Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Google Glass Isn't Dead!" Says Google's CEO Eric Schmidt

Posted by samzenpus on from the I'm-getting-better dept.

lord_rob the only on writes "After Google stopped selling its wearable Glass device in January this year, many people speculated that the controversial gadget was on its way out for good. However, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt has said that the technology behind Glass is too important to throw away, and that the program has been put under the control of Nest's Tony Fadell to "make it ready for users" in the future.

80 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Whatever ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So they have put it in charge of the guy from Nest, who pretty much is running the ship in such a way as to guarantee Google gets analytics about your household.

    Sorry, Eric ... but maybe people simply don't give a crap about this stuff, and they'll continue to be hostile to the people around them who wear them.

    Google keeps telling us what the future is going to be ... the problem is that future is designed to profit Google.

    Sorry, but no. Keep telling us how these technologies will revolutionize the world. And we'll keep yawning at you and wondering why you think we care.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Whatever ... by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People where hostile to people with Cell phones in the 1980's, In college back in my day, if a student went to class with a Laptop we were hostile towards them. Portable technology takes a while to get into the culture.

        Google keeps telling us what the future is going to be ... the problem is that future is designed to profit Google. Well Duh! Google isn't going to try to push a product that will put them out of business?

      In general Google Glass may or may not make it. However its failure doesn't mean the end. The Apple Newton failed too, from its experience and lessons learned it became the iPhone, and iPad.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Whatever ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Quick Question: If I put on my Google Glass and stare at my Nest thermostat, what ads will I see?

    3. Re:Whatever ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would you want an advertising company whose only business is to gather your personal information to succeed? Unless you are a shareholder or an employee, its a good idea to stay away from most Google offerings - or atleast, ones that only take 'payment' in terms of your personal data.

    4. Re:Whatever ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, for me it's the general problem of futurists ... they're usually pie-in-the-sky out of touch with reality.

      And since they're chomping at the bit proponents of a technology, they keep telling us how it will be inevitable we all have this stuff.

      The vast majority of this stuff is just wishful thinking ... like flying cars and Mr. Fusion ... both of which have been coming Real Soon Now for decades.

      So when I hear the CEO of a technology company telling us what the wonderful future will be ... I'm generally forced to conclude this is the deluded ramblings of the CEO of a technology company.

      Many years in the tech industry tells me the prognostications of tech CEOs are about as useful as augury with chicken innards, only slightly less entertaining.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Whatever ... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      People have been hostile to nerds and geeks since early childhood. I wonder if these efforts will have any further effect. I personally would wear google glass just because it annoys idiot hipsters.

    6. Re:Whatever ... by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 2

      The Apple Newton failed too, from its experience and lessons learned it became the iPhone, and iPad.

      I think the primary lesson learned from the Apple Newton was that Steve Jobs should replace John Sculley. If so, I guess your assessment of its relation to the iPhone and iPad is correct.

    7. Re:Whatever ... by TraumaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It really isn't just a "matter of time" issue. Bluetooth earpieces are still largely frowned upon in public because, despite being a convenient technology and the wide range of visual profiles available, they project a wide radius of social awkwardness. I think Google Glass simply ran into the same issue, which is to say the problem isn't so much with Google's particular implementation but with the very nature of how the technology is perceived. That challenge is far more difficult to overcome than just slimming it down or offering it in different colors until people like it.

    8. Re:Whatever ... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      It's also illegal in Washington State to record people. And we're not the only state with privacy rights and anti-upskirt laws.

      Which have been upheld in US Supreme Court.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    9. Re:Whatever ... by tmosley · · Score: 1

      To be fair, we'd have had flying cars 40+ years ago but for the FAA.

    10. Re:Whatever ... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      be hostile to the people around them who wear them.

