Interesting he feels so strongly about that... but then again, he always kinda does. Not sure what to make of it. I used to follow Scoble's blog back when he was evangelizing for Microsoft, but he's abandoned his mediums so often and so vociferously that I sort of lost track. Is Google Plus his latest platform now?
Personally, I'm consciously trying _not_ to get stuck with a single company's ecosystem, so a lot of the advantages Scoble mentions simply don't relate to me. But then again, I never really ventured past search and Gmail... is the rest of Google's services really that good to justify buying into?
Maps, Translate, and YouTube are also the top services in their category.
One could make arguments that Docs, Calendar, have good third party competition, but the former three are relatively unequaled if you consider quality, quantity, cross-platform, and performance together.
Yes, there's Apple Maps or Bing Maps, but there's not available everywhere, no Web for Apple, nor Street View. YouTube competitor Vimeo is great and ad-free, but content wise, YouTube has far more. Translate is both more accurate, faster, and had more languages than competitors.
As far as G+ is concerned, I find Facebook much more useful than G+ for all intents and purposes (photos, groups, messaging, news, everything I find is either better or more useful on Facebook; more useful in the sense that my friends actually use it heh).
YouTube has great content but the design has changed for the worse in my humble opinion.
Maps is top notch. Really a modern day beauty.
Calendar is pretty useful, but nothing you can't get from some other provider.
I prefer Dropbox to Google Drive. It performs better, has a better UI, is more intuitive, and I admire the company itself as well as Drew (founder), so I stick with Dropbox (oh and the 50gb free that I've amassed helps too!).
Google+ has a very specific niche at the moment: Groups of specialized hobbyists who want a platform that's a hybrid between a microblog service and a message board. I know that it's currently the center of the indie tabletop RPG world, for instance, and I think the same is true of at least some other similar communities.
I don't think it'll ever replace Facebook, but it could certainly make phpBB obsolete.
I completely agree with you. Niche communities have found a useful way to use G+ (photographers, bloggers, hobbyists) and I think they will continue to do so, but G+ will never replace FB in a general sense.
Remember Drive = Docs + Online storage so you're essentially only comparing Dropbox to the latter. You're probably aware of this but with the rebranding of Docs to Drive I thought it was worth making this explicit.
You're right, I was only referring to the storage part. I love Google's Docs product. It's very simple and fits most of my needs.
Their storage product is what I don't like as much, but I acknowledge that they've been making progress on that too (and it has pretty cheap subscription plans to increase storage space which is pretty awesome; Dropbox is pretty expensive but I don't actually pay for it so meh)
Well, you don't get simultaneous real-time editing by multiple users with conflict resolution - but that's not why I use Dropbox for. In the last year, I had two documents where I needed to do that, and I used Google docs for that; but it's a very rare edge case for me. Frankly, in many real cases, I'd trust Word's track-changes+email workflow better despite its horrible usability - as when editing an agreement or technical spec, you don't really want to share everything with the "other side", so you need keep the comments and not-really-decided edits hidden; and you also want to review all their recent changes explicitly every time.
Most documents I work with need no conflict resolution as creator and viewer is strictly separated; but where proper collaboration is required, Google Drive won't cut it, I would want to have a proper version control system like git or similar.
There won't be Google Drive support for native-level editing of, say, Photoshop files, folders of code, audio data, or any data files edited by in-house built tools; but you can have a decent workflow where Dropbox syncs these editables between all your computers, and also allows others to read their latest version from a shared folder.
That's because you're looking at Google+ wrong. Look at it more like an advanced Twitter. A much better Twitter, at least for organizing information, communities, and stuff like that.
Wow. These are things I find absolutely terrible on Facebook. Photos are compressed to the point of being unprintable, groups are okay but nowhere near as nice as Google+ communities, and Facebook messaging to me is far behind Gtalk/Hangouts. Also calendar integration with G+ events is magnificent (party mode in the mobile app is amazing as well).
I guess I'm just surprised to hear such positives about these particular bits of Facebook which to me lag far behind at least one competitor.
Feature-wise some of the services on G+ might be better (their app is phenomenal, their website is pretty good, their individual products are pretty good also), but EXPERIENCE-wise, I always have a better experience on Facebook because people I care about actually use Facebook.
