could 'opt in' to a location sharing feature that publishes their coordinates.
Battery life would probably be much better w/o the camera as well.
-Chris
I think sometimes, when it comes to computing/technology, people forget that there are some common things that make products popular. For example, it's great if it lets me do something that I would like to do, but which I otherwise cannot do (or it would be difficult to do). For example, smartphones are great because they allow me to check my email, look something up on a website, or look up an address and get turn-by-turn directions. When it comes to smart watches, Google Glass, or other "wearables", the benefit is less clear to me. What does it allow me to do that I can't do on my cell phone?
And keep in mind that the answer to such a question should be something I actually might want to do. It shouldn't be something obscure or with limited appeal (e.g. "I use my Google Glass all the time, because I like to shoot a video blog while rock climbing, and I need it to be hands-free!" might be good for you, but that's not a use most people will appreciate), and it also shouldn't be a gimmicky thing that you might use once to try it out, and then never again (e.g. "This NFC on my phone is great! I can bump phones with someone to give them a copy of a music playlist!")
The other quality that great products have, aside from a genuinely useful feature set, is a relative lack of drawbacks. Seems obvious, I know, but it's something that a lot of people seem to miss. In the case of Google Glass (or other "wearables"), you have to look at how obtrusive and obvious it is that you're wearing one. Having a block of electronics on your face potentially looks dumb. Having something in front of your eye means potentially blocking vision, and just as importantly, interfering with making eye contact with people. Plus, there are issues like, "How often do I need to charge it?" or "Is it comfortable to wear, or does it put pressure on my ear in a way that I don't like?" These things don't necessarily keep people from adopting new products, but it does increase the threshold of usefulness that the feature set must present.
So if you're asking what it for the Google Glass to become a success, I would say that Google Glass would have to present a compelling feature set capable of overcoming the drawbacks. Again, sorry for being obvious, but that's the answer. And by "feature set", I don't mean "a fast processor" or "a lot of RAM", but possible uses that would actually help me in some way. Or to put it another way:
I think wearing Google Glass will make me look like a jackass. Tell me what I can do with it that's good enough to make me willing to look like a jackass, or else redesign it so that I don' t look like a jackass, and then I'll consider getting one.
It needs B&M store shelf space. Put some marketing force behind it, maybe even TV and YouTube ads.
customers
1. Make the design more consistent and seamless by spreading the surface area of the batter to both ears.
The current batter and other hardware is isolated to one side of the face. This decision has led to the right-oriented design that just seems to stand out and tell people that what you're wearing are not real glasses but something strange. Make the left side mirror the right and the design will be larger glasses but more consistently like glasses.
2. Make the battery thinner so that the Glasses stems can be thinner.
Streamlines design and reduces weight. The greater surface area should improve overall battery life.
3. Provide a "recording is on" led light
Provides visual indication that the device is recording and an easy answer to the question of are your recording me.
4. Blend camera lens into design
Don't hide it, don't remove it but make it fit within the design somehow so that it doesn't look so alien.
Oh.
Wait.
Mission Accomplished, Glassholes!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Not look so utterly stupid!!!!
Google has done it before: purchase something (Android), realize that the competition (Apple) is leaving you in the dust; then a few short months after Android is first demo'ed looking like a Blackberry, release iPhone look-alikes.
My guess - Google's going to double down on Gwatches, or some other foolishness, because they've had fuck-all success with glasses.
Look at it more like a personal fleshlight. Why shouldn't people be able to masturbate their personal genitals in public? Why does that offend you to the point of restricting a new technology? You're a flat out luddite. Sure if you don't like it, leave, but you should just accept it as a fact of life in the future.
Google Glass is nowhere near offering augmented reality (adding information on top of the world I'm looking at). It's a second screen, way way off from where I'm looking.
There are other companies making augmented reality headsets if that's what you really want to talk about.
It needs X-Ray vision to virtually take off women's clothes.
90% cheaper is a good start.
Open APIs, full specs. As long as it reeks of Google surveillance, no geek will touch it with a ten foot pole. And, let's face it, it's a geek toy.
I want a HMD. I have wanted one for over a decade. I have even invested quite a bit of dough into developing my own, that's how desperately I want one. But I want it to be MINE. To use and connect as I please. With the certainty that it will only produce the data I want and only transmit it where I want it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
" Many bars employ photographers to wander through the crowd taking photos"
Name one, that is not in South Florida, with a Girls Gone Wild truck parked out front.
What I *can* see happening in "Many Bars" is a photographer first being assaulted and then being ejected for taking random photos of everyone there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1) Most of the patrons in the bar are under canopies, out of view of the camera.
2) The camera is positioned explicitly so pretty much all the people you would be able to see - you are looking at their backs.