      I agree, at least to the degree that they're "obvious"... ie, the HUD/glasses form factor is the culprit. You look like a Borg, it's kinda creepy, etc.. But to me the most attractive aspect of G/Glass was simply its ability to record my movements throughout the day, like a policeman's lapel-cam. At the end of the day, I could save a few highlights, and clear the buffer, like a diary.

      As for the HUD display, augmented reality is overrated, If I need "augmented" info in real time like that, I'll get an iWatch instead. However I do like the idea of a "body-cam" to serve as a record in case something happens. And this could be done with clip-on, blue-tooth jewelry (perhaps in a "swarm" for 3D capture) instead of a face-mounted camera-cum-display gizmo.

      So yeah, as TFA says, they'll "save the technology" for later use..

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    11. Re:Whatever ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Honestly though, the average driver seems to barely be able to navigate in two dimensions.

      You think most drivers could qualify for a pilots license?

      I sure as hell don't. Because that's pretty much what they'd need.

      I think preventing that is a good thing. Hell, I see people who can't understand what the lane markings and the stop signs mean.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:Whatever ... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      I'm thankful for that. The failure mode of most mechanical problems with an average car is that it gently rolls to the side of the road. The failure mode of most mechanical problems with an average light aircraft is plummeting to death, and likely destroying something below you in the process.

      Think of all the nitwits you see on the freeway, and then imagine them with hands on stick in a Cessna. No, thanks.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    13. Re:Whatever ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So they have put it in charge of the guy from Nest, who pretty much is running the ship in such a way as to guarantee Google gets analytics about your household.

      If they only wanted that, then the best thing they could do is get that household info from Acxiom ...they've been gathering that data on you for decades now. Not bad from a little company that came out of Conway, AR. I think they're still pretty much the definitive source of household (and a lot of other ) info in the US/World.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Whatever ... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      People where hostile to people with Cell phones in the 1980's

      And today there are quiet carriages on trains, coffee shops with no-phones policies, and generally if you're the guy who talks really loud on the phone then everyone around you still gets annoyed and may actually challenge you if you carry on for long.

      And that's for a device that is just an interruption, not a device that a lot of people perceive to be an inherently creepy invasion of their privacy literally because someone just looked at them funny.

      In general Google Glass may or may not make it.

      I expect technology similar to Google Glass will make it, but I also suspect it will be used primarily for specific applications where it has a clear benefit. I don't think anything too similar will be worn by a lot of people all the time in the near future.

      For example, someone walking around a museum might borrow some sort of headset that guides them on a tour and provides background information about each exhibit they are looking at. Staff at a warehouse used for on-line grocery shopping might have a headset that guides them to collect the items purchases in the most efficient way.

      However, I think perhaps the tide is already starting to turn against mass surveillance culture, intrusive personalised advertising, and the like. Surely it's only going to get more hostility as things like insurance premiums that people see directly in their bank balance become ever more customised behind the scenes, and as more people suffer significant problems due to identity theft or embarrassing disclosures themselves or know close friends or family members who have.

      In fact, I wonder whether even the US government, not exactly a bastion of privacy advocacy, might be having second thoughts about how much personal data is casually thrown around, now that hostile forces are openly doxxing US service personnel and encouraging allies within the US to attack those people and their families at home, as was reported this week.

      So if I were going to place a long-term bet on new technologies tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't be backing an obviously intrusive device like the previous Google Glass, complete with tiny camera, always-on microphone, and wireless connection to the mothership. On the other hand, build a device with similar useful features but a less goofy design, and then back it with a widely-advertised and genuine emphasis on privacy so it didn't engender the same degree of hostility from others nearby, and you might be on to something.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    15. Re:Whatever ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Probably not. We'd have a few stories about how 40 years ago the flying car was banned to unanimous approval after a few notable incidents of 'motorists' crashing into schools and such.

    16. Re:Whatever ... by Hevel-Varik · · Score: 1

      For the history to shed any light we'd need to know why cell phone, laptop earlier adopeters were given a hard time. I don't remember cell phone ealier adopters getting grief and cant speak to laptops in classrooms but that's just me. Seriouse question: what technology is being made portable with these glasses because I am at a loss?