Photos I want to see are not on G+. The photos feature on FB is actually really good for most people. I've heard a ton of photographers like G+ though (it seems to me certain niche communities have found a good use for G+; such as photographers or bloggers)
I agree, Hangouts is absolutely amazing (this is actually the only reason my G+ account sees use), but I find FB messenger much more useful than G+ messenger. It's more featured, and more of my friends use it. Chat Heads is simply awesome in every way.
Groups on FB have created tons of experiences for me. I met a ton of people I otherwise would not have met and this is BY FAR one of the most useful things on FB to me. I can't delete my FB even if I wanted to, simply for the reason that I'm in groups for each of my classes (I'm a student), as well as groups for my summer internship, groups for the company I work for, groups for my close friends, etc. All of these are tremendously useful, and I think redesigning groups is one of the biggest potentials for Facebook right now, and a very underrated part of the experience. Sure it may lack in the features of G+ groups, but makes up for it with tons of substance.
These friends of mine and people I'd like to meet are not on G+ and so, even though Google's groups product may have more features, those feature mean nothing.
Of course everything can be improved, and as we're seeing, FB are improving each piece of their total experience one by one (launching a new newsfeed, new timeline, new search, new local, new pages etc).
- "Interesting he feels so strongly about that... but then again, he always kinda does"
Exactly. This is why his review on it doesn't tell me much. He's been a constant cheerleader for services and products that, once I had the opportunity to try, left me at best unimpressed.
I think he just tries to love everything "new" for the sake of "new" and in hope that if something later catches on, he'll be seen as a pioneer and the force behind the adoption trend. Glass might be a great product, but from Scoble's experience is hard to tell.
Now he's paid by Rackspace - so his enthusiasm is not bought here.
Make no mistake: he attracts attention to himself and then sends some of it to Rackspace. He's a shock jock, he would bash Google+, Google and Google Glass if he thought it would be better for Rackspace, but it isn't. He has calculated that by being a Google billboard he will fare better.
Scoble is different from you and me. His job is (or was) to attract as many people and as much attention to Rackspace. By being a whore for every new platform he did that really well.
A normal person builds his own brand at hisname.com, but Scoble sorta sells his attention-getting services to others.
From what he wrote it seems to me like he only gauged the reactions of technically-oriented people. Of course tech people are going to be pretty excited about this, more-so than the average Joe.
He also seems to feel very very strongly about this. I don't think many people feel the same strength of opinion towards Glass.
He's right about the price. If they could cut it down to subsidized-smartphone levels, people will be more open to trying it.
It's certainly cool and most people will probably think so (hence everyone wanting to check it out), but thinking it's cool and actually incorporating it in daily life is very different. Of course Robert is an early adopter so he was more open to the notion of having something like that on his face at all times, but I don't think many people will be as open to it.
He notes that its a more social device because you don't have to look away to use it. Well, I've also tried Glass and you do have to look up and to the right to use the device. The actual display is in your peripherals so if someone is talking to you and you wanted to use Glass, they would most certainly notice because your eyes would drift to your peripherals. I don't think it'll be too different from pulling out your phone from a politeness standpoint.
I don't think it'll be too different from pulling out your phone from a politeness standpoint.
This is the point a lot of Glass proponents don't seem to get. They assume that not paying attention to you whilst looking at your face is somehow more polite than looking at your phone. It's not.
I suspect that over time Glass will become like Bluetooth earpieces. Perfect for use alone but a faux pas around other people.
First, vision is much higher bandwidth. You can glance at a notification and immediately know that you have a message, who sent the message, and how you received it. Takes half a second. Bluetooth earpieces are only suitable for sustained conversation. They are social faux pas because you are having a sustained conversation with someone else. This is not the case with HMDs - someone using a tool like Glass is actually more focused on their task and less distracted overall because they spend less time switching contexts. Citation: http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1695.pdf
Second, glancing at an HMD is fundamentally different from pulling out a cell phone because you're not looking away from the other person. It is difficult to emphasize how important this is to people who have not done work in this field. It is looking away that breaks conversations, not doing something else. Conversation continues to work as long as the other person thinks you're looking at them. And having an HMD on is close enough that people don't react to you jumping away into glass-land to look something up or jot down a note. This one doesn't have a citation, but I have spent several years taking classes from the guy who now runs the Google Glass project, and I can tell you this from direct experience.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: please, please try these things before you dismiss them. Social interaction is sufficiently complicated that experimentation is the only way to predict how people will react to something. And the experiments show that Glass works.
It is looking away that breaks conversations, not doing something else.
