Slashdot Mirror
"Google Glass Isn't Dead!" Says Google's CEO Eric Schmidt
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.
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.
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.
Ex-CEO, sure. But who cares about details/nuances? This is /. afterall.
" 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!?
[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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Schmidt also indicated that Google glass feels happy and feels like dancing.