People said the same thing about the huge, bulky cell phones that came out in the 1980s. Who would want to carry around a phone with them all the time? And one that large? It'll never catch on!<p>Some folks said the same thing about the iPad. Who needs a tablet when I've got a laptop and a smartphone?<p>What strikes me is that this person is lambasting a product that he hasn't tried first hand. He hasn't lived with it for a week to see how it benefits or hinders his life. It's fine if you don't want one (I don't have a smartphone by choice), but realize that just because you don't want the latest new fangled gadget doesn't mean that it won't have mass market appeal.
This needed to be said. The social implications of this device are indeed ridiculous.<p>Most insightful: "Can you imagine having a conversation with someone that's wearing this thing? I'd feel like they aren't even paying attention."<p>I already detest people wearing bluetooth headsets. They give off the wrong social cues, they were never really accepted as fashion, and other than government-mandated hands-free use in cars, they appear to be dropping out of popularity (thank god). How is Glass any different, on a social interaction level? How is it any better? How does it solve the problems that bluetooth headsets had? It doesn't. It just requires you to talk to the aether even more.<p>Which brings us to the other insightful quote: "I can only imagine my morning commute on the bus, with 15 different people talking to the screen on their head just trying to check email." If they don't solve this, that could be a real problem. If anyone using one of these things has even a <i>moment</i> of self-awareness they wouldn't be able to stop laughing.<p>This is a really prescient article. It brings up exactly the right UI points, and the right problems. These are problems that Google should have <i>started</i> with, because that's how you design good human interactions. Instead they put a computer on glasses with a HUD screen and are screaming "LOOK ISN'T IT COOL" everywhere.<p>No, it's not. It's not human. And the reason is common among all Google products, to the extent it's almost pathological in the company: they are engineers first. They really aren't set up for human-focused design. It's just not in their DNA.<p>Do they make cool stuff? Of course. But none of them fit together in the right ways. They always seem to be using rivets when they should have been sculpting from clay.
<i>certainly all their hardware has been a complete failure in the marketplace</i><p>Nexus 7 sale estimates are 4.6 million. Fine, so they haven't ousted Apple yet, but it's by no means a "complete failure". I like mine :)<p>That seems to be the only "argument" in the article. The others seem to be arguments from personal incredulity.<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/nexus-7-sales-soared-2012-still-fell-short-225058966.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.yahoo.com/nexus-7-sales-soared-2012-still-fell-s...</a><p><a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#Personal_incredulity" rel="nofollow">http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#Perso...</a>
Disruptive products always come with harsh criticism, mockery. I have no idea if this product will gain any traction, maybe the next one, or maybe it will turn like the Segway. But the arguments in this article are exactly like the arguments thrown at Apple when they lauched the iPhone : it's too expensive, there is no keyboard...<p>> Puke. I find Glass to be ugly, impractical and completely ridiculous.<p>It's pretty good for a first version. Get used to it, of course nothing looked like this before<p>> Let's look at the facts. Google has never had a successful product that people pay for<p>Never say never (again, remember Apple). Also, who says Google is in it for the money (from the sold device) ?
I love how he formed such strong opinions without ever experiencing it or anything like it. And then says "Puke" about an article from someone that actually DID use it.<p>Not to mention that he clearly didn't read the article that closely if he thinks that the only way to interact with Glass is to talk to it.
Bluetooth headsets are effectively a punchline. Google Glass—in its current form—is even worse. Until that enormous blob hanging out in front of the wearer can completely fade into the frame this will be nothing more than a geek curiosity.<p>I think Google has excellent engineers, and very poor self-restraint. This product is at least 2 generations away from what it needs to be, but instead of working on it in the labs quietly and diligently until its ready, they trot it out proudly. Beta obsessed indeed.
I'd say the set of responses in this thread are pretty expected. I think most miss the point.<p>His point is that the media are falling all over themselves to praise Google Glass and there is no journalistic skepticism whatsoever. Indeed, many in this thread have no issue with that because they like the technology.<p>The issues he raises with Glass are reasonable points for <i>non-engineers</i>. (Engineers put up with more than average people do.) The most pressing concern for most consumers will be, simply: "Do I feel stupid using this in public?" I feel stupid using Siri in public. If that were the main product it would have flopped. I feel stupid using my Bluetooth headset in public, and wouldn't own one if it weren't illegal to talk and drive without one. That's not to say that it doesn't have value, just that social pressure is a powerful force.<p>I do think the media will turn on Glass once it's released. There's nothing they like more than setting something up for a fall. I'm not saying anyone in the press consciously does this; it's just what happens when unmoderated enthusiasm meets reality.