You ARE looking away. And depending on how many messages you receive it could be just as irritating to the person(s) you're with as constantly checking your phone. Least of all the constant doubt about whether your conversation is being recorded or not.
I am not disputing their unquestionable usefulness I just have doubts they will be acceptable in most social situations.
From having tried Glass, I can affirm that you do indeed look away.
If any of you are wearing glasses, try looking at the top corner of your frame; that's the same motion needed to engage with Glass.
You'd effectively completely break eye contact with the person you're talking to and motion as if you're looking at something completely different. It's the equivalent of getting distracted by a cool car while your friend talks to you and you have to say "sorry, I saw a cool car, go on".
This interesting. Owning Glass, I can assure you that of is possible to maintain eye contact while viewing content. Depending on the amount of cognition needed to process the content, this perceived conversation might be broken.
I am keen to try reading while driving on an autobahn, is it save?
Can I develop while looking out of the window? That would be great, this staring on a screen always felt somewhat autistic.
I don't know about you, but people that stare at me without keeping their eye movement dynamic are freaky and intense.
The thing I think will be weird is that Glass is in the upper right, and looking up and right is associated with creativity aka lying. Not sure why they didn't go with upper left, which is more associated with memory recall.
Both these eye movements happen in normal conversation btw.
I think you are missing the point how looking at a cell-phone is impolite.
It's like this: you tell a friend about this cool new software but he thinks what do eat. Someone else tries to explain something to you but you figure how to solve that software bug.
When I was 16 or so, I stopped wearing a watch. Because so often I just looked at this watch, even when time did not matter so much. But this reflex raises your stress level. When I looked more often at the watch I remember people asking me whether I was in a hurry or something. Maybe I'm a bit extreme about that, but the fact is this: more multimedia, more distraction, more stress. Even more when we are talking about push updates.
Conversation continues to work as long as the other person thinks you're looking at them. And having an HMD on is close enough that people don't react to you jumping away into glass-land to look something up or jot down a note.
If I understand you correctly, you're asserting that talking to your glasses does not interrupt conversation?
It's annoying when someone glances at their wristwatch while you're talking to them, but I think that overall, wristwatches are a net benefit to society. Perhaps it will be the same with Glass.
I completely agree with you first point. It is very easy to forget that there's a vast range of people with very different viewpoints and beliefs than you. If you primarily meet people in tech, you are not meeting all sorts of people who may feel quite strongly that they don't want to be recorded.
The social implication of wearing Glass is that your network notifications take priority over your conversation. When you get a call or email or text message notification during a conversation, you can choose to ignore it and leave the phone in your pocket, or covertly switch to silent mode. When you're wearing glass, the notification interjects itself physically between you and your conversation partner, indicating to them that it takes precedence. There is no way wearing Glass could be seen as anything but a slight to the people around you.
It does not "interject physically between you and your conversation partner", it becomes available in a corner of your vision away from your conversation partner and you can pause the conversation and look at that, or dismiss it just as you dismiss a vibrating cellphone.
I appreciate this review, and I agree with him 100% on the price point. Had I been in the audience I wouldn't raise my hand till $200-300 either ($1500 is almost comically absurd). But at the same time, I'm gonna wait no matter what till it does more. A head mounted camera (which seems to make up the bulk of the advertising use-cases for it) just isn't important to me...at all.
I think the head mounted navigation stuff could be very useful, but I can barely get my Android phone to understand spoken address searches right now, and I don't mind having it shout out directions to me. I'm not sure I need to pay a few hundred bucks to get the directions up on my face.
The one thing that I hope somebody creates an app for is a quick barcode/item scanner and price lookup app. Just tell me what the best price is for an item I'm looking at and where I can get it. I've tried a few phone apps for this, but the experience is atrocious.
But is it worth $200-300 for those limited use cases? I dunno. I really am going to wait and see.
IMO, at that price point, the real question is "is it worth it to wear them and look like one of those guys that walks around with a Bluetooth earpiece in at all times"?
On the one hand, we're entering a world where Neal Stephenson's "gargoyles" actually exist. On the other hand, the equipment they'll be carrying around is way, way, way smaller than he envisioned.