3) That camera is obviously about the view FROM the bar, not about the people there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, don't discount the importance of lower pricing. Any lower pricing they'd feasibly offer would still be quite expensive.
I need use cases. I need killer apps. I need the flavor of killer apps that let me build customized functionality without actually having to build apps. Most essentially, I need to know nothing I look at goes to Google.
People unreasonably worry about glass wearers recording them. I'm far far more concerned about Google recording via glass. I'm worried about data mining, I'm worried about facial recognition. Imagine this day. Your workplace issues glass devices for everyone. You step outside the office to have a private conversation in the parking lot. You've been a good drone on paper and face to face but criticize your direct report to some of your peers during the conversation and admit your frustration. You indicate you might start looking for something else. The next day your boss who has been monitoring your feed thinks you are buried and finally wants you to train up someone to assist you. You think, omg, finally, recognition and with that you aren't so eager to bail. Just as your help gets up to speed and there is light at the end of the tunnel they find some unrelated excuse and can you because you've just trained your replacement.
Frankly, I wouldn't be any happier about the data being used to assist "law enforcement", "catch terrorists", allow parents to monitor and "protect" their children, or "catch cheating spouses" either. I certainly wouldn't be happy if my wife was feeling frisky in a dark corner on the boardwalk and some bored night shift admin at google captured the clip and uploaded it to the web either.
For Google Glass to succeed it needs to not be Glass, and not be by Google.
In order to be not only accetable but an awesomely useful device the GG 2.0 should be:
* Predominately be only for display and gesture input and would need to be paired with a phone for processing, running apps, etc. which transmits the display output back to the screens.
* No video camera or microphone - no glassholes.
* Better resolution display and viewable area.
* Much, much better battery life.
* Dual transparent displays that can be used as a separate screens or combined as a single screen.
* Comes without frames so that it can be snapped on to any set of prescription glasses.
* Gesture based interface - great way to control the UI.
* Infrared camera that can only be used for gesture detection. Gesture detection built into hardware without it being possible to transfer the images outside of the chip - only gesture results get out.
* Sound would be via regular earbuds (plugged into phone) or Bluetooth headsets (paired with phone). This is simillar to some smartwatches that exist today with the added bonus that even covert sound recording would be hard to achieve.
Note: I don't know how much of this is even possible or feasible but I would buy this and I imagine many would find uses for such a device.
My belief is that Google would never build and sell such a device because it does not capture the real world data that Google is really interested in.
My hope though is that a company that not so focused in gathering real world data would find it a compelling product to build and sell.
Sorry, there's just no mass market for Glass. I don't think that even with a killer app people who don't wear glasses are going to suddenly rush out and buy glasses so they have any functionality Glass can give them. Even people who are forced to wear glasses for clarity of vision and cannot wear contacts (like myself) wish like Hell they didn't have to wear glasses. The whole concept just doesn't have mass market appeal. As has been stated there are niche application areas where this device could be used very successfully, e.g., doctors, mechanics, technicians that deal with schematics or procedural tasks, but I don't see it ever being used beyond that.
There are tons of ideas that are developed every year that look good on paper, have practical uses, but will just never be a mass market product. Google Glass is the current highly visible one of these ideas. Sounds good on paper, but just won't make it to the masses.
Ongoing and persistent articles everywhere about how *IT* will succeed...somehow?
How about Google Glass and Glapps for business? Let's start using the technology to support business processes. I could think of hundreds..... I'm sure you could as well.... just about any line of business from retail, to manufacturing, to writing and composing, to taxi drivers, to machine techs....etc, etc..... could use some form of visual augmentation to assist, support and enhance human interaction with business processes. The 'bar/restaurant recording' debate is moot. Your expectation of 'public privacy' was relinquished many years ago. Camera or no camera, it doesn't matter. Augmenting human visual capabilities is at the core of Google Glass. I have never owned or even tried a pair and when I went looking to buy this evening, I came across this debate and wished to add my interest and perception of the technology. Whether Google continues down this path or not, someone else will. The benefits of this technology far outweigh the perceived shortcomings. We will have acceptable, reliable and credible human visual augmentation. The question is by whom and when.
..I have already patented that idea with Sharks with Frickin lasers!
We don't really care about the camera, other than its drama all the news people can carry on about. Its the form factor that is the problem; having one stupid little lens in the corner of your eye that you can fit barely any information on it is useless. Give us holodeck like AR/VR (dual see through lenses) and people wont care about the camera, just like they don't care that your smartphone has a camera on it, because of all the awesome stuff you can do with it.
Rocket Surgeon.
The geek who thinks he is riding The Wave of The Future and pulling the rest of the world along with him, like it or not, is a very big part of the problem.