    17. Re:Whatever ... by kaiidth · · Score: 1

      For example, someone walking around a museum might borrow some sort of headset that guides them on a tour and provides background information about each exhibit they are looking at.

      We've been able to do that for a very long time. Typically we do it by 'punch the number into the keypad' technology (admittedly not a very high tech solution but it works and unlike naive location-based technologies it lets users decide for themselves when they're fed up of the current spiel and want to move on). In the early '00s we were playing with RFID, infrared and similar for this purpose, but for most contexts most of the time it turned out to be more effort than it was worth. Turned out that application doesn't need Google Glass and can be achieved using cheaper and less creepy means, is the point. Which is more or less what you're saying.

    18. Re:Whatever ... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'm thankful for that. The failure mode of most mechanical problems with an average car is that it gently rolls to the side of the road. The failure mode of most mechanical problems with an average light aircraft is plummeting to death, and likely destroying something below you in the process.

      Think of all the nitwits you see on the freeway, and then imagine them with hands on stick in a Cessna. No, thanks.

      The mechanical failure mode of a light aircraft is to turn it into a glider. But you have a point in that your average moron would probably screw it up.

      I mean they cant even concentrate on a simple task like driving without complaining that its too boring and playing with their phone.

      The mechanical failure mode of a jet liner is plummet to the ground, this is why they have multiple redundant systems and see more mechanics in a week than cars will see in their lifetime.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re:Whatever ... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      It seems like we probably agree on the general idea here, but I was impressed on a recent visit to a museum where they had mobile apps you could download in advance and WiFi available on-site. Together these let you choose from a number of recommended tours based on duration and topic(s) and then guided you around with directions, highlights, and more in-depth background on various other exhibits you'd pass along the way if you were interested. It was a well made presentation that someone had obviously worked hard to put together, and the only thing that was a little awkward was walking around holding a tablet with headphones plugged in for the whole visit. That's an area where I could see an unintrusive headset might be an advantage.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    20. Re:Whatever ... by Troed · · Score: 1

      It's trivial to secretly record someone using a mobile phone - I can hold it in my hand, down by my waist, at an angle.

      It's extremely difficult recording someone secretly using a head mount camera. I must look directly at them the whole time.

      --
      it's in my head
    21. Re:Whatever ... by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Then stop complaining about not having fucking flying cars like it is some kind of failure of technology.

      Also, why are you not in favor of even letting people TRY!? These projects have all been shut down in their infancy, with projects by major players being total non-starters. VTOL means that the entire process could have been AUTOMATED with 90's era tech.

    22. Re:Whatever ... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered where Mr. Fusion's boiler and turbine were.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    23. Re:Whatever ... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Google keeps telling us what the future is going to be ... the problem is that future is designed to profit Google.

      really? i thought they were just a bunch of nice guys that like spending billions of dollars on R&D out of the goodness of their hearts?

      really, really sick of folks treating the rest of us like we're idiots. we ALL KNOW that google uses analytics and customer data to earn a profit. we get it, we fully understand. you're not dropping some massive bomb of reality on us shattering our view of the world.

      most of the world is okay with it. getting some targeted ads is a damn small price to pay for the massive infrastructure of services that google provides without charge, IMHO. fine, you don't agree, but stop patronizing us. we get it, and we don't agree with you.

    24. Re: Whatever ... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      One reason we aren't using NeXT-branded systems today is that Jobs wouldn't sell them. Remember "Enroll."? The only reason the DW didn't die completely is Jobs' return to Apple. Google wouldn't sell Glass. Pretention rarely makes for a successfully product.

  2. Important? by Primate+Pete · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTFA: "Erich[sic] Schmidt has said that the technology behind Glass is too important to throw away [...]"

