>Contrast to the iPhone, yet again (the original). It showed both incredible potential and was an excellent actual product.
Or as someone else mentioned, contrast this to a console devkit. Imagine someone making a blogpost about how they are returning their Xbox One devkit because there aren't any good games for it.
Is Google Glass marketed as a developer kit, or even as a prototype or "first run" device? All the FEM I've seen is very polished (leading me to believe the company wants me to think the product is polished) and seems to be catering to a mainstream audience.
Compare this to the Oculus Rift, which explicitly sells a "development kit" and even requires checking a box that says "I understand this hardware is intended for developers and it is not a consumer product." And, as an aside, the Oculus Rift development kit is a much more polished and functional product than the current generation of Google Glass.
Yes, I think Project Glass has been pretty clear about this being a first run device. That's why the participants are referred to as "Explorers". The point is to start mapping out use cases and fine tuning the UX.
Source: My wife is getting her Glass in a few weeks.
They should have avoided being cute and simply called it a "Developer Kit" instead of targeting it towards "Explorers".
I don't know about you, but the use of "Explorers" is broad enough and appeals to the ego enough to be inclusive of a pretty large swath of society that is going to be disappointed by the device. "Developer Kit" pretty much describes exactly what audience it is actually ready for.
The real question is were it's capabilities misrepresented - did they sell you something that didn't do what they told you it would do?
Because if not.. and if it was only your personal assumptions that were off despite google being clear about what it was you were buying.... that's your problem, not theirs.
I do like that comparison - but let's add a twist:
He bought the console devkit, because he wanted to _play_ with the console and there wasn't a normal unit available. Okay, that was a bad idea and he (obviously?) isn't impressed with what is available right now: Should he still hold on to that expensive unit, or wait for the normal console to appear for a much more reasonable price (and maybe with actual features/'games' he'd be interested in)?
From the consumer point of view, sure, sounds great.
Why would the vendor be at all obliged to let them return the unit in the first place though? Outside of misrepresentation and fraud and things that are not fit for the purposes sold, sellers in general have no obligation at all to take a return.
You see retail stores always taking returns, but that's a business decision to stay competitive... they are under no obligation to do so.
If the terms of sale stipulates that you can return it for a refund, or if it was somehow completely misrepresented and then a fraudulent sale by default..... sure.
So if you bought a console dev kit, and it worked as described for the purposes sold (which aren't necessarily the purpose you bought it for) - the vendor is under no obligation to refund you.
no, it's not like that at all. It's like he bought the xbox one devkit & returned it because the OS was crap and the controls were fundamentally flawed and he didn't think there was going to be a way to make good games for it.
Or as someone else mentioned, contrast this to a console devkit. Imagine someone making a blogpost about how they are returning their Xbox One devkit because there aren't any good games for it.