1 The frame should be easily folded and pocketed like any ordinary pair of glasses.
I spent the strangest of Christmases lit by the glow of the cell phone and tablet --- --- an obsession with the gadget so strong it destroyed any sense of a dinner with family and friends.
2 The geek will want a next-generation Glass with HD displays and cameras, front and rear facing, night vision, more sensitive microphones, better battery life, gigabytes of storage, unrestricted apps, including facial recognition with Internet connectivity, etc., etc., etc.
None of that is going to happen in the consumer market until the issues of privacy and respect for others are resolved first --- and hiding behind the geek's favorite legalisms ---"public space!"--- and memes like "Privacy is dead!" will bury Glass six feet under with no hope of resurrection.
The camera must remain visible. There can be no doubt when it is in use.
I would be very strongly tempted to insist on a warning when the audio and video feed is being streamed to the net or being interpreted --- augmented --- by internal or external apps.
3 The geek will predictably cry "Censorship!" Political correctness. But allowing AO apps into the Glass store would be disastrous.
Who wants to live in a society populated by wandering cyborgs staring vacantly into space.
There is no straight line from the introduction of the cellular telephone of the eighties to the placement of an all-knowing chip in our heads in the 22nd century, With each technological breakthrough we consider [what has been lost and what has been gained] Then we react.
Google Glass is the creepy innovation we didn't want.
Private restaurant? Privately owned maybe and the owner could request people not wear glass in the restaurant but it is still in public. You have NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
The geek confuses what is legal with what is courteous and respectful towards others.
That is what makes him a Glasshole.
Figuring out what is or isn't a public place is usually easy, but not always. If the public is allowed free and unrestricted access to a place, like streets, sidewalks and public parks, it is probably a public place (although parts of sidewalks and what appear to be public parks may be privately owned). Once you go indoors, you are probably no longer in a public place, and some person or entity can probably make the rules, including restrictions on making photographs.
Frequently asked questions about privacy and libel
I understand that in this day and age it's almost necessary that you just carry on with hating something right from the start. Knowledge of the thing be damned, we must hate it!
But even after more than a year? It's really sad that some of the same stupid ignorance from day one is still in play. But that's your fault, you ignorant ambisexual walnut.
Sorry to say it captain ignorant, but if you bothered to educate yourself about the product you so loudly malign, then you would know that when recording a video, the right side, where the prism is, lights up. Did you know that before it does that, in order to record, you have to activate it? And did you know that to do that you either use voice commands, or tap the side of the device? ("OK Glass" [pause] "Record a video". After a moment, the prism will light up as it shows you what is being recorded in real time.)
Well, it is very true. And it's also very true that you don't know dick about Glass.
Also, just to try to further the removing of ignorance: Did you know that Glass has a default setting of only 10 seconds when recording video? That is also true. You can have it extend beyond those 10 seconds, but it involves tapping the right side of the device a couple of times. (Once to invoke the extend command, and once to confirm it.)
In other words, you can't invoke recording on Glass without being obvious. And it will also be obvious that something is happening.
Something else to consider: On a good day, with light usage (notifications, checking weather where friends and family are) I get 12 hours of usage before a recharge is needed. I have never done any heavy recording (why bother when I have had a Nexus 5, then a OnePlus One, and now a Nexus 6 to use), but I don't imagine I'd go very long before needing to recharge if I did record a lot of videos or even just stills.
The degree to which people fear their "privacy" is being invaded is much higher than the actual degree to which it is. (Speaking only of the Glass device.)
You can't bend reality to meet your perceptions.
So, how about asking the person "Are you recording me right now?", or maybe something less bold, like "How would I know if something is being recorded?"
Instead, you just fear it without knowing why you fear it. Wow.
You can't bend reality to meet your perceptions.
So long as there are glassholes, google glass will not succeed.
.
Unfortunately, google cannot control the people who use google glass, so there will always be glassholes and google glass won't succeed.
As an explorer, my experience is that the real glasshole is the ignoramus who assumes something that is not in evidence.
For the record, I am not saying that some Explorers weren't assholes. There were. But way more people just plain over-reacted out of ignorance than had justification for their fear.
And in their fear and ignorance, they named an otherwise nice person a glasshole; they did so not because s/he was a glasshole, but because they wore a Glass device. And the Glass device was the talisman that generated their fear.
You can't bend reality to meet your perceptions.
Preferably in black, unstylish eyeglass frames.
I don't want to advertise the fact that I'm wearing this thing. Google geeks may think it's the coolest status symbol ever. I don't. And I don't care. I want to use the map feature, get the weather report.
Yes, I know it can give me automatic Yelp reports, tell me who and what's around, get me dates, show me movies and deliver specs on my computer by looking.