The author isn't very imaginative. He can't think of how he'd use it so the product must be shit.<p>I ride a motorcycle. Having a HUD for navigation, weather alerts, and phone notifications would be awesome and make my life so much easier.<p>I'm terrible with names. If Glass could do facial recognition of people I've met and tell me who they are it would greatly improve my interactions.<p>Using it to augment lifting weights would be sweet. It could time my sets and cooldowns so I get a better workout. Doing so with a phone or a watch is much harder and you can't actively look at them.<p>This list is just a start. I'm sure I could come up with plenty of other uses.
Just the potential medical applications of Google Glass are enough for me to believe the hype. Doctors could use glass to: collect patient data (by photographing injuries, surgeries, symptoms, or lesions); automatically recall patient information (bar codes on patient charts could be scanned by glass and then used to lookup a patients history); automatically scan patients for visual symptoms (such as measuring mole size and looking for melanoma); or display a patients vitals in real time. I concede, however, that they may interfere with the relationship between a patient and a doctor by making it difficult for a patient to make eye contact, or by continually distracting the doctor.<p>I do agree with the author that Google Glass is a ridiculous consumer product. I wouldn't want to spend time with someone who wore them in a social setting, such as a bar or restaurant.
People seem to assume that the Hoogle glass is going to be stapled to people's heads. Obviously they are not going to be suitable in every situation, would I wear it while driving? No. Would I wear it if I was having a conversation with someone? No. However I wouldn't have my phone out while doing these things either. I can see Google glass filling a function. I'd love to be able to watch Youtube while I'm stuck in a waiting room or record business meetings for later review. I have no idea if it will do end up doing what I hope, however I'm not going to jump to a conclusion like this article without even touching one.
I've realized that I'm in a weird time in my life where I've been a few years out of college, am not an early adopter (more second wave adopter), and therefore no longer have an innate sense for what is about to take off.<p>But I do not believe in voice recognition technology as a primary use case. I don't use it when it's available, and even the people I know who advocate its use only, and I mean ONLY, ever use it when they're 100% alone. So that's my 2 cents.
> certainly all their hardware has been a complete failure in the marketplace; from Nexus all the way through likely the biggest failure to date, Google TV.<p>"Reception of the Nexus 4 has been very positive overall. Reviewers were consistently impressed with the Nexus 4's affordable price and impressive specifications."<p>...<p>"On the day of release, the entire Nexus 4 stock on the Play Store sold out in under 30 minutes."<p>source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_4" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_4</a><p>To me it seems that in fact Google does make stuff that people actually pay for.<p>Also Google glass is a prototype, the author is basically speculating about it's future without any insight, he has no way of knowing what will happen to Google Glass, unless he has a time machine or a crystal ball, sure the current Glass is not trendy but the next version may become a lot nicer and less geeky.
> Puke. I find Glass to be ugly, impractical and completely ridiculous.<p>Well, that settles it then.<p>If only in the past we had examples of innovations that were previously considered impossible.
> In addition, I've yet to see one thing Glass can do better than any other product.<p>I've read that "the best camera is the one you have on you." If Glass is always on you, it will be the best camera you will likely ever own. All of those moments that last for just a few seconds are out of reach of even your ever-present cell-phone.<p>Here, try this - click here:<p><a href="http://www.timer-tab.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.timer-tab.com/</a><p>Once you click there, try to take a picture with your cell phone as quickly as you can, and then stop the timer.<p>I hope you didn't cheat - if your phone was in your pocket, you counted the time to get it out, if you have a PIN on your phone, you had to enter it.<p>I got about 11 seconds the first try, and 6 the second. Can you seriously not imagine that Glass would be better at capturing those random moments?
I suppose these could be made into a fashionable or trendy item, and that augmented reality is an inevitability. My problem with it is that I hate how everyone is so distracted in public now. Walking through the tunnels in downtown Houston is a maze of phone zombies. Maybe Google glass could help this because they can at least look forward.<p>Im a terrible multitasker, and I think that using this (or any augmented reality device) may make me worse at everything. I may be a curmudgeon here, but my father was nearly killed by a texting driver. I wish people could just focus on doing one thing at a time, and google glass seems contrary to that aim.
Engineering is 90%.
Is the guy an MBA?<p>"I'm deeply passionate about product, UX, customer experience and nearly any topic that involves startups"<p>Snakeoil salesman.
