I’m a Google Glass skeptic and think it’ll be the next Apple Newton

I really don't think of this generation of Glass (including the cheaper, better version to come later this year) as a real consumer product. It will be available to consumers, sure, but so were MP3 players in 1997. I personally was pumped about MP3-CD players and still dipped into my cassette collection. I think Glass is ahead of the market, but is more high-profile than, say, a Rio or something was back in the day, simply because Google is hyping it to the moon.<p>I'm certainly skeptical about how successful Glass will be in the next year or two, but not about the wearable, low-profile device market altogether.

I'm reminded of a recent Apple patent: the iWatch.<p>Both a watch and a screen on my glasses provide me with the convenience of an interface with my phone that is always visible.<p>I like the iWatch for most use-cases better: changing a track while walking, seeing if I should answer my phone while at dinner, reading an SMS at a party.<p>Google Glasses really excels in other use cases: directions while driving and GoPro video making. Other than that, I'm afraid it falls flat for the reasons listed in the article.<p>If I had to bet on a winner between iWatch and Glass, I'd choose iWatch. For Google to win out, they need to focus on situations in which augmented reality is most useful, sending text messages isn't it.

I don't think I will be comfortable having a conversation with anyone wearing GG. I don't want to constantly wonder whether or not I'm being recorded, or information about me is being sent to a business or a government. I want to know whether or not the person I am talking to is reading/seeing/hearing something else at the moment as well. As much as I would love to <i>work</i> on GG, I don't think I can ever accept people using it around me. It should never be a "social" gadget. Use it on your own all you want though.

&#62; The state of the art on voice input, frankly, really sucks on both Android and iOS. Have you tried to compose a message that wasn’t “ok” or “coming home” via voice? Especially in a noisy cafe or on the bus?<p>Just yesterday I had a long conversation via IM with my girlfriend using only Android's voice input while I was walking down loud, crowded NYC streets.<p>And the commands for Google Voice won't be much longer than "ok" or "coming home" anyway. Commands are literally "Ok, Glass, &#60;short command&#62;"

Every use case you mentioned was consumer oriented. I think where this product will excel is in manufacturing and logistics. Any function where you have to receive data then perform an action (or if you prefer: look at a screen then perform an action) will be much more efficient. Imagine if you could make factory workers even just 5% more efficient. That's $15 a day (assuming 3 shifts). The thing would pay for itself in less than a year. That's a conservative estimate, just a thought. I might be wrong, I haven't worked in manufacturing in 6 years.

I think you are spot on with analysis. Here is my take:<p>Apple will 're-invent' it in ten years time and market it to us all for $1500 as a luxury product that all Apple nuts will be a 'have to have' product. Google will then release Google Glass+ two years later, which is free, but advertises products and services to you based on where you are and what you look at constantly 24-7.<p>Wired will then publish an article that states how often men really look at women's breasts, because Google released anonymous data usage of Google Glass+ LiveStreetView (I claim the inventor's rights to this btw).<p>Microsoft will come late to the party with Microsoft 'Goggles', which confuses everyone, because although looks good, everyone thinks must be crap, because Microsoft released it. Steve Balmer finally retires. Everyone in Microsoft breaths a sigh of relief.<p>Nix guys are just laughing their heads off. They've had retinal implants for 5 years and record everything to their private clouds.<p>Insurers start to demand that all people wear a Glass Recorder for insurance purposes, and before you know it, all recordings legally have to be saved by the government to prevent terrorism.<p>Future looks rosy through those rose tinted spectacles... Count me out.

I think he means it's going to be the next Google Nexus Q <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_Q" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_Q</a>

For crying out loud, his entire article is predicated on the fact that the device costs $1500.<p>This is true <i>of the developer version only</i>. It is a prerelease at that price. The final version is not going to cost $1500.

I don't think Glass itself will be widely adopted, but it will get the ball rolling towards full-on, externally invisible, computer implants.<p>These implants will not wait for your input to feed you information (although they will certainly have that ability too). Instead they will serve information as your environment and conversations demand. Having a conversation where someone asks "So how did WWI start anyways?", the answer will appear in front of you. Upon arriving at your local ski hill and telling your friends "Ok let me to take a leak first and then we'll hit the slopes" your invisible assistant would instantly give you directions to the bathroom and queue up he directions to the ski-lifts. This will be cool on an individual basis, but imagine if everyone had their "invisi-Glass". While having a conversation with someone your implants would sync up, showing both of you information as it relates to your dialogue. While basically eliminating awkward pauses, it will also act as a kind of NFT (Near Field Telepathy)

<i>Here’s my list of what people are doing on Google Glass:<p>(12 boring things)</i><p>The point is you don't have to look away from where you are or make the people you're with feel ignored just to do a simple thing like checking the time. Glancing at a clock on the wall is less disruptive to a conversation than digging your phone out of your pocket.

In regards to the author's skepticism with using voice input, we had a bit of a theory running in a HN previous thread that Glass will measure sound vibrations of your skull to accurately work out what you're saying.<p>Similar tech has been used in some headsets for years to create a fairly accurate speaker that, when I used it at least, was whisper sensitive. From what I remember nobody knew if the tech was 'reversible' in the sense it could be used as a mic but I guess it's theoretically possible.<p>I hope this, or another suitably accurate replacement, is used in Glass. I'll be really disappointed otherwise.