Not just the price. Have it tell you any one of a number of information types that you personally value. Such as if that item has any ingredients that you have blacklisted (or your doctor has). Have it show you a "Pollan-score" for the item or reviews of it by experts and/or friends. Have it tell you a guess at what ratio of the price will go to corporations that you do and don't like the politics of. Did it get shipped on a boat that has a carbon-emission rating that is higher than you like? Is there another brand sold at this store that more closely matches your preferences, and if so what does their packaging look like?
Customers have had their information stream systematically filtered/impoverished by those who would rather not have the invisible hand of the market move in response to some subgroups' aggregate utility evaluations. Information at the point of choice can alter these dynamics.
I think the advertising focus on the camera is actually brilliant. Look at facebook, and instagram. Outside the hacker circle, instant updates mean very little. Quick photos are cool. Eventually people will start seeing the value in a HUD, but for now its probably too futuristic for a majority of people. Instant photo's really aren't.
How can you possibly say that you aren't willing to spend more than $200 dollars, but would wear it on your face every single day? People pay more than that for sunglasses which provide no functional utility above the $5 sunglasses.
Because no one is quite sure that they would use it. I'd pay $200 for something that I might use every day. I wouldn't pay $500 for something that I might use every day or might end up a gadget that I pull out to play with periodically.
People are paying for a status symbol + fashion accessory. Whether Glass is a status symbol will depend on what kind of circles you travel in, but they're certainly less fashionable than high-end sunglasses.
I don't think you can just look at the price of Glass alone. AFAIK they rely on your phone to work so you also need an Android phone and data plan. I think Google should be selling Glass like a Android phone accessory rather than a product by itself. Also people are taking a risk by purchasing one. They have never used anything like it and don't know if it will actually benefit them.
"As Google Glass doesn’t have a mobile antenna or GPS tracking, My Glass is essential if you want to send and receive SMS from Google Glass, use a data connection, or navigate using GPS."
The phone is pretty much essential. NB: My Glass is the companion Android app.
Hrm. I find that wearing things that aren't strictly necessary irritates me. I don't even like watches, let alone some thing attached to my face. When I raced bikes, I ended up dumping the annoying heart rate monitor too as I did not like having this thing strapped to me. Phones work pretty well as they're just along for the ride, like a wallet or keys, and don't constrain me.
I wear glasses and despise contacts. I guess I could get laser surgery, but I'm used enough to glasses that I would never bother with the cost or risk.
I don't see how this is very different from wearing glasses.
But when you wear glasses you get to choose the design and look that fits your personality. It's also a fashion accessory.
I love my glasses, but part of the reason I love them is because I have not (yet) met a single person with the same glasses as mine, and I've had them for 3 years now.
I wouldn't feel so happy wearing something every other person wears.
I agree. I also ditched HRM on the bike, but even found something as innocuous as a Fitbit a burden.
When the Fitbit worked, it worked well... but then after a couple of weeks it broke and when the utility and value of it has fallen away it is immediately an annoyance.
I think, for Google, that ensuring that the value proposition is quite solid (mature offering of services via Glass) that it will do well.
The worst thing for them would be to launch too early when the value is not yet proven, and for poor network connectivity, poor software, to turn the "Wow" into annoyance.
Do they work with eyes older than 40 - those that can't focus within 18 inches without multi-diopter help? These folks still have money to burn.
How about astigmatism? Makes for interesting curves rotating my progressives. Dptical artifacts on two axes!
Will they be snatched off your face like apple gear has been grabbed at times. High value, small package. Easy to fence if google doesn't have or use a kill switch.
Price will be an issue. My glasses already cost 400-700 usd depending on where I get them. This assumes I can get prescription Glass...
Yep they do. My dad is 61 and had surgery on his right eye a few years back (so it's even weaker than normal) and he said he was able to read the screen. He did say he would have preferred a left eye version however.
Can't say about astigmatism.
I guess they could be, you can remote wipe them though.
Agreed on price, luckily I didn't even have to pay the $1500. And there was a Googler wearing a prototype prescription version at the pickup.
I don't see why people think google are going to struggle to get this out for $200.
It is essentially galaxy nexus hardware without cell phone modem, a much smaller battery, and a small LCOS display instead of the large 720p AMOLED one. Yes, there will be higher non-recurring engineering costs with glass- fitting it into such a small space- but if they plan to go fairly mainstream these costs shouldn't cause too much of an impact on the unit device cost. Once you get into mass manufacturing, the marginal cost of making another one should be quite a bit lower than a current smartphone; as they are eliminating or massively reducing the cost of many of the major components.