    To whom? Clearly not to the users that don't want to spend $1500 on a pair of birth control goggles.

    1. Re: Important? by Manoj · · Score: 1

      The 1500 dollar price tag was for a low volume unpolished prototype, given to people already vested in the concept (vested enough to she'll or that kind of money). The world has not yet seen the consumer version aesthetics or price point

      --
      Manoj Srivastava Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
    2. Re:Important? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      It will take root in professional services (surgeons, architects, etc...) and if it never makes it into the consumer market for one reason or another (say privacy concerns) it matters not. Google glasses (or some variant) has it use and will remain.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    3. Re:Important? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      To whom? Clearly not to the users that don't want to spend $1500 on a pair of birth control goggles.

      Cheaper than a vasectomy and you can watch Star Trek on it. In a future version might even be able to do an augmented reality of the bridge of the Enterprise, with that you really can make women obsolete. All you need is the soothing voice of the Enterprise computer.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Important? by EStrat · · Score: 1

      I'll just go on record here -- I never said that.
      Erich[sic] Schmidt

  3. CEO != Executive Chairman by non0score · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ex-CEO, sure. But who cares about details/nuances? This is /. afterall.

    1. Re:CEO != Executive Chairman by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was going to say, since when is he the CEO again? He vacated the position years ago to let Larry Page handle it. But details. Such difficult.

  4. quoting the immortal words of Miracle Max... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 4, Funny

    " It just so happens that google glasses here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do..."

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:quoting the immortal words of Miracle Max... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Take it apart and steal the battery?

    2. Re:quoting the immortal words of Miracle Max... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      It just so happens that google glasses here is only MOSTLY dead.

      Yes, it's pining for the fiords, as we speak...

      --
      That is all.
  5. So. Zombies with Google Glass? by Chas · · Score: 2

    [Zombie] Rrrh! Brains...

    [Trapped victim] AGH! I'm DOOMED!

    *VOOP!*

    [Zombie] DAMN! My Google Glass ran the battery down again! Now how am I supposed to document my brain feastage!

    [Trapped Victim] ???

    [Zombie] Oh just get out dammit! I'll shuffle you down NEXT TIME! Damn tech! I can operate with a six inch hole in my chest! *Waggles a hand in the hole* And this thing can't even record a decently long chase-down and brain feast! Shoulda bought a damn GoPro!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  6. So. Zombie Google Glass? by Chas · · Score: 1

    [Zombie] Rrrh. Brains. Rrrh. Brains.

    [Cornered Victim] Ah! I'm doomed!

    *VEEOOOP!*

    [Zombie] Ah dammit! The battery just ran down again! What the fuck? I was just getting to the good part!

    [Cornered Victim] Uh. I'm... Doomed?

    [Zombie] Oh put a sock in it! Just...just...get out! I'll shuffle you down LATER! Goddamn Glass! I can operate with this six inch hole clear through my torso! *Waggles hand in the hole* And this thing can't last long enough to record a chase and a bit of brain feast! I shoulda just bought a frickin' GoPro!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  7. It's simply pining by jpellino · · Score: 1

    for the fjo... I mean the millionaire hipsters!

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  8. inb4 the first actual death by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    Still waiting for the first homicide that starts with : "Did you just take a video of my kid?"

  9. Google Glass was a success by jetkust · · Score: 2

    Google Glass (at it's current state) was never meant to blow up in popularity when it was released. It was to be the first, and to establish a brand. Augmented reality is the future. The race to lead the market has begun. To say they are "giving up on google glass" is like saying they are "giving up on augmented reality" which is just dumb.

    1. Re:Google Glass was a success by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Agreed. People already move about the world completely immersed in what's happening on their smart phones. The fact that you need a certain screen size to have a usable interface and enjoyable experience puts a serious limit on the evolution of that technology. I think there's also going to be a saturation point in the app space when the "cool" has worn off. Something like Google Glass has got to be the next logical extension.

