Two thoughts:<p>1) Google is obviously terrified that being seen wearing Glasses will brand you as terribly nerdy. (Compare the 'gargoyle' stigma in /Snow Crash/.) So to control the early perceptions they're doing a heavily-publicised early release to some carefully-selected mobile-phone-company-commercial beautiful people. The ideal candidate will be taking photos for /National Geographic/ while cave-diving for her Rhodes Scholarship. She will also be rather attractive, and not a wearer of prescription glasses. (Compare <a href="http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/05/08/the-sophie-choice" rel="nofollow">http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/05/08/the-sophie-choice</a> . Courting Steven Levy seems to have turned out pretty poorly for Google, eh?)<p>2) Glasses looks very promising, but isn't it a bit of a stretch to call what it does Augmented Reality? AR more or less implies a HUD, or some other means of superimposing CGI on what you see of the real world. But the <a href="http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-it-feels/" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-it-feels/</a> video seems to suggest that instead Glasses takes a "picture-in-picture" approach, and the screen's transparency seems to serve mainly to make it feel less oppressive, and to minimise the amount it obstructs your vision when the whole screen is not in use. Goggles <a href="http://www.google.ie/mobile/goggles/" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.ie/mobile/goggles/</a> is more of a true AR system. (I'm not suggesting this is a bad decision: in light of the current problems with head-tracking <a href="http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/raster-scan-displays-more-than-meets-the-eye/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/raster-scan-displays-m...</a> and precise geolocation it seems like a good one.)
Every time I see Google Glass I think "Oh, cool" and then I realize that what I want/need in everyday life is de-augmented reality (i.e. just vanilla reality). I've already got devices buzzing etc. to get my attention for "important thing".<p>The argument for things like Glass is that they will make the merging of reality and technology seamless which could have great advantages. I fear, however, that it just means I'll have a thing right in front of my face asking for my attention.<p>The $1B idea with Google Glass is not the technology of putting it in front of your eyes etc., it's figuring out the software that filters down what's shown to the stuff you actually want/need. I don't think we've done that successfully in other domains yet.
Just to clarify you are not winning anything free here (still an amazing opportunity though):<p>"Explorers will each need to pre-order a Glass Explorer Edition for $1500 plus tax and attend a special pick-up experience, in person"
Oh man, I wish I was in the US, I've been raving about glass for a while. I really think it opens up new doors.<p>One way is combing augmented reality and social networking with Glass. There are a number of cool things that come of this.<p>One is being able to look at someone also using the Glass app and being presented with their profile, plus options to send messages or view more information. It may even be possible even if they don't have Glass using a combo of geolocation and facial recognition. The most exciting bit is sending a message between two glass users because it'd be pretty much like telepathy.<p>When the 'internet of thing' comes about, it may even be posdible to control all your various devices without lifting a finger. I could look at my kettle from across the room and flick it on!<p>There are tonnes of possibilities and I think, especially when it's on a contact lens, it will make what's currently considered magical (telepathy, psychokinesis, etc) a reality, just like the plane removed the magic from human flight.<p>I think wearable computing opens up many exciting doors and the two thoughts above only scratch the surface of the possibilities I imagine.<p>In fact, I feel so strongly about ot I'd emigrate to the US just to get my hands on this awesome tech. I need to get onto it ASAP.
"Explorers will each need to pre-order a Glass Explorer Edition for $1500 plus tax and attend a special pick-up experience, in person, in New York, San Francisco or Los Angeles." Interesting. Now we gladly apply for the chance to pay a company $1500 plus tax for a product.
I hope I meet someone wearing this. I'll get really close then say "OK Glass, Google porn". Or better yet, "OK Glass, take a picture and send it to everyone"
I saw someone in a store with those glasses and I had to say I felt a bit weirded out by the thought they could be recording things. Does it indicate to other people if it is recording? These things are going to run into some social issues I think.