If we look at google's track record, they haven't shown much desire to become a hardware company (that is, make the bulk of profits from selling hardware). Taking into account what google have been willing to price the nexus 4 at, with better hardware all round, I believe google are definitely capable of doing $200 unsubsidised if they want to. I can see $99 possible in the future.
I agree, I don't think it's crazy to think of them selling this at a $200 price point. They've shown time and again that hardware is just a way for them to spread their software, and this is just an extension of that philosophy.
As for the author's point about google moving away from advertising, he's nuts. I think google realized that advertising in this setting would be way too intrusive at the get go, but I'm sure they'll work it in over time.
I just read this and this (1) and together they paint an interesting picture, though I'm with the TC author on this one. I hope they're very akward to use and very much like the Segway in popularity. If they're worn in public and are recording, I want a large, unmistakable red light to come on. Even so, I'm pretty sure people who record without permission will get roughed up on more than one occassion, if not just pushed.
On the flip side, recording activity or family-based events (ie, going down a mountain at Tahoe, or your kid taking his/her first steps) and having hands-free internet is pretty cool.
I don't really get this argument. Putting aside that if someone wants to follow you and take pictures they can do that already, and that glass itself doesn't cause you to become that person, the worst you can experience will be in the background of someone's picture or video.
Miniature cameras have been available for years, strapping one to your head doesn't make you a stalker.
Depending on your country, you probably are being photographed all the time - if significant portion of cars have dashboard-cams (as, say, in Russia) then on the street you're likely all the time on someone's camera.
Are those recordings currently posted on Facebook or Youtube, with you tagged in them? Do those cameras follow you inside every pub? If so I am quite sorry for you.
This isn't fighting governments, this is creating the panopticon. All the public footage will be used by governments and I think you'll find that it will be much more invasive and even malicious than what governments are currently doing. Governments are mostly interested in illegal actions and are at least partially constrained, the general public and anyone who doesn't like you will be happy to use this against you in every way conceivable.
There's the gov't side to it and also after several more levels of gadgets that each give us a "new normal", we'll probably end up like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKrYHLE8mDc
The success of this totally depends on price. Each audience I asked at the end of my presentations "who would buy this?" As the price got down to $200 literally every hand went up. At $500 a few hands went up. This was consistent, whether talking with students, or more mainstream, older audiences.
$500 standalone and $200 with some kind of carrier contract? (or is glass meant to be an accessory to a phone? maybe the battery would be inadequate to take on many of the phone features?)
The technologies aren't the only important part; one should consider that a cellphone is talking to an antenna a few miles away, compared to the Glass talking to a device a feet or so away.
Without discussing if Bluetooth and WiFi are bad for your health, it would be way better to keep those transmitters and receivers close to your head than for instance your upper body.
Your skull is quite dense and blocks radiation way more than the soft material that protects your heart and lungs.
Rather irrelevant in the GHz range, where density is much less significant than the chemical bonds and conductivity of the material. In fact the soft tissue would likely be a better absorber due to a higher concentration of water.
>>or is glass meant to be an accessory to a phone?
I ask myself the same question. It would make sense to connect via Bluetooth and let the phone do the heavy lifting (utilizing the available cores and the faster data rate). I am so looking forward to Glass, but I don't want another smartphone with another contract.
It's funny, the whole post is about how nice those glasses are and how amazing. But I cannot really see why they are useful. If I understand the OP correctly, it features the same functions as a cell phone but without ads and being more social. I think he misses the point, staring at a cell-phone every 10 seconds is not non-social because of the looking away but because of the permanent distraction. It's a sign of politeness to be 100% focussed when talking to someone else.
I think I'll buy them if they are below $200 but I won't use them much. Watching Terminator is much cooler anyway ;)
I've had the chance to try them a few months ago, and my only concern with them (while cool), was that they would suffer the same fate as either: bluetooth hands-free kits (aka douchebagy), or segway (aka dorky).
The only killer app I think is driving directions, that was nice.
People already keep their smartphones on table in busy bars, and maybe their wallet in a back pocket. This isn't any easier to steal than that, and has way less impact than having to freeze your credit cards for instance.
Much will depend on the price of the final Glass, but if it is down to around the price of designer sunglasses, I don't see a big threat.
I dunno.. if I were using a urinal and someone grabbed the flipped-up glasses on my head, I would be in no position to either chase them or even get a description of their face.