  10. Will Glassholes rise from the dead? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    Will the zombie Glassholes be a kinder, gentler bunch?

  11. Well... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Tony will get right on that "Why the fuck should I let you record me" thing. I'm sure he'll be on that right after the "nerdy creep" thing.

    --
    That is all.
  12. You don't know your history... by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Apple Newton actually became the Palm Pilot, which was very successful. Its success wasn't based on the public's lack of hostility toward it. It was just more refined, and better developed. In short, it was simply a better product that was more reliable (and more affordable).

    The iPhone and iPad came much later and were developed independently from the Newton.

    1. Re:You don't know your history... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Very true. I was one of the Palm early adopters and got IPO shares. Made a killing from that.

      Will we find the concept from the Google Glass migrating to contact lens bio-powered camera devices that one has to wear a headband that pulses red (or more likely blue, since many men are color blind)?

      Yes.

      Will Google Glass die?

      Yes.

      Are you still using your old Palm or Rio MP3 Blue Crystal devices?

      Gosh, I hope not.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:You don't know your history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good point. Also, nobody hated the Newton. Its problem was just that very few people saw any use for it. A situation made worse by its shortcomings, it really was a product before its time.

      On the other hand, people actually hate Google Glass. It's not a "before its time" product unless our future selves learn to love the creepy Google panopticon.

    3. Re:You don't know your history... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The Apple Newton actually became the Palm Pilot, which was very successful.

      What? No, it didn't. One of the Palm Pilot's creators did come from Apple, but they didn't bring the Newton with them. The Palm Pilot was actually a competitor to the Newton, and not the only pen-based contemporary either, though it was the only one in the same size class. The Zoomer actually became the Palm Pilot; the Graffiti handwriting recognition system was first developed for this PC-GEOS-based, paperback-sized handheld.

      The iPhone and iPad came much later and were developed independently from the Newton.

      Uh yeah, so was the Palm Pilot. You don't know your history.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Re:Trash by Drethon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Google Glass and everything Nest are useless fucking trash. Even if they somehow becomes useful in the future, they'll never be worth the invasion of privacy and security risks. Take your "IoT" and show up back up your own fucking asses.

    Are you talking the same features caused by a device with a camera and network capability like a cell phone? We should ban everyone wearing cell phones on their hips because they might be filming us!

  14. I know, I should, but I'm lazy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Someone else will have to do a Google Glass version of the dead parrot sketch.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. If Google Glass were a self-driving car by kindbud · · Score: 1

    "[It's] like saying the self-driving car is a disappointment because it’s not driving me around now," said Schmidt.

    I think it's more like saying the self-driving car is a disappointment because it repeatedly ran over my neighbor.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
    1. Re:If Google Glass were a self-driving car by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      I didn't mind the self-driving car running over my neighbor, but having it run over cats, dogs, and small children on skateboards and darting out from bushes does increase the amount one has to spend on car washes.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  16. Re:Trash by Drethon · · Score: 1

    Google Glass and everything Nest are useless fucking trash. Even if they somehow becomes useful in the future, they'll never be worth the invasion of privacy and security risks. Take your "IoT" and show up back up your own fucking asses.

    You mean the invasion of privacy and security risks by adding a webcam and network capability to a device, like say a cellphone? Maybe we should outlaw wearing cellphones on the hip as they could be recording us!

  17. Dude, seriously by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    It's over.

    Just give it up, Glassh0135.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  18. Re:Trash by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google Glass and everything Nest are useless fucking trash. Even if they somehow becomes useful in the future, they'll never be worth the invasion of privacy and security risks. Take your "IoT" and show up back up your own fucking asses.

    Are you talking the same features caused by a device with a camera and network capability like a cell phone? We should ban everyone wearing cell phones on their hips because they might be filming us!

