Google Glass is coming back | Hacker News Reader

Google Glass is coming back

dispatch.com

54 pointstuyguntn81 comments

Isn't this old news? I can't find the specific article I recall reading w/Google talking about renewing efforts to integrate with industrial and medical uses, but there are tons of recent links out there:

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/02/medical-stude...

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/health/uae-doctors-use-google-...

and the developer page shows at least 3 medical-oriented partner cos: https://developers.google.com/glass/distribute/glass-at-work...

Here's a craigslist job ad for a co using Glass: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/tch/5353555299.html

And this article says that the "Glass at Work" program was started in April 2014: http://www.eweek.com/mobile/next-google-glass-version-could-...

Sooo.. clickbait and old-news.

I hope they target this iteration more towards people who already wear glasses -- these are people who have already resigned themselves to placing a plastic object on their face every single day. The amount of change from there to a Google Glass is much less than for someone who doesn't wear glasses.

If you could order Google Glass with prescription lenses, you'd probably find a lot more takers than people who are suddenly willing to put a computer on their face.

The funny thing is, I finally got the prescription frames for Glass... about a month before I stopped wearing them. Even with their frames, the cost to buy lenses specifically for a device I may not use all the time... It's a big cost.

They'd likely be far better off figuring out how to clip Glass to existing frames, or at least ensure if they do offer specific prescription frames for Glass, that the Glass device itself can be removed from them.

... as if prescription frames and lenses aren't already pricey enough! I got my new frames from this cute shop in the Castro and between the lenses and frames WITH insurance it was still $800. Oof.

Not sure if that was bait or not, but you can get normal (i.e. not google glass) lens + frames for less than £10 delivered in the UK from many different online retailers.

The quality is not amazing - they probably won't last more than a year or so, but then neither does a prescription.

Glasses don't need to be expensive.

Maybe things are handled a bit different in the UK than they are here. Generally getting any glasses starts with a visit to your optometrist. Very few people actually get the prescription settings of their lenses handed to them (maybe that's different in the UK?), but place their order through the same vision place as their eye doctor.

Lenses are usually a couple hundred dollars, and your frames will probably be a hundred or more as well. Usually if you have insurance with vision coverage, it helps pay for some or all of that, for a single pair, on a semi-regular basis.

That will be for nothing more than the most basic single-vision low-index lenses.

Once you start adding features like anti-reflective coatings, high index lenses, comfortable frames, and other things that are bordering on essential for constant use, the cost skyrockets.

If they can prevent the image of Robert Scoble in the shower becoming the public perception of Google Glass this time around, they might just make it.

Was there any doubt to this? I like spending my day at the command line and never tried out the Glass but I find it pretty easy to see the advantages of. I mean, the concept of its advantages seem at least as good as they do for having an extra monitor.

Perhaps Google's big mistake was to release it as a consumer product first? If it dominated enterprise, particularly in hands-on fields like surgery and repair...seems like consumers would adopt it out of technoenvy.

there is no extra monitor, you get postage stamp size EGA resolution window in upper right corner of one eye

I don't think they intended to release explorer edition for consumer use at all; however, when the news hit and everyone was trying to get their hands on one they ended up trying to pivot a beta development platform into a consumer product and failed. Seems to me they have simply rolled back to their initial release plan.

It is also worth noting that Google is known to sink money into projects where the main payoff is data for another project; see Google 411, which was used as training data for their voice recognition.

Google Glass is just the natural evolution of the wearable. It will not replace smartphones, but will extend it. Everyone talks about the camera, but there were some fundamental issues with the Glass that have been addressed by wearables and advancing tech.

Do I have to touch my face to use it? Talking to it seemed awkward at the time, and voice interfaces for smartphones were still new in 2013. But now with Siri/Ok Google/Alexa, talking to a computer seems more natural. And it just works better.

What do I do with the screen? Wearables have shown that you don't have to choose between a smart phone in and a watch, and they work better together. Expect better apps that display notifications or core information (like navigation) on the Glass but advanced features and configuration is still on the phone.

Do I look like an asshole? The first generation showed that people don't want to wear something so alien. Wearables don't look like Leela's communicator. They look like watches.

Everyone saw this coming. The Glass was a bit early still for the tech, and people's acceptance of it.

The big problem with The Glass is that people don't like being overtly recorded in private spaces. Bars started banning them for good reason.

I think that issue will fade over time. Society is quickly adjusting to the panoptical norm. People complain that they do not like being monitored, but few do anything beyond the cursory installation of an ad blocker. HN is very much in the minority when it comes to digital privacy concerns.

Also, it's not hard to record covertly with a smartphone right now.

It's actually very difficult to covertly record with a smartphone. You may think you're being sly and discrete, but everyone sees you doing it.

You can put it in some kind of camouflaged spy gadget, but I expect that to be about 1 in a million random weirdos so I don't worry about it. When suddenly everyone has the opportunity to do it with some thing on their face, it's a different story.

Quite honestly I just don't see a good reason for the camera. There was never a useful application for them - attempts at augmented reality were shitty, not useful, or creepy (or all of the above).

e.g., that app that would show you someone's LinkedIn profile when you looked at them. Yeesh.

Add that to the (IMO at least somewhat fair) criticism around private spaces and IMO there's not a good case for keeping it. I'm personally hoping the next iteration at least has the option of being camera-less, and that they add in the requisite indicator light if the camera is on.

