So I'm just going to say: I don't like Glass. For this reason: as far as I can tell, its only particularly useful function is as an eye mounted camera.
Having a camera on you totally changes the context of any interaction. Even if the other person says it's just for their private use; you don't really know. Maybe they upload it to facebook. Maybe they catch you in a bad picture, and you end up becoming some reddit meme like scumbag steve or bad luck brian or the "stop!" girl. Point being: if someone is wearing a camera on their face it's impossible to act normal around them. Glassholes don't seem to get that. I suspect it's that they're ok with being constantly on film, and don't seem to recognize why other people aren't.
If you're wearing a camera on your face, you're only going to see my "public", "don't say anything to offend people" persona, not the person I normally am, and I'm going to avoid you. So frankly I hope Glass fails, hard, because it's one of the most antisocial products ever developed.
I always thought it was the wrong market. Glass would be awesome for all sorts of specialized applications -- allow construction folks to see through walls or provide telemetry to pilots or machine operators.
But as a tool to help the mass consumer record random stuff? Not so much.
Here's a question: imagine someone who loses an eye, and gets a prosthetic. These days, that means a small camera that feeds a video signal to their optic nerve. But, obviously, this camera could also have its feed tee'd somewhere else. How would you feel around this person?
Depends on the person, but I don't think I'd feel weird around them. The difference with the prosthetic and glass isn't the technical capability, rather it's the perceived intent.
All Gruber seems to be saying is "if people don't use a product all the time it's a bad product" which is pretty obviously false to anyone who gives it a second thought.
When it suits him he argues that history is irrelevant (Android won't "windows" iOS) but because it suits him here he tosses in a fairly distant historical analogy (Glass is the Windows Tablet of wearable computing) and that's QED for him.
I really like 90% of Gruber's analysis, and the bulk of "Fanboy" accusations against him are totally bogus, but this is weak.
Maybe he's jonesing for a team to root against because it's the baseball off season.
Glasshole here -- and I think Gruber's comments are fair. It's a product that is intended to be used all the time. So if people don't, "is it bad?" is a valid question. I can't wear it all the time, because the battery life is ridiculously short, and I won't, because they're so ostentatious and dorky looking (and I'm vain enough) that I often don't want to be seen wearing them. By Gruber's standards, all those reasons + the price = a failed consumer product.
But I doubt Google's grading it as a typical consumer product. It works for Google for it to be expensive and obvious, because the wearers become visible motivated evangelists for the technology. It just doesn't work for me, personally, and clearly doesn't work for Gruber.
All that said... aside from the decent-sized UI problems it has... once you spend some time with it, the "omnipresent screen" is as addictive as the original iPhone was. Blackberry is a better analogy; I look forward to Google's improvements as well as what I hope is serious competition from the A players and not just Kickstarters.
(Plus, I'm really enjoying coding for it. It feels new and exciting, like there's huge unclaimed areas waiting to be conquered. Lots of limitations to work around, too.)
I find Gruber tiresome because Apple doesn't need a cheerleader anymore. Back in the dark days when everyone was taking a dump on Apple he was interesting because of his ability to put his finger on what made Apple products special. Now that Apple products have proven their popularity the idiotic punditry that Gruber chooses to pick apart is mostly not worth the response.
This is the perfect case in point. What Gruber is saying is 100% correct as a response to Scoble's phrasing. That is, products don't sink or swim because the companies' employees choose to use them or not. Of course there's a correlation there since employees are also consumers. If pressed I suspect Scoble would probably concede that his phrasing was sloppy, and that he meant it more in the sense that lack of employee adoption is the canary in the coal mine.
I don't think your restatement is entirely fair -- "if people don't use a product at all it's a bad product" would be closer.
Even that's somewhat reductionist, of course; there are a lot of good products that we use only occasionally. But there are some products which are designed to be with you most of the time: smartphones are an obvious example. Watches are another one. How about a smartwatch? I think it'd be fair to say that if you're wearing your smartwatch most of the time when you go out, it's a success for you; if you don't like wearing it -- for whatever reason, whether aesthetics or because it isn't that functional (or both) -- and mostly only trot it out to show people, it's really a failure for you. If most of the smartwatch's buyers are in the "only trot it out to show people" camp, the product is arguably a failure.