I could care less. I'll use the maps. And the weather. Maybe news, if I'm waiting for a bus. If they want me to buy it, it has to be cheap and boring.
You have seen the frames for those needing prescriptions right? Only the US Armed Forces RCGs were less fashionable.
As long as there is a screen to light up, then it will be noticeable to a degree, with or without a camera.
You can't bend reality to meet your perceptions.
The hardest problem I've seen people have with Google Glass is how obvious it is you are wearing the glasses. People in public assume you are recording them and it bothers them.
Actually, I don't think that's the hardest problem. Our innovation team at work brought in a pair of Google glasses and let us try them out. Frankly, they are exceedingly underwhelming. The screen is really small, but worse, the resolution seems low and the colors aren't very great, so it's actually really hard to read. And it's not really like a HUD or anything like that. You have to really take your attention away from everything else to read the screen, so in that respect it's not very immersive and it feels like you are doing two things at once: interacting with the real world or interacting with glass (just like how you can either look at the world or look at your smartphone). The real potential would be if you could walk around and have immersive information show up around products, etc, without you having to take your eyes completely off them.
And another design problem with them is that they get really hot. Like uncomfortably hot when you touch them, like those old laptops always were when you set them on your lap.
So to me, privacy concerns matter, but I don't think the average citizen thinks about privacy all that much. I think to them, as well as myself, the big issue is an underwhelming design, combined with an exorbitant price ($1500) and really no practical application for it yet. It doesn't mean it won't ever succeed, of course. I just read an article reminding people that cars were around about 40 years before they became actually decent, and PDAs have been around since the 80s but only really took off when the smartphone craze kicked off. Someday, we may look back on this as the first step towards a technology that everyone has, but for now, they really aren't that great and there are many reasons they failed.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
What will happen when the device is a contact lens?
You can't bend reality to meet your perceptions.
Google chose a wrong market to introduce its ultra cool product.
Americans are overreactive to such novelties. Glasshole - what a stupid way to express own ignorance and backwardness .
They could try japan or special markets such as med students or add exclusivity to the device.
There is nothing wrong with their idea and google itself might have overreacted to the term 'glasshole' by pulling the product. They should have given it some time for the public to get used to it.
It comes with a case. But you can't fold the parts that go over the ears, so it is an awkward ase to carry with you.
More to the point for some of us, I have prescription lenses. Without them, I am not blind, but for any fine or detailed motor activity, I am useless. Without the Glass device, powered on or powered off, I can't see.
I am not taking my glasses off just to make you feel comfortable. I need them.
You can't bend reality to meet your perceptions.
I don't care if you think you are cool by reading your emails while I think you are having a chat with me. I will simply ignore you and remove you from my friendzone. I do care that you are secretly recording our conversation. I want to punch you in the face for that, destroy the device and make sure you never do that again. Just remove the camera and I see a market for it. Not my market, but there are plenty of idiots who will like it.
One has only one chance to make a first impression. Google handled theirs badly. The customer base learned mainly two things from version 1: 1) We don't want them. 2) Others don't want them. The first comes from the fact that people who uses them immediately gets the geek factor (in a bad way, if 'good' ever had a possible tone to it). Simply put: if you want people to take you seriously, don't wear Google Glass. Second point: shortly after their release, there were reports of public places where wearers were banned, such as pubs. People simply get scared of a revolution where they e.g. can be recognized on sight by a stranger if this would be a thing. To wrap up: the best thing Google can put their efforts on next is NOT necessarily improving the hardware, but instead put their efforts on a really smart second release in terms of customer relationship. If they blow this chance, they won't recover.
There are 2 types of people in the world - those who understand decimal and those who don't.
Give them to Railway drivers
Casteism
You can see ten lines of text or 60 words. More than I can take in at a glance.
I can't help but wonder if this doesn't parallel another argument that is always debated. Many people are carrying weapons concealed, legally and you never know about it. They don't pull them out, wave them in your face or anything but they are there and have the potential to do harm but this is being accepted more and more in the US. Would you rather not know they are armed (or wearing a camera)? Does that make you feel better? At least to get a firearm license, you have to go through a background check and other stuff. Anyone can buy a camera and wear it. Also, the part about not having a camera would significantly hinder the devices' usability for virtual reality and augmented reality which I'm a fan of. Don't think that will fly.
Simply remove the camera and the problem people have with it is largely resolved. Let GoPro be your "active lifestyle" device and use your smartphone as your casual photography device. It is maddening hearing how many people are opposed to it because of a crappy little camera on it.
Google Glass - aside from being just creepy and ugly - is a solution to a problem that does not exist. And for that it is ridiculously overpriced and tied to having a phone nearby.
...it's actually less convenient. Unless there is a chance the caller will be getting nude, non-video chat phones are better in almost every way.