Obvious idea: Peril Sensitive Glasses [1] that go opaque at the first sign of danger<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhikers_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Joo_Janta_200_Super-Chromatic_Peril_Sensitive_Sunglasses" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhikers_G...</a><p>(Edit: HN is stripping apostrophe in link - should be Hitchhiker's_Guide)
Wonder if "US only" means you just have to be there for the in-person pickup. Because I am totally willing to do that ...<p>That said, I wonder how difficult it would be to modify Glass so it mounts on my regular glasses.<p>Either way, I applied. I won't be picked, but at least I tried :)
I just finished my first Augmented Reality app, which is rolling out to its intended users as I type, so I'm a bit biased about this .. but personally I think: AR is AMAZING.<p>I've used the Vuforia SDK, and the ability to track paper with accuracy on the basis of a well-designed customized brand or design layout .. this is fantastic.<p>So my app is to demonstrate how AR can overlay and track over print, and edit print materials smoothly .. and I'll be damned if it doesn't work just great.<p>My next app will be for kids to make planes, in fact. Use the iPhone like a Magic Loupe, print out the picture, get a folding guide in 3D. Oops, I guess I gave that idea away for nothin' ..
Without denying that it's "neat", I'd like to be on record as looking askance at the fact that a company that makes >90% of revenue from advertising wants to sell me a tiny screen to put an inch in front of my eye.
I wonder, when this becomes mainstream, what is going to start happening on the roads? It is already quite dangerous with some drivers texting/talking on their phones while driving. So now they will have yet another thing to look at (other than the road they're on)...<p>Not saying glass is a bad thing, I think it's really great. Just wonder how (or if) this is going to affect the road safety.
I've always hoped that the Hitchhikers (Zaphod Beeblebrox) method for initiating an interaction with computers (saying "OK [computer]") would catch on.
The best useful purpose for headmounted displays is lifelogging. A reasonably high definition stream with audio and video of everything you see during a waking day (call it 16 hours) is only about a hundred gigabytes.<p>There's no reason not to do it, at this point. Imagine if we could go back and look at the lifelogs of historical figures. In order to achieve that, you basically have to archive everyone, since you don't know in advance if an individual is going to be important later in life.<p>People complain about the panopticon, but I'm interested in the opposite.
must be a US resident... well thanks google, dont you think that foreigners may also be interested, you are a multi-national organisation that operates on a global scale providing a service to users in almost every country, yet only americans can test your product. It almost guarantees that your test base will be predominantly white, male, educated and middle class anyway.
I'm not sure how I would stop myself from rage smashing my Glass the first time an ad popped up at an inappropriate/dangerous time. Glass could be really cool, and it could be really, really stupid too.<p>There will be apps. Will there be free/ad supported apps? I hope not.
The main thing that Google Glass makes me think of is the movie "Final Cut" starring Robin Williams : <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343/</a>
I have no idea of the rendering power available in these things, but a kick-ass alternate reality game with things only glass-wearers can see would be a good start.<p>Can it overlay reality with giant scary monsters?
I think Google really should be running this as a free promotion. A pair of Google Glass (Glasses? Not sure how to pluralize) is worth less than two shares of GOOG, they can afford it. A contest to win a free pair (or two) would really drum up some buzz, I don't understand the strategy of charging for the winner. It's kind of like those contests where you "win" the chance to buy super bowl tickets.
After all that application process including <i>collecting ideas from people</i>, I was really thinking they'd give a pair of glasses to each of those 'selected candidates' for free. Turned out it's not the case. Would I do all that application process when I'll possibly be able to buy it after some time without that for the same money anyway?
TL;DR: Google's focus on the mass market, social stuff and slick appearance is precisely the wrong path to be going down for a user interface as novel as this.<p><a href="http://gyrovague.com/2013/01/25/dorky-is-ok-google-glass-does-not-have-to-be-the-next-iphone/" rel="nofollow">http://gyrovague.com/2013/01/25/dorky-is-ok-google-glass-doe...</a>
So I have to build up an application so I can get invited to pay $1500 for a device I don't really know what it does and probably don't want?<p>(oh and I wear glasses so I probably couldn't use it even if I wanted to)