And, I think it's fair to use the same criteria for Google Glass. Are most of the people who own a Glass using it regularly, or are they only trotting it out when it'll be cool to show people? Scoble is, whether he puts it that way or not, effectively arguing the latter. Gruber is in turn saying that if that's true, it means that Glass -- even if it's a marvelous technology showcase -- isn't a good product.
(As for the contention that Gruber will argue history is relevant when it suits him and irrelevant when it doesn't, well, we all do that, and I think we'd all claim that we're doing it because in some cases history is relevant and in other cases it isn't, right? Whether Android will "windows" iOS depends on whether you think the mobile computing market will follow the same trajectory as the PC market did; if you think the concept of Glass will take off one day, maybe dramatically, but Glass itself will be something of a footnote, then the Windows Tablet comparison is apt.)
> As for the contention that Gruber will argue history is relevant when it suits him and irrelevant when it doesn't, well, we all do that
Agreed. But tossing out an analogy and claiming it applies is the lowest form of that. I think to make a real contribution you have to make some attempt to justify why the analogical bits are more relevant than the contradicting bits.
I'm not saying Gruber is wrong, or that he doesn't have a point to make. Just that he's "phoning it in" with this post. The points you make, in detail, make for much better analysis.
He told employees. That means completely different with just people. Employees are fully informed of it, and even already have it for free. (further, they are being paid for it)
If someone doesn't want to use a product which s/he already have, and knows very well, isn't it enough to think that's a crap?
Truth to be told, the original Scoble's article is full of inaccuracies. First of all, not every Google employee is allowed to dogfood glass, it's only for the selected subset of internal and external people. Second, statements like "facebook is not on glass, therefore it's glass' fault" are simply BS. If facebook wanted to implement an app for glass, they could clearly do it, the SDK is available for a while. 'No contextual filtering', 'price is too high' and 'photo workflow sucks' are missing the point that the glass is the work in progress and cost of manufacturing, limited availability and free hardware upgrade for explorers totally justify the $1,500. Obviously, it's absolutely reasonable to expect the market price to be much less when glass goes for a public availability. And, I absolutely don't buy 'the product is bad' commentary from an apple fan boy, Gruber. What else one could expect him to say?
From an imaginary app-store reviewer diary: "Rejecting all of them, consistently, would in fact be no good at all. The feeling of being part of the monolith — of being the monolith — really only surges when I use my position to act capriciously. To act fairly would be to follow the rules. To act capriciously is to be the rules."
http://daringfireball.net/2009/05/diary_of_an_app_store_revi...
"Translation" of Apple PR into English: "We decided from the outset to set the formula for our bars-of-signal strength indicator to make the iPhone look good — to make it look as if it 'gets more bars'. That decision has now bitten us on our ass."
http://daringfireball.net/2010/07/translation_iphone_4
amaks: Gruber is a "fan boy" whom we can expect to say only positive things about his irrational religion, Apple.
jccc: Here are three examples (from three separate years) of not just criticism but particularly hostile points of view against Apple.
valleyer: Cherry-picking!
What amaks did not say: Maybe Gruber sometimes gives them heat for things they do, but he tends to favor Apple so take what he says with a grain of salt.
What jccc did not say: Gruber is totally even-handed and doesn't favor Apple any more than Samsung, Google or Palm.
Google is just researching and trying out new products that can potentially help their bottom line - so what if some may not explode in popularity.
Their bottom line is to get more exposure to their ads, and I'm not arguing if that's good or bad. Driverless cars would mean that passengers have more time to be exposed to web ads on their phones and tablets (I'm not saying that's the primary motivation or benefit, but it certainly is a factor in Google's involvement). Expanding Internet access in cities through Google Fiber means more people can be exposed to their ads. Sharing Android freely with anyone means increased access to the web and thus Google ads. It's not too difficult to see what the motivation for developing Google Glass is - you would potentially be exposed to ads all day long, not just when you whip out your phone or when you are using your computer.
I doubt Google has as simplistic view of their business as you do.
Google's bottom line is the same as everyone else's: making money.
Currently, the ads are very lucrative for them and they use the money from ad business to both expand the ad business (like investing in YouTube or Android) AND try to find other sources of revenue (e.g. Google Fiber or Google Apps for enterprise).