    Not to mention people with dress shirts who put their phones in the dress shirts with the camera facing out. Seriously, I never got the hate over Google Glass. Yes, it was overpriced (but then again it was a glorified prototype, not a consumer release) and, yes, it could record you without your knowing, but nearly everyone walking down the street has the ability to record you without you knowing about it. Walk into a bar/restaurant? Most of the patrons there are likely equipped with devices that can secretly record you. The only difference is that this is built into a pair of eyeglasses instead of a relatively small box that could be stuck in a shirt pocket or affixed to a hip.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  19. Re:Becauese NEST is so good with devices by jerk · · Score: 1

    Are you speaking from experience? I own 5 Nest devices (4 Protects and a thermostat) and haven't had a problem with any of them (outside of short connectivity outages with the thermostat - which continued working normally, otherwise.) I've owned the thermostat since Christmas of 2011 and the Protects much less time (4 months), but have yet to experience a problem (and hopefully won't when I need it most.)

    I'm not in an extreme climate where I am, but we see temps ranging from slightly below freezing to over 100F. There's generally a lot of complaining online when Nest has an outage, but I can deal with not being able to adjust my thermostat remotely during those short periods of time. I've never had a false alarm on my Protects, but I recognize they had some issues early on.

    That's not to say that people haven't had problems, but it's not an "endless shitstorm of problems" for everyone.

  20. Re:inb4 the first actual death by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    Not sure about a homicide, but there have been plenty of instances of people being accosted for using cameras or smartphones to take photos of kids. In many of these instances, the people accused were actually the fathers of the kids in question, but the accusers assumed the worst because Male Taking Photo Of Child = Pervert but Female Taking Photo Of Child = Loving Mother.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  21. It's not dead! by skirmish666 · · Score: 1

    It's pining for the fjords!

    --
    Sigger than your average
  22. Re:Trash by sexconker · · Score: 1

    I'm referring to the privacy and security risks to the user, not the people in public places.

    "IoT" devices like these have their own embedded radios and are full IP hosts, have far less user-facing control than webcams, mics, cell phones, are designed to be always-on, are designed around remote operation, and are under the ultimate control of the world's largest datamining corporation.

  23. It's not dead... by Vermonter · · Score: 1

    Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

  24. Re:inb4 the first actual death by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Not sure about a homicide, but there have been plenty of instances of people being accosted for using cameras or smartphones to take photos of kids. In many of these instances, the people accused were actually the fathers of the kids in question, but the accusers assumed the worst because Male Taking Photo Of Child = Pervert but Female Taking Photo Of Child = Loving Mother.

    Wow, this is like the 3rd reference I've seen of this on this thread.

    Is this something people are truly uptight about out there? People actually go and assault people with cameras? What part(s) of the US is this such a problem?

    I've just never heard of such a thing, nor of people even noticing someone with a camera, much less getting upset if someone is using it in a public place.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  25. cellphones used to banned in gyms by peter303 · · Score: 1

    mainly due its camera
    now I see them all over the place

  26. What would Beats have done for design? by jphamlore · · Score: 1
    Perhaps the initial design problem of Google Glass is that they did not pay attention to what someone like Beats would do. Beats design cheerfully uses color and is not necessarily minimalistic. It says the user of proud of who he or she is, deal with it. The minimalistic mostly-colorless initial design actually invited attacks because it was sending a message of doubt and fear, trying to hide what could not be hidden.

    Perhaps this is a lesson in the importance of diversity for the bottom-line.

  27. If you have justify "but X is not dead!" ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    ... then it most certainly is.

  28. It's all about the perception. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

    People where hostile to people with Cell phones in the 1980's, In college back in my day, if a student went to class with a Laptop we were hostile towards them. Portable technology takes a while to get into the culture.

    Walkman's and portable CD players too... However the feeling was less about the technology or being portable (or new), and more about the price tag and what it was perceived to say about the owner. People walking about with expensive portable technology were classed alongside those walking about with expensive wristwatches - pretentious yuppie assholes with more money than sense.

