If Pogue is this excited about this "Google technology", then it must be really good. But there's something worrying about Google putting it into people's hands possibly a full 2 years before it actually comes to market. While I'm sure the feedback was important, there's still 2 years in which a competitor can come out and take the market before they do, although I'm sure what they're doing with Google Glass is very hard tech and can't be easily replicated, but still. Someone like Apple could probably do it if they really wanted to take on Google in this market.
> "there's still 2 years in which a competitor can come out and take the market before they do"
Like someone else has brought up already, the existing applications we've seen of Glass are all fairly obvious from years of sci-fi.
The real magic sauce is execution.
More than that, the number of people who can pull off Glass in this world, other than Google, is close to zero. Nobody has the combination of hardware expertise, UX expertise (questionable in this respect, perhaps), and sheer big-data chops.
> "Someone like Apple could probably do it if they really wanted to take on Google in this market."
I don't think so. In fact I think Google is already outrunning Apple in many ways. Look at Google Now that ships with the latest Android, predictive tasking where your phone realizes what you want without you having to go get it.
While Apple is running around with the voice-recognition toy known as Siri. Heck, I'm a loyal iOS user and I never use Siri. It's a gimmick to demo to your friends, it's not smart or wide enough for any real practical use.
See also the looming, gigantic failure of iOS6 maps - a horrifically broken data set and search tech wrapped in excellent UX.
Or, if you're an iOS dev, take a look at iCloud, whose API is still horrifically broken a year after launch and notoriously difficult to work with.
I think Apple has more than amply proven that, when it comes to big data, machine learning, and AI, they have nothing on Google.
Fun anecdote: I was standing in Manhattan today and typed in "24 Orchard" (expecting to call up the address at 24 Orchard St) on iOS6 Maps. It took me to another state. This is asinine behavior I've never experienced with Google on any platform.
IMO the only company that stands a real chance at tackling Glass is Facebook. They're the only ones with the proven big data expertise, but they are also dramatically lacking in building devices and associated software.
>>Fun anecdote: I was standing in Manhattan today and typed in "24 Orchard" (expecting to call up the address at 24 Orchard St) on iOS6 Maps. It took me to another state. This is asinine behavior I've never experienced with Google on any platform.
This happens to me very regularly on Google Maps. I'll enter an address like "45 Tree Lane" and at worst it will take me to another state, and at best it will ask "did you mean 45 Tree Lane in California, or 45 Tree Lane in New York". I am located in California, you silly thing. Why would I need 45 Tree Lane, New York?
Whilst I would agree the Apple has not proven itself in the Big Data field.
I would argue that Microsoft is a worthy competitor. They have an excellent Research department and have hardware experience (more so than facebook). They do have the big data chops - enough to put up a search engine, and they have a cloud infrastructure to go with it.
I agree Microsoft is a strong contender given their resources and the fact that they've probably been working on some kind of VR/AR for use with XBox for some time.
And also there's Amazon maybe going at it as the next gen reader or video viewer.
It's certainly not just Google. In fact the list of companies that can pull off wearable computing is far greater then just the small group of major smartphone makers that are ever considered.
No, predictive software is only one of many applications - but any reasonably compelling application for AR glasses would involve a tremendous amount of contextual and user-specific information, and Apple is horribly bad at it, while Google is very good at it. Facebook is the only other (major, giant) company that has shown themselves to be capable of this kind of "smart" software.
Google is good at it by our current low standards. There's a lot of room for improvement in the area, and that could come from many companies, known and unknown.
There's fewer affordances for interaction, yet the screen is always visible. Huge win if the software guess correctly that you want to see something, potentially quite annoying if not. I've never used a Glass though, this is just based on watching videos of it.
While Google reasonably enough outsources the hardware portion of job, it has an OS for mobile devices (Android) which cannot be successfully developed without significant hardware expertise.
While not on consumer hardware front, Google also develops (but not builds) its own quite customized servers. Facebook also does so, BTW, and in a nicer way (see opencompute.org).
They don't really give a shit whether they make the glasses or someone else does. So long as you allow open and unrestricted access to the internet Google makes money.