You can't assume that Google is terminally stupid and can't see past their current business model.
Google Fiber is not free. If people use Comcast, they'll see as many ads from Google as if they were using Fiber. Google can estimate how much ADDITIONAL ad revenue they could expect per user from Fiber vs. Comcast usage and that's probably not much.
At $70 or $120/month, this can be very profitable business (long-term, of course, initial investment is huge). Outside of US, companies make good profit at lower prices.
Same goes for self-driving cars: transportation is a massive industry. Taxis alone are $10 billion industry. Personal car ownership and use is massive. If Google could get a piece of that business, it could be more profitable than their ad business.
I don't understand why you assume their only or main reason to develop Google Glass and self-driving cars is ads.
Their original product was a search engine. Their breakthrough money-making product was ads, indeed, and they've focused their business model on that, but I contest that it's in their DNA. Do you really think the only value they could derive out of self-driving cars is for more targeted ads?
This might be a case few years ago, but google is clearly trying to diversify its business with the high speed internet, self-driving cars, robotics. It's hard to justify these investments for the sake of ads.
High Speed Internet --> To have more data & serve you more ads throughout your whole internet experience (not just google).
Cars --> Oh, have more time while you're not driving? Spend it on your tablet / computer / device & see more ads.
Robotics --> Time freed up around the house? Spend more time online. Need to have your robot run errands for you? Approve these coupon offers at nearby grocery stores & have your robot pick them up.
Glass --> Like the outfit that person is wearing? Here's a coupon to buy it right now.
Google is an ad company. They have cool tech - but they it comes back to ads.
About self driving cars: I just want to know if you gave serious consideration to the idea of licensing the technology, and making piles of cash that way? If you did, then I assume you concluded that the advertisement possibility is an even bigger revenue source? Or you don't think that, but you believe that google has a company wide blind spot for that solution? I don't want to put words in your mouth, just want to understand deeper your reasoning.
So, could you please elaborate on why do you think self driving cars will be monetized through ads?
They invested 258 million into Uber[1]. I doubt Google . Google's mission is to "organize the world's information." Given that's their MO, once they've figured out the textual information of the web, they're moving to mapping the world & taking typically "offline" data - online.
With a bunch of driverless cars roaming the streets - they could be collecting all sorts of contextual data on people / locations / businesses that I imagine many, many people would be willing to pay for. They might not be ads in the same way you think about typical "search" ads, but they're still ads nonetheless.
Google doesn't tend to like to build actual "paid" services. Rather they create free services that draw in people / eyeballs & use that information to push their index of information even further.
Or, you know, they can just license the technology to literally every automotive company in the world, for tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars of recurring annual revenue.
This is technology that is only possible through their insane lead in all the work on Google Street View. It will take years or decades for people to catch up. Then again, there is only one Google, so perhaps nobody ever will. They have all the PhDs and the patents. They have all the ground-level data about every nook and cranny on American roadways and beyond, and a system in place that keeps this up-to-date. They have a huge economic moat on this. Who else can do this? It's a $1t+ projected future cash flow imho. You think they really give a shit about the secondary increase in advertising revenue from people surfing their web in the car, enough to give the golden goose away for free?
What you say sounds clever but really it's pretty simple: Google will have a product that everyone wants, a product that will provide a massive ROI even at a high price, and nobody else will be able to duplicate it for a very long time, if ever. No need for higher dimensional chess here. If they pull it off it will eclipse anything you or I have lived through in terms of upside for a single company.
I think that Google DNA is against making money out of licensing consumer software. They give out everything for free, they release lots of open source libraries, they even released the most important mobile operating system in the world for free, giving it out for free so that other companies can make companies selling mobiles. When they were forced to get into hardware with the Nexus line, they decided not to make a profit selling them, so that people can benefit from cheap top-tier phones.
Lots of people think of Google has some kind of hero of free software and free services for consumers and I think it kinds of match their DNA and their mission. They did started monetizing the B2B/power users services more aggressively (Google Apps doesn't have a free version anymore, Google Drive space raised three times prices now, GAE got lots more expensive, etc.), but consumer market is where scale is.
They want to organize the world information and making it freely and easily accessible. My feeling is that they won't patent and license driverless cars exactly for this reason. I think the business model they will choose for Google Glass will tell us more about this.