If someone else in the area outside the bathroom has google glasses on, you could ask around and maybe get a face shot of the person running out of there.
I'm sort of fascinated (and slightly scared) by a world where google glasses are everywhere and the ability to get away with a crime in a public place is nearly impossible.
So you think Google’s ultimate goal here is shoving ads in front of people’s eyes? I somehow doubt that.
Why wouldn’t they just want another leg to stand on, besides ads? Doesn’t that make sense? You can make tons of money selling hardware. Apple demonstrated that.
Apple has reminded everyone in tech, that there are better routes to mountains of profit than "free" products. When the Scoble's of the world are willing to drop 2000+ dollars (including cost of phone) for the ability to take a picture faster, or more likely, just to look cool to friends, then why not.
Who wants to be hostage to advertisers anyway? That unpleasant road, just involves turning all your users into controllable lab rats.
If Google is trying to make a shift, I say high time and all the best.
I hope Google improves the camera by the time they release the consumer version. I saw the demo from Engadget editor, and the video seemed a little too shaky for my taste. It needs OIS, or something to make the video recording much more stable. This is even more important than in a smartphone, because you're moving your head a lot more. So Google should really prioritize this. I would also make it a lot better in low-light, and maybe even give it a flash for night shots and so on.
Voice will need to be flawless, so if voice recognition depends on how fast the processor is, then they need to put the fastest one in there (maybe a quad core Cortex A57 at 20nm, for efficiency, too).
They also need to keep working on the design, and make future generations as minimal as possible, and as "cool" looking as possible. They need to keep improving on this.
"Also, Google is forbidding advertising in apps. This is a HUGE shift for Google's business model. I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a commerce based company."
Does anybody think this is their permanent stance? I certainly don't.
Wasn't the camera one of the biggest selling points Google tried to make? Looking at picture quality in the blog post and the Glass demo at Google I/O 2012, there is a clear disconnect, in my opinion.
Yes, but I don't think they've ever claimed that the picture quality of the camera was great. They emphasized on the camera a lot because taking pictures with the Glass is way more personal than taking a picture with a traditional camera. After some time, when you go back to look at the pictures you'd taken, you live those moments again the same way you remember them, from your point of view. This was my take anyway.
I don't think the quality is that bad, actually. In low light situations the camera obviously suffers, but that's not a big surprise, considering how small the lens is. Then again, I know nothing about photography.
> After some time, when you go back to look at the pictures you'd taken, you live those moments again the same way you remember them, from your point of view. This was my take anyway.
Wow, I've never really thought of it like that. Being able to take effortless snapshots from your own vantage point instead of lining up quasi-staged photoshoots seems pretty... organic (somewhat ironically).
I'm actually pretty curious how this will fit for people who already wear glasses or some kind of eyewear. Will there be prescription Google Glass(es)? That could shoot the price way up, especially if Google is the only merchant for them. Who will make the lenses for me? Could I get my favorite glasses merchant to make my glasses, or will I be forced to get a $700 special prescription pair from Google? Maybe people with poor eyesight could never wear them at all?
I am completely on board with the product and hope for its success--but I am convinced that the entire product is merely the first iteration that will eventually make way for contact lenses, which will be the true long-term viable version of this product. Right now, Google Glass will be good for gathering information not only about the world around us as we already do with smartphones, but for understanding how customers and developers would begin to use such a product--and then applying that information towards improvement in what will ultimately be lenses.
Google is already in talks with Warby Parker (the Zappos of glasses) to design more stylish frames. I'm sure they have a plan for affordable prescriptions, and Warby's frames/lenses come to less than $100 already. Actually, if I could get Google (prescription) Glass for < $400 and it wasn't very noticeable I have a computer on my head, I'd certainly buy a pair since I already wear glasses.
But there's no way in hell I'm going to use this if I always need a cell phone (I rarely have one), and I'm not paying any of the major cell companies for a Glass plan because they all rip you off. If they teamed up with Metro/Boost/Cricket type companies or went the original Kindle path of free data, I'd be happy.
Eventually, if the market will be very wide, I guess there will be Google Prescription Glasses (you decide the name). For the moment Glass can be detached and put on top of the frame of your current glasses (bonus: hipsters with big frames, won't even notice it!).
Not 'eventually', it's already confirmed, manufactured and used - some of the demoed Glass units have a slightly different front frame where prescription lenses can be attached in the same way as for "normal" glass frames.