Google wants to make internet access ubiquitous and in doing so make everything else a commodity.
I totally agree. Same goes for Google Fiber. People were saying that it will take too long for them to become profitable but it is already a win for Google if they can create enough pressure to force the telecom companies to invest more money into highest bandwidth/speed connections.
Why is it worrying? Competition is a good thing, I don't want one company to "own" the space. If I recall, Oakley is also doing something similar and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon come out with wearable computing devices.
I found it a very interesting article, and as a glasses wearer this excites me a lot as I would not have the discomfort of wearing something 'unnatural'.
I think the early release and slow building up is how Google does new products. Most of the technology in their existing products we've seen slowly develop over time and this is one of their first entrances to a new market.
I've wondered this too. I'm sure Apple _is_ working on something like this (or a dozen something's like this), but they aren't going around blabbing about it to everyone who will listen. Seems like all this does is publicize a failure if they never get it to work, or take all the luster off the release of an awesome new product.
You should read up on The Lean Startup by Eric Ries. Google's strategy to release everything in pre-alpha stage, then slowly improve it from user feedback -- might not be the optimal marketing strategy that Apple perfected. But it's the optimal strategy to build an actual great product.
I think Glass is an intermediate step. The biggest issue that exists right now is the fact that we would love to have huge screen but don't want to lug them around; want full keyboards but they don't generally fit in our pockets...
My thought on this is that we'll eventually turn to the next best (but scary) way to interact with computers: implants. I wrote about it in a blog I have just for "brain dumping" of stories I want to eventually write, but perhaps it's relevant here: http://writersdrano.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/the-first-step-...
That post reads like a partial fleshing-out of Asimov's The Last Question, and it didn't end like Legends of Dune or The Matrix did although playing with similar ideas. Humanity dividing into 4 colonies also reminds me of the EVE Online backstory, in which humans stumble into a new galaxy and split into 4 warring factions.
Thank you! I will definitely do that eventually, but right now there is just too much stuff happening in my everyday life to find the time for writing. I will do it though.
I think it will be interesting when certain classes of people reject the idea of being privately recording without their permission and will simply refuse to hold a conversations or interact with anyone wearing the device. Kinda like a boycott against the device's impedement into social situations. For example, if I was at a job interview and my interviewer was wearing this device, I would walk out the door. Even if the job was at Google.
Yes, excellent point. You can extend this into so many scenarios like becoming standard issue for police officers and military personnel. Even something as creepy as an individual utilizing it to record you in public without your knowledge or the ability for individuals to activate it and see what you're seeing real-time.
The first thing I think is a HUD that can see around corners and behind you for aviation and even driving. I really like the idea of having a 3D box to see everything within 1000ft. It would be super useful to reduce collisions for certain types of aviation, paragliding and skydiving specifically. Most of the skydiving fatalities in recent years have been collisions.
I'm not saying I can't see uses for them, I just hate that they're probably going to become trendy. People are going to walk around with these things on their faces 24/7.
It's bad enough when you're talking to someone and they're pulling their phone out of their pocket every minute to scroll through something, but now, they won't even have to do that, it will already be on their face.
I'll bet there'll be people that can't. They'll get so used to seeing stuff pop up on their screen as they walk down a street, as they're going about their everyday lives.
There will be people that won't want to leave that augmented reality.
I don't see the point in disconnecting for the sake of disconnecting. What's wrong with becoming attached to technology that augments your quality of life? It's not like we pee in the woods all year and save the bathroom for special occasions.
Well, I have to disagree with the analogy a little bit, but hopefully I can do so in a amicable way. Peeing into a toilet and all of the advancements that have been made downstream of the toilet came about for reasons of sanitation. When people used to toss their excrement into the streets out their window, it bred disease and caused other issues.
What happens to a generation of people that no longer have Google at their fingers or in this case an immediate connection to the internet. I was imagining someone gardening, growing their own food. They are walking by their garden and Google Glass reminds them to water the garden, so they do. A couple of days later they're walking by and it flashes a reminder to go harvest some of the green beans they planted. Looking through Glass, it picks out which green beans are ready to eat. What happens when this technology is gone? Has the individual really been educated on what it meant to garden? Would they be able to garden without the device?