I think this is just semantics. If Google's technology is powering my self-driving Honda Civic, someone has to pay for it. The hardware, the software, the service, all three of those are going to cost money. Google is not going to give away the hardware, someone will buy that, but that's not where the money is. They might give away/open source some of the software, that's irrelevant.
The big question is if the live navigation and driving service is going to be like Google Maps or Google Apps.
I don't think the division between paid vs ads has anything to do with consumer vs business. It has to do with if someone will pay for it, plain and simple, or if they have to monetize it through advertising (directly or downstream.) Android they had no choice and were willing to do anything to ensure they didn't miss the smartphone train. Here, they have all the leverage and no competition.
I'm pretty sure you'll see auto manufacturers paying for the service in a license-like fashion to put it in all their cars or consumers will pay directly for the service. I don't think anyone expects their car to drive itself around for free, and will be willing to pay for it, just like they don't expect free internet service and pay google for Google Fiber. I said "licensing" but what I meant really is "pay for the service directly."
edit: Oh, and even if it turns out consumers get a free ride (literally :)) you're still looking at absurd revenue from all the commercial entities that will have a need for this technology, both traditional ones (shippers, commercial transportation) and new ones we haven't thought of yet that become possible once the tech is available, like car-sharing services or micro-shipping. Google certainly isn't going to let them use it for free.
"I don't understand why you assume their only or main reason to develop Google Glass and self-driving cars is ads."
Because everything Google does is for serving ads. Every tech that Google releases is directly or in-directly related to ad revenue. Either serve ads or collect data to sell to advertisers.
Nothing wrong with this. Many companies rely on ad revenue (Facebook or example).
But I do know Google is desperately searching for other sources of revenue. It's just that they are addicted to ads. And social media (for ads). Which, IMHO is killing the company. Their total focus on Google + (and other social apps) is sucking the life out of other interesting projects; that might yield results that aren't dependent on ad revenue. But it's hard to think out-side the box. Sad.
So your answer to the question "Why do you assume .. ads?" is "because everything .. ads". How do you not recognize that as begging the question?
And then a few sentences later you say "Google is desperately searching for other sources of revenue", which is utterly inconsistent with "because everything .. ads". Your comment does not make any sense at all.
I never really understood the reason behind driverless cars until I saw that they create 3D models of the environment they drive through. If everybody would drive a google car that would mean google has the potential of mapping the outside world in 3D in real time or atleast any place where cars can be used. The possibilities with this kind of data are pretty crazy and also a little scary.
> Google is just researching and trying out new products that can potentially help their bottom line - so what if some may not explode in popularity.
That's all good. Where it's a problem is when they take a product that they haven't sufficiently researched—haven't finished, in other words—and then charge people real dollars for them. Lots of real dollars.
I don't see the problem. Google is letting people pay to beta test their product. They aren't forcing anyone to buy anything nor are they marketing it as a finished product.
Their bottom line is to get more exposure to their ads
Anyone who says this or its many variants has no business acumen or creativity. It is the banal banter of the boring. This sounds harsh, but seriously it grows tiring watching people desperately try to stretch everything to fit some nonsensical hypothesis.
Google is a very large company and their product is technology. They happen to have entered the market at a time when advertising was literally the only way to make money online (they originally tried to use the web purely to sell business search appliances, but that didn't pan out), but assuming that their entire future business model is ads is the domain of simpletons.
And, as an aside, I see more ads on my iPad and iPod Touch than I do on my Nexus 5. Isn't that weird?
Google has amassed the most enormous, capable data system on the planet. They have more knowledge about the world, places, people and information than anyone. They have continually demonstrated a computer engineering excellence that is simply unmatched.
If you lack the creativity to understand the opportunity ahead of them (or how the lack of these things has hurt companies like Apple), you should disengage from the conversation. Simply trotting out the tired, nonsensical "hurp durp ads" rejoinder adds nothing to the conversation but demonstrates a bit of tiring flag waving.
And by your very analysis, what is DaringFireball's "product"? It is ad (and t-shirt) supported, therefore the product is ads and t-shirts?
> Google has amassed the most enormous, capable data system on the planet. They have more knowledge about the world, places, people and information than anyone. They have continually demonstrated a computer engineering excellence that is simply unmatched.