I think part of Scoble's enthusiasm must derive from the fact that he is an always connected person who travels, networks,communicates as his job. Nothing he describes sounded that great, but if you are online all the time while moving then I can see it. I'd like to be online less, and try to experience the world unmediated.
I would be hesitant to talk to anyone wearing the google glass about any controversial subject matter. Big brother really is watching you... As for price, if google thinks it can make money off of it, the price will indeed be $200 or so.
By Law, Google (along with other Internet companies) have been required to be 'tap friendly', so that the government can read everyone's data (like email).
So when more and more people starts using Glass, the government will also want to tap into that. I am sure some will say that such ability will only be used to prevent crime, but we already know how well the government abuses power to their own enjoyment like it happened with the porn-scanners which pictures could never-never-never be saved...
I wonder what will happen when Google Glass goes consumer for Explorer upgrades. When Google released the Nexus One, I hopped on board and was satisfied until I went through two recovery requests on the power button. Google Glass is quite a chunk of change. I understand the value in their utility and scarcity, but come time when Google releases the Glasses at a consumer prices, I hope not to be disappointed by the same feeling of getting left behind.
Does anybody know if and what upgrade options will be available for Google Explorers when they release the consumer version?
There isn't an option. We will just purchase the new device. I have a hunch that if you do cool stuff with Glass using the explorer edition, Google will have problem shipping you the final release gratis.
Glass Explorers are not being ripped off. These are like limited edition Apple 1 computers. They're going to be treasured antiques within 15 - 20 years.
I don't think that Google has done a good job of explaining what it does. As of right now, it just seems like a second screen for my phone. My reaction to it reminds me of the reaction to the iPad, but in reverse -- the tech-minded folk were confused while the average joe was excited.
I do think it is cool tech and probably the next logical step in personal computing, I'm just at the wait-and-see stage. Mainly waiting to see if there will be competition and what everyone will do with it.
What review? I read this and other than saying he won't live without it he doesn't say what makes it amazing. The price point discussion is nice but I don't understand why I would want one. I can see for vacation to take videos to share with my family bu I don't get why it's amazing. Am I going to read my Facebook feed on it? What am I going to do with it other than pictures? Give me details!!
Isn't it clear that, as with any electronics product, price will go down over time? So even if they launch at $500, in a few years there will be a version for $200. So the question might be more how strongly they want to boost adoption at launch. And this could be a product that actually needs a slower adoption, to get people used to it.
Yes, and even if they had resources and interest to distribute it rapidly, I'd venture to guess that $200 would be underpricing it.
People might say they're prepared to pay less for it now than when it's reached some adoption and they start feeling the social pressure of "everybody has it; I must get one." For now it's probably more of a futuristic toy to them.
Are there any Glass users around here? I have a basic question. Can the wearer see a video? I ask because I've seen captured video, still images of ... still images, etc. ;-) Conceptually, video is similar but I want to verify that video playback is in there.
You can review the video you've taken. I'm not sure if the timeline cards support the video HTML tag. The hardware can handle it, so this is just a software limitation,
Yeah, I have them. You can definitely watch videos you've taken, hangouts, etc. Even the navigation maps are realtime updated, rather than still photos.
I just hope the voice commands are going to be significantly better than on Android now. Whilst they are much better than anything else, I still don't find them actually usable, and I'm a Brit with an average voice.
Unrelated sidenote: Posted the exact same thing about half an hour earlier (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617110) but didnt get an upvote. Not that i care since i rarely submit new stuff, but HN is strange sometimes ;)
To be honest his first observation felt absurd, so much that I dared not read further of the post.
Sometime ago I chanced upon one of his posts and it had the same mood - an attempt be voracious and fanatic about sth even though he would be actually sounding extortionately absurd.
I have no doubt Microsoft are working on their own glasses, so maybe I'll hold out for that.
I jumped from Google's ecosystem to Microsoft and I'm totally happy with the Outlook.com/Skydrive/Office trifecta. The Windows Phone 8 is awesome and integrates nicely with Windows 8 OS. Even Bing has strengths that Google search can't touch.
Internet Explorer 10 is almost tolerable.
So yeah, lets see what Microsoft brings to the party.
Personally, I'm consciously trying _not_ to get stuck with a single company's ecosystem, so a lot of the advantages Scoble mentions simply don't relate to me. But then again, I never really ventured past search and Gmail... is the rest of Google's services really that good to justify buying into?