The killer app segment for Google Glass is augmented reality - which is quite awkward on cell phones but natural on devices like Glass. It's also an application segment that hasn't received much mainstream attention. Check out some of the stuff companies like Metaio have been doing: <a href="http://www.metaio.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.metaio.com/</a><p>(I'm not affiliated with Metaio, nor am I currently developing any augmented reality applications)

&#62; Most of these are basically simple things you can already do on your phone- checking the weather<p>Ha! I'm very, very excited about Glass <i>for the weather opportunities</i>, actually. The data collection that Glass will offer with regards to the weather is going to be incredible. With a simple app that pings outside Glass wearers, I'll be able to automatically gather incredible amounts of valuable weather data.<p>I'm doing this on phones right now, too, of course [1]. But Glass opens up whole new doors that the author of this post is completely missing. Author, if you're reading this: You're making the assumption that nobody will innovate, nobody will build anything new that would provide unique value to the device. You're wrong.<p>[1]: <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbus.barometernetwork" rel="nofollow">https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbu...</a>

I think the only way an executive or VIP would use Google Glass in primarily social situations would be to have a personal assistant who is wearing one.<p>If someone is in a highly technical situation, where the primary focus isn't other people, but technology or architecture, then I could see a lot of applications for augmented reality through such a device.<p>I can envision teams of several to a dozen people in a virtual reality supporting one or two people wearing Google Glass in the field or on a business trip. The fields of vision of the Glass wearers would be shown as "screens" floating in a virtual reality, so that the support staff wouldn't get nauseated from having their vision entrained to the POV of the field Glass wearers.

It is true that list sucks, but as soon as you start to think about a possible SDK, both laymen and professionals can start imagining really neat stuff. In a phone call with a friend we realized after citing a litany of good ideas that really what it came down to was that it would allow for a heads up display of everything. Don't know where to go? It will help. Need to find gluten free foods, activate that app and just hold up the items you're looking at. Cooking and need your hands free? Great! Increment through the recipes steps with simple voice commands.(I know the article mentions voice sucking, but I've actually been quite happy with Google's transcription and for simple commands like 'Next' it will be doubly fine.)

I'm actually a big believer in Glass. In my mind getting the average person to use them is actually simpler than it was to get them to use a cell phone. Everybody has sunglasses and they're used to wearing them (even indoors). With phones it was a complete new paradigm. People weren't used to carrying a phone with them and most didn't feel they needed to, and we saw how that went. As for pricing and design, 6 years ago phones were expensive bricks and look how far they've come. I feel the same about wearable computing and glasses especially.

One thing he didn't mention which I think fits in the same category is "how does it feel to look into a tiny screen above one eye?". In the demo videos it's shown as this all encompassing, easy to see, no squint required HUD. Is it really like that?<p>If its a good experience, I can see voice control, lack of apps, price, etc, all being overcome.<p>If it's a sucky experience, I think it's doomed

I'm partially color blind and have made an app for personal use that lets me confirm whether or not a color is what I think it is. I will develop something like that for Google Glass as well whenever I get my hands on it. So, there are definitely use cases out there that aren't covered by the 12 point in that list in the article.

#ifihadglass: I would use it to remember my life. I will wear it for a full day once to each different job, and each new house, and to significant events. Reminiscing will be sweeter, and my kids and grandkids can get a sense of who I was and how I lived my life.<p>Does the author think cellphones would let me do this?

I have similar leanings.<p>I may own Glass v1 and develop for it as a hobby, but I doubt I will have it replace any functionality which I currently rely on other devices for.<p>However, I'm incredibly excited about the technology and what it means for the future of personal / wearable computing.

Rather thank think Google glasses is going to replace your phone, you should think of it as complementary.

Might be incredibly useful for the police, military, and anyone else who needs a heads up display for messaging and information capture. For the rest of us, no. Just no.<p>You will never see me hanging out with anyone who has a camera pointed at my face at all times.

Google Glass has a processor. Processors give out heat. Google Glass will lead to sweaty eyebrows -- eww. How do you solve the heat issue when Google Glass is transmitting/querying images? Transistor sizing dissipates more and more heat.

In case anyone else was wondering what the heck the Apple Newton was/is -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)</a>

Maybe so. Sometimes an item like Google Glass comes to light and then dies but there are things that are learned or ideas seeded from it that makes it well worth the effort.

I think Glass plus a smartwatch is the way to go.<p>This way the Glass can be controlled from the watch using touch and voice commands.

I've tweeted a bunch of times about how stupid I think Google Glass is, and I don't know anybody in real life who will admit to wanting one. But it sure seems to be exciting the people most vocal on the Internet.<p>I know for a fact this won't see mainstream adoption, that's obvious. But whether Google will sell enough to the excitable people with no fashion sense to make a v2? That's hard to predict.

The question isn't really with use cases, it's about practicality. Having instant access to what you do <i>most</i> of the time with a smartphone is practical. People certainly will appreciate that; it doesn't matter if the use cases are limited in nature.<p>Of course, the price is too high for what it offers right now, but it's kind of like the Pixel: a vision of the future that can be attained relatively easily for anyone with the dough. It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices. The Newton wasn't like this -- PDAs were already being developed at the time. So far, we've seen nothing like Glass. It's a milestone.<p>So it will take time, and it is a paradox to have two devices that do the same thing connected to each other, but Glass is only going to spur a big change.<p>The Newton did not.