A killer app scenario seems to the most likely path to widespread adoption for Glass—something that would promote widespread adoption. Meaning a key use case or feature that makes it popular. Think email, and then the internet for personal computers.<p>It's <i>hard</i> to make new kinds of products that a lot of people want.<p>Disruptive products (by the original definition) start out as something almost no one wants, and create new markets for themselves or die. And they aren't "disruptive" until they iterate features to take them into markets that are mainstream for their category.<p>Basically, they are more innovation than invention, more evolution than revolution.<p>Google glass is one of those products people get excited about from time to time that tries to jump right to the end game, skipping the evolutionary stages.<p>Often they are simply ahead of their time, for various reasons. Think tablets before the iPad, for example, or video chat phones decades before computers and mobile phones.<p>So without a killer app, Glass seems like one of those products that needs a LOT of real-world evolution and iteration before it could become at all mainstream.<p>Thus a strategy could be to make Glass appealing to developers to better optimize for the possibility of popular features or use cases to be found.
"... <i>Google has never had a successful product that people pay for</i> ..."<p>plonk<p>I hope the crowd here is old enough to remember what this means in newsgroups/irc ;-)
There's no question in my mind Glass is a gimmick which will never see mainstream adoption.<p>As I Tweeted a couple of days ago, it's the Bluetooth headset times a billion. Something that might be legitimately useful to a small percentage of the population, but wearing it in public makes you look like a tool.
Many accidents happen when people are distracted by their mobile phones. In Germany its not allowed to talk on the phone while operating a car for example.
I can only see this getting worse with something like Glass that basically constantly inteferes with your vision and concentration.
It's true Google has yet to sell a hardware consumer product that is wildly successful, but that's also why this is exciting: unlike with nexus tablets or phones, the possibily of becoming the "iPhone" of a new product category exists here, thus from this point of view it might well be the most important thing Google does in the next few years and they (probably) know it, hence they'll (probably) invest more time and resources than they've ever done with a consumer product before. (I'm not saying it will actually become an "iPhone", just that it's strictly speaking possible)
So what. In 5 years we may look back and say it was a dumb idea. Live and learn. I am positive that whatever happens some aspect of the technology will morph into something useful and even better.
I'm not that excited about the product itself but the technology behind it and the opportunities it creates for future tech. I'm sure I'm not the only one looking at it from that angle.
every new technology goes through the hype cycle[1]. generally with new services we are at the peak just before the product launches and that's where we appear to be before I/O.<p>But the op comes across as very harsh against a product that he hasnt tested and at most has been used by very few people. I think it may generally be bash against the hype of the product rather than anything it offers.<p>[1]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle</a>
Regarding Google losing interest once it's gone to Engineering. Perhaps that's the idea? Google just wants the advertising revenue from the searches. They will probably be more than happy for Asus/Samsung/HTC to come along and do Glass (or whatever) better/cheaper, just hoping they'll stick with Google as the engine.
I think Google's aim with the Nexus and other products is just to keep some competition out there so folk don't all flock to Apple/Siri.
There's too many assumptions and subjectivity in this article to even warrant a good discussion. What if voice wasn't the only way to control glass, e.g., gestures? What if the Glass that we see now isn't the same design as the one that goes public? And about people wearing Glass who probably aren't listening--can't the same be said for people who own a smartphone?<p>If you don't like it, don't buy it. This article is ridiculous.
> I can only imagine my morning commute on the bus, with 15 different people talking to the screen on their head just trying to check email. I much prefer taking out my phone and pointing to my email.<p>Of course. But -- envision a Kinnect-like motion sensor on the front. Watching your hands.<p>Screen privacy is a big win, for me. Not want "so, whatcha doing?" snoops.
This immediatly reminded of about Ballmer's reaction to the first iPhone [1] : he started laughing explaining it's too expensive, doesn't have a physical keyboard.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U</a>
See, I thought this recent demonstration of Google Glass was of a prototype. I heard it was going to be fully refined and released by the end of 2013. There's a lot of work left to do in my opinion to make it sexier and more usable. Will they ever manage it?
I'd have no problem with somebody wearing this while I am in conversation with them. I would probably find it better than trying to speak to someone who is glued to their phone.
I think people won't buy it because it's not fashionable. 1) People already opt out of glasses in favor of contacts. 2) People already wearing glasess will just look awkward.
The main problem with voice control is that you don't know who people are talking to when they talk in the air. That's why bluetooth headsets are considered awkward while holding a cellphone to your ear is not. Glass would need a simple social cue, like touching the side of it to enter voice commands.