Where is the mystery and risk that comes with life sans augment? Life doesn't just occur in the cases of success, it occurs in the moments of failure too. The fruit that wasn't ripe enough or was too ripe. The experience of a fried green tomato. Disconnecting allows for things that don't happen when you're constantly on interrupt. The ability to think; the ability to be creative; to have unique ideas.
I'm still kinda worried about the interface of Google Glass, resp. the actual handling of the device: if you'll be limited to voice inputs and to swiping on the ear piece in the final version I suspect that this device will be not be very usable in an every day situation. esp. when you're using it in public you just might look like somebody who is constantly scratching his head.
I speculate that you would still require a touch screen to do most of your tasks, such as writing instant messages, checking when the trains go or just for browsing the web.
I don't think Glass (or a similar product) will ever be used for intensive tasks, but I think you're underestimating what you can do with gps, wifi, gyroscopes, accelerometers, 2D touch surface and voice.
Writing instant messages? I already find the voice transcription on Jellybean to be faster and easier than a touchpad. Checking when the trains go? Ideally, Glass tells you before you even need it (a la Google Now), but that can also be a voice query. Browsing the web? I don't think that's the intended use case, but touchpad + detecting head position / movement for navigation should make this pretty easy.
I won't code on Glass, but I look forward to never fumbling to get my phone out of my pocket, turning it on, and launching the camera app. That and simple information retrieval queries "Glass, define 'dionysian'"; "Glass, when will Jenny's flight get in?"; "Glass, what's the surface area of the Sun?" will by themselves make glass worthwhile for me.
When I walk down the street I often see someone wearing some clothes that look fantastic. I hope an entrepreneur creates an Glass app that overlays a list of stores where I can buy each item along with the price. It would be even better if it could save a photo of the person and notify me if something they are wearing goes on sale somewhere. If everyone's 'favorites' pictures were stored in the cloud you could sell the data to vendors to let them know what people wanted. If I could set a trigger "let me know if x goes on sale for less than $y" you could sell that data to vendors too (sort of like they have bidding for empty hotel rooms).
I know there's some startup that already tries doing this but they also told me that automating something like this with machine learning is an almost impossible task.
Imagine if you could use these in casinos as an obvious disruptive high margin use case for the niche individual...
While considering the comments from fashion week, the potential is greater for multiple industries vs the historical desktop/pocket utility to develop on top of, moreover, the advantage can support beyond just hackers who can leverage opensource/SDK/APIs. I think the utility alluded to has game changing potential if big g plays the edge instead of the core competency.
This isn't the only disruptive horse running, though...
The question remains to be seen if the hipsters will be found walking around with these bulky things on their heads.
You can be sure i'll be there, interacting with my computer through a head mounted instrument in public, in my car, at the restaurant, in the club, in the bathroom, everywhere, much to the chagrin and dismay of onlookers.
I'll also be using my smartphone to interface with it in case I need to configure something.
And I can sure you that many people will be there ready to insist (either legally or physically) that you refrain from recording them, their friends and their family without express permission. It is a legal requirement after all.
Will be interesting to see at what point you decide it just isn't worth it.
I think it's all TBD at this point. Early smartphones sometimes had no-camera models for people who worked in offices (or went to other locations) where taking a camera wasn't allowed -- this was common even in ordinary corporate settings. These days smartphones with cameras are so ubiquitous that virtually everywhere has bowed to the inevitable.
Pioneers using this sort of things will no doubt run into issues. But if they become mass market products, the vast majority of people will simply get used to them unless they have special circumstances.
If that was the case, then the same can be said with an iPhone. How do you know if someone is secretly recording your conversation with the iPhone in their pocket?
That one social convention will probably destroy google glass as a product, making It as popular as the borg bluetooth phone clip earpieces of yesteryear.
My biggest hope is that the projects take off. I've wanted POV liferecording cameras (just for the hell of it) for a while, but I don't want to be the one assaulted in a French fast-food joint because of them.