I think the real criticism is that despite all this and all the potential opportunities ahead of them, pretty much all their revenue is from ads. Personally, I don't think of this as a cause for criticism, but I do view such a single point of failure as a significant weakness.
There's no pressure for them to earn money from anything besides ads. Maybe this is cause for criticism from some Wall Street bean counters, but I don't see how it can be seen as an inherent negative for a technology company. They do a ton of interesting future tech stuff over there, arguably more than any other company in existence.
According to the OP, since Google makes most of its money from ads, they somehow only want to strategically pursue ad-based revenue. This is beyond stupid analysis. Literally every business on Earth would like to diversify their revenue stream if it were possible to do so.
Besides there are plenty of examples where Google earns revenue that isn't from ads. See: Google Apps, GAE, GCE, etc. etc. If "We Are An Advertising Company, You Are The Product (TM)" was Google's ethos and defined all the work that they do they would not have built those products.
Odd... I was under the impression that Google was created over a decade ago, and that it still looked and quacked (?) like a one-trick pony for all intents and purposes.
But who knows... Perhaps, after purchasing a zombie business for $12 billion and multiplying its staff by nearly an order of magnitude in the process, it might learn another trick or three.
And yes, isn't it very weird that Google makes more from ads displayed on iDevices than it does from ads displayed on Android devices, in spite of the fact that the latter are reputably ahead in terms of market share?
How could we possibly explain that? Is it that Android devices are used as dumb phones? That Android tablets are gathering dust in drawers? That iDevices are so superior that users don't mind the extra ad annoyance? All of the latter? Other things? I honestly wonder... If you've a sane explanation, then please, do tell, because I'm at a loss to make any sense of this myself.
What Gruber I think is missing is that if Microsoft (or Google) employees continued using products that weren't great products yet, but were commonly viewed as 'the future', the company could take the experience of those employees and improve the product to the point where it was good enough and they did want to use it.
I think Google did the right thing making Glass a limited release product, what they don't seem to have done well enough yet, is to iterate it to the point where it is adding value. Sadly, with the current backlash, I doubt they'll get there.
I doubt it. What you describe is a continuous process that normally occurs before releasing a product.
Collecting feedback from employees is indeed useful and in effect priceless when done right. Doing the same with a set of early adopters who know what they're getting into as well.
The same with a large pool of anyones, however, is a recipe to turn your not-yet-quite-ready product into something customers buy, eventually stop using, and never touch again no matter how much you improve it later on.
Think of it this way: You buy a game that is get mostly good reviews. You're unimpressed and are left scratching your head as to why it's getting them. It eventually gathers dust somewhere. A few years later, you hear that it needed this or that patched up ruleset, along with this and that mod or extension to be fun and playable. I predict that your odds of unearthing said game to give it a second try are about nil. The game had its chance and failed; you moved on, and so might Google Glass users.
From where I live I can't say for sure, as I've yet to see any Google Glass near me. But seeing how it's been widely available as a product to the press and early developers (to build hype; and it worked), and how basically any developer can now get one [1], that seems widely available enough.
Look... If, by now, Google execs consider they've collected so much feedback from its plethora of potential in-house users that they look elsewhere for more feedback, and employees ultimately aren't excited to use it themselves, it doesn't bode very well for the product's future. A golden rule to good product development is to market dogfood that you're drooling to eat (and ideally eating) yourself.
Second mouse gets the cheese on this one. I think we all realize that using screens and looking at pads all the time limit what we can really do and how we interact with people, but the current execution just won't get us there.
I don't think the current generation hardware can be used in a way that ads value. I think its way more likely that Google employees used it for a while, but couldn't find enough actual uses for it, so they couldn't iterate.
Anyway, a limited release is also wise on those circunstances. Maybe when battery and display improves, somebody (maybe even Google) could "invent" glasses again, like Apple "invented" tablets.
I think back at many products that failed to gain traction and in many cases they failed not because they didn't provide a "wow, that's cool factor" but more because they weren't built with the everyday consumer in mind.
Building something that's is cutting edge isn't the hardest part. It's building something that is cutting edge and easy to understand that's hard. The iPhone was a good example of a product that did both. We saw it and we got it and most of all, we WANTED it. Same with the iPad. Google Glass? Not so much.