    You saw the same thing when iPods first hit the market, and again with iPhones, and again with iWatch.

  29. Further by sjames · · Score: 2

    Schmidt also indicated that Google glass feels happy and feels like dancing.

  30. Re:Trash by Fishchip · · Score: 1

    Evidently it's more irritating and worrisome when the recording device is visible and attention-drawing.

  31. Re:inb4 the first actual death by Fishchip · · Score: 1

    I've never personally worried about people taking pictures of my kids but I'm a little self-conscious when I bring my DSLR to the park to take pictures of them playing for the grandparents -- like, if there are other kids there with their parents I try to not use the camera. When the MPs roll by on their routine patrols I always half-wonder if they're going to stop and ask me (an almost-middle-aged male) what I'm doing with kids and a camera.

    I'm not sure where my caution comes from, I think it may be just from stories I've read about like this. I can see ubiquitous cell phones not being an issue, just because half the time when you see someone with a phone out they're taking a picture, but I always feel a bit weird with the full-sized camera, like there are unseen eyes judging.

  32. Re:Trash by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I Assume I'm being recorded when in public. It is more likely to be true than not these days.

    If you have an issue with being filmed, stay in you mom's basement.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  33. Google Glass isn't dead by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    It's always smelled like that.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  34. Re:Trash by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    Point a mobile phone camera at the wrong person at the wrong time, and violence will ensue. If you don't believe it, take a look at YouTube. The problem with Google glass is you're always pointing it at someone whenever you look at them. And a good proportion of that time will be inappropriate.

    It seems there are a few people around here who don'g understand that. But then there are a fair few people here who are borderline autistic, socially inept nerds. Big overlap.

  35. Re:Trash by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    I have no objection to being illuminated. Pretty much everywhere I go there are lights illuminating me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. But point a torch in my face for more than a second and it's a problem.

  36. Deliver the original product, *with* recognition by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Deliver to everyone with all the original features, including face recognition, and let the chips fall where they may.

    As for the hate, thank Google's broken dependence invite system. That needs to be forced out of Google by some means.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  37. Re: Trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Seriously, I never got the hate over Google Glass."

    That's because you're not a douche who masks his jealousy by knocking the latest tech. Google Glass has tremendous potential, and anyone who can't see that is blind as a bat, or just in massive denial..

  38. It's by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

    just resting.

  39. Re:inb4 the first actual death by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    When the MPs roll by on their routine patrols

    What are "MPs"?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  40. Glasses by johnsmith2708 · · Score: 1

    I do not agree with this man, because it is awful, when you look at a person, who has google glasses!

  41. Re:Trash by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Here's the problem, you fear the guy filming YOU, when you're being filmed by everyone. There is no difference except your feelings on on the subject.

    Lets say you're in a bar, and you get drunk and do something drunken. Does it matter if it is Surveillance camera or Google Glass that captures the moment and gets posted to YouTube for all to see?

    The difference between being illuminated by an LED and having a torch shoved in your face is not the same as camera or a camera. But if that is how you look at it, then good luck to you.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  42. Re:Trash by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    Here's the problem, you fear the guy filming YOU, when you're being filmed by everyone. There is no difference except your feelings on on the subject.

    Not just my feelings, that's the common feeling. And if you don't understand that or dismiss it as the reason why Google Glass has failed, then you must be autistic.

  43. uh, memo to Eric: by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

    we never said it was stupid. Although, some of us might have said, "It's poorly thought-out, and makes people look fucking ridiculous." maybe that's what you meant?

  44. consumer vs. pro versions by cornelius1729 · · Score: 1

    I thought Google were refocusing Glass towards professional markets (it has a foothold in some medical and engineering places, where the price tag and style are less of an issue). So consumer Glass is on hold; pro Glass is moving forward nicely.

    --
    1729 = 9^3 + 10^3 = 1^3 + 12^3