And I'm sure Microsoft iterated with the tablet PC. Blackberry iterated and look where it got them.
I think Gruber is arguing that the concept may be sound (just like tablet form factor computers, portable MP3 players, and smartphones), but the implementation is probably shit.
The reason everybody carries around something that looks more like the 2007 iPhone than the 2007 Blackberries is that Apple didn't iterate. They took the concept and completely rethought it.
Somebody may be able to do this with Glass. Who knows—it might even be Google!
The coolest example of someone using Glass was a friend of mine on our recent company retreat. Up in the mountains in a beautiful hotel, out early in the morning, and looking at a beautiful view. I wanted to take a picture, and that meant fumbling out my phone in the cold, cold morning air, and taking a picture.
My friend just stood there, taking it all in, and just had to utter 5 simple words, and took a picture, never taking his eyes off the view.
We can talk all day long about how some people might find it creepy, others might find it useless, or how it's not feasible in real life yet. But what Gruber and many other miss is this simple point: why shouldn't I be able to just look at what's in front of me and take a picture? It's so much easier than anything else.
You missed it. Again. And I spelled it out simply for you: why shouldn't I be able to take a picture of what I'm seeing?
That's it. Full stop.
Back to the Glass itself: "If Glass were a good product, people who have them would wear them." But they do wear them. Do they wear them all the time? No. But then I'm not always carrying my phone with me, either. Does that make it not good? What Gruber is saying is essentially: "Yes, the iPhone is not good because I am not using it right now."
Just like my friend would use Glass when it made sense, I use my phone when it makes sense. It's as simple as that. And he preferred it to pulling out his phone. And I was envious of it.
No he didn't. A memory of the view is what you have, that's for you. The picture taken with the Glass, while nice, can be seen by others. Not everyone is happy with the thought that anything they have ever done could be reviewed by others. They (and I) perceive the Glass to be a step in that direction. It is not always socially acceptable to take a photo and that is why.
I didn't miss it. I completely understand that you'd like to take pictures of what you see and nobody or certainly not me is saying that you shouldn't.
What I am saying to you is that I don't dislike Glass because I couldn't fathom a useful application, but because on the whole I see more or at least more substantial downsides than upsides. I don't expect you to share my view, but just because I don't share yours, it doesn't mean I don't know what it is and why you have it.
I also made no comment about how much you should or shouldn't wear Glass (or phone). What I said is that if you are using something less often than expected, then it's not your fault (at least not in most cases).
I know English is not my first language, but I am reasonably certain my previous short comment said more or less this same thing.
Google tries many more high-profile "MoonShots" than most other companies.
While this is not motivated by some altruistic desire and in the end is expected to make money, this is not necessarily a bad thing.
In fact this is the essence of Silicon Valley- try innovative stuff, move the needle on what the public sees as "cool" & get more people talking about the possibilities.
Gruber is too quick to write-off products that are "creating the market" if they do not have a certain Fruit logo.
Moonshots? Google throws shit on the wall and sees if it sticks. The users who end up with something that doesn't stick get the shaft. The users who got some of the shit early on before it stopped being shit get the shaft (like early Android users).
Apple doesn't do that. They try to make a great product when they release it. It's better that way for consumer products. For SaaS it's different. You make something fast, and then iterate on it, but that's not how you do it for products that cost hundreds of dollars where you end up with shitty hardware that can't be replaced by downloading an update.
Given the dramatic nature of that statement, can you back it up with more than just a one-liner? You're implying an extreme cascade of things.
As one example in that huge cascade of implications, you're suggesting they're spending ... a billion dollars a year to look good and that Sergey Brin has no intention of creating anything ground-breaking with his life & time (while he stares down the looming parkinson's while having $30b in wealth; ie there are other things he could be doing with his time, but his goal is to appear innovative, rather than be innovative).
It's possibly worth mentioning that the original moon shots were - in a sense - exercises in publicity. OK, that's putting it a bit crudely, but if you read Kennedy's speech announcing the goal of putting a man on the moon (http://www.space.com/11772-president-kennedy-historic-speech...) he emphasizes how impressive a feat this would be, and he frames the whole enterprise in terms of a battle with the Soviets for hearts and minds of mankind.
While I can't say that I'm personally very keen on the whole idea of Google Glass, and I don't know how genuinely innovative these "moon shots" are. But even if they are not particularly innovative at all, I don't think there's anything inherently dubious about Google engaging in publicity for their vision of what the future could be.
So many are commenting on how it "looks" and if they were as fashionable as sunglasses that it would become mainstream.
I couldn't see this being farther from the truth. If it was a useful product in its current incarnation then people would be using it. I think the real problem is as of right now it just isn't that useful.
exactly. fashion is completely abstract, whether something becomes fashionable is largely based on how useful it is otherwise. Dark glasses covering your face would be supremely ugly, if they weren't so useful at shielding your eyes from the sun. Because they are useful, they have become fashionable.
Wearable technology will come into vogue the same way - you can't make something fashionable just by making it unobtrusive or inoffensive, it will be considered fashionable when the celebrities who set trends find it useful enough to start wearing it. And no google, paying models to wear it during fashion week doesn't count.
I think they need to rethink the design to make something more along the lines of conventional eyewear. For instance if they teamed up with Oakley and had some useful actual glass in front of the eyes then - in an instant - the sports market would be not just interested in the product but able to find new applications.
For instance, I would not mind an overlay 'head up display' on a cycle commute with cadence, an idea if I was on time relative to my normal journey and generally better 'telemetry' than available with the glorified digital watches that pass for cycle computers. If I could also use Glass to communicate with other riders on the road then I would be able to find more uses, e.g. if cycling with a friend and not wanting to shout whilst riding two abreast. Just having decent eyewear - the part an Oakley could bring to the table - might be the reason I would wear the things.
The rise of Oakley - starting way back in the 80's when their cycling goggles looked like ski glasses - is something I think the Google Glass team can learn from.
Usefulness is certainly a large factor but when you are being constantly told to take it off when you walk into certain businesses then the "look" of the device certainly matters. If it just looked like a pair of glasses there would be no problems.
I think a search for a single cause/effect in what makes a good product is misguided. Of course, I also think if Google were to make a marketing effort to get glass out there, it would probably do surprisingly well. And I don't even know if I like the thing.
The concept of eyewear computers is cool as hell and has tons of practical applications, but they have to actually look like eyewear. They can't make you look like the Borg.
Check out meta's spaceglasses. They look a bit "aviator", but I'm keen to get hold of some. Plenty of potential.. plus some serious domain knowledge behind them (e.g Prof Steve Mann).
I always wanted a tablet PC, but mainly for the resistive touch. I continue to be in the silent majority that wishes Apple would add fine-point stylus support to the ipad (via resistive touch or any other technology).
IPad-style capacitive touch can be combined with a pressure-sensitive stylus.
I have a ThinkPad Tablet 2 which includes a Wacom pen. The pen is great - the sensitivity is very fine-grained and makes a big difference from finger painting. For finger use, the screen is as responsive as the iPad. (Windows 8 knows when the pen is hovering over the screen and treats it like a mouse, so you get a crosshair cursor near the tip the pen. Otherwise the cursor never appears.)
Here's a thought for you. I wear glasses, I have for every day of my life for more than two decades. If Google offered me almost indistinguishable glasses that work just fine but also have a HUD that shows me things I care about (Google Now is the first step towards that) then how could I say no?
Although I would not wear google glasses, i believe that they are "preparing the ground" for upcoming, better products (that won't be necessarily only glasses). Additionally, there are some niche markets that will adopt feats of the glass quite soon.
So no, Google Glasses are not that good , but yes there is potential that may lead to different trends.
Having a camera on you totally changes the context of any interaction. Even if the other person says it's just for their private use; you don't really know. Maybe they upload it to facebook. Maybe they catch you in a bad picture, and you end up becoming some reddit meme like scumbag steve or bad luck brian or the "stop!" girl. Point being: if someone is wearing a camera on their face it's impossible to act normal around them. Glassholes don't seem to get that. I suspect it's that they're ok with being constantly on film, and don't seem to recognize why other people aren't.
If you're wearing a camera on your face, you're only going to see my "public", "don't say anything to offend people" persona, not the person I normally am, and I'm going to avoid you. So frankly I hope Glass fails, hard, because it's one of the most antisocial products ever developed.