The creepy facial recognition apps were demos or proof-of-concepts. Part of the conditions for developing for glass (at least when i was an explorer) include agreeing to not do facial recognition at all.

I strongly disagree with your assessment of the camera as being "never useful."

The best experiences I had with glass revolve around "OK glass. record a video"

Whether it's catching someone's license plate in traffic, doing something really cool and sharing the first-hand experience with my friends, or recording a pool shot or curling throw so that i can later review it to work on my form.

The cards were far too limited. Any meaningful engagement involves pulling out your phone. In fact, I would argue that without the camera, There is absolutely no point to google glass. You can do google voice commands and use headphones with any new phone.

> "Whether it's catching someone's license plate in traffic, doing something really cool and sharing the first-hand experience with my friends, or recording a pool shot or curling throw so that i can later review it to work on my form."

Only the first use case is actually improved by having the camera on your face rather than your phone.

I'll gladly admit that having the camera already strapped to your face makes it faster to use than something you have to pull out of your pocket - the problem is that this speed has very little marginal benefit 99% of the time, and pulling the phone out of your pocket isn't really that big of a pain in the ass.

I see Glass similarly to how I see most Smart-Things - they solve a problem that most people don't really regard as problems.

It's either strictly inferior to pulling out your phone (via limited/inaccurate/slow input like voice or the swipe-pad), or it's slightly superior but only marginally so. And it's 95/5 the former vs. the latter. Not a compelling case for a product at all.

> "Part of the conditions for developing for glass (at least when i was an explorer) include agreeing to not do facial recognition at all."

I'm aware, which makes the device even more pointless. At least the LinkedIn Recognizer had some semblance of a use case, albeit creepy. I don't think anyone was able to come up with anything mass-market using the camera that was actually useful - niche enterprise uses most certainly, but mainstream mass market?

> "In fact, I would argue that without the camera, There is absolutely no point to google glass. You can do google voice commands and use headphones with any new phone."

I half-agree with you - I don't see much point in Google Glass outside of niche enterprise/industrial context, camera or no. That said it might be the less shitty smartwatch (itself a product that solves a problem most people don't really regard as problems) - I'd prefer a little screen at the corner of my vision over a buzzing vibrating blob hanging off my wrist demanding I raise my arm every time.

So yeah, maybe Google Glass can rival smartwatches in terms of usefulness. Fine company it keeps, then.

Actually, that LinkedIn facial recognition app sounds awesome. I have trouble putting names to faces at large events like tech conferences, and it would be great to have a subtle 'This is Bob, the CTO of WhateverCorp, you have a meeting with him next week about the Random project' show up when I scan a room. Isn't facial recognition and then looking up the relevant background details the go-to application for most 'futuristic' imaginings of wearable tech?

This is the worst argument in my opinion. People can record you in private spaces using cell phones and watches without you ever knowing. Not to mention security cameras.

That's all a far stretch from the idea of interacting with someone who you know has a camera pointed at you all time.

Glass is new form of something that is currently: done covertly (hidden cams, sneaky smartphone use), obtrusively and temporarily (holding up a camera/smartphone) or by entities that already eschew social convention for their own business ends (security).

I see the act of wearing glass as a social confrontation. A dare that says the wearer think upping the intrusiveness and pervasiveness of recording should be fine because Google said so. And the reaction to the first roll out shows that people feel similarly.

This sort of notion ignores major realities of Google Glass: That it is not realistically capable of continuous recording, and that taking a photo with it has always been pretty obvious/distinct of a behavior.

If I wanted to take a photo of you with Glass, you'd have plenty of time to turn away, put your hand up, or whatever. And you'd certainly know I was doing it.

Not bothering with privacy rules because of on the technical constraints of today's technology is a dangerous game, because when better technology comes along you might find what "everyone does" is already on the wrong side of all the clear lines in the sand.

I mean, 50 years ago it would have been ridiculous to suggest the government could transcribe and search all phone calls - consider the incredible cost of all those typists, filing cabinets and reel-to-reel tapes! If someone had said "because we already have technical constraints, there's no need for ethical or legal constraints" we'd be in a difficult position when the technically impossible became possible.

Sure, but this is no different than smartphones. The parent comment above mine says Glass is a "new form", but it really isn't. It's just an Android device with a worse-than-average camera and a worse-than-average battery life and a worse-than-average capability to covertly record other people.

In the vein that you can buy a pen camera that'll do a much better job for $30, worrying specifically about Glass seems silly.

Security camera footage rarely ends up on Facebook, though.

The objection to this is how incredibly powerful pervasive recording has been in exposing social injustice, on many levels. Recording the outrageous racist behavior of police is done in large part by users taking recordings.

We had the exact same problem initially with cellphones, if you remember. Even down to bars banning cameraphones.

All Glass1 needed was a damn recording/capture light and the entire problem would be gone.

A recording/capture light wouldn't have solved anything. (The new model does have one, mind you.)

The reason it wouldn't have helped, is that the Glass screen had to be on during photo capture/recording, and it's quite noticeable when it is to the observer. It's "a light".

Most people who seemed to take issue with Glass had never actually seen one. I had no issues with anyone I interacted with over the year or so I wore mine daily.

> The reason it wouldn't have helped, is that the Glass screen had to be on during photo capture/recording, and it's quite noticeable when it is to the observer. It's "a light".

A clear, recognizable red recording light is MUCH more recognizable and reassuring than the screen light and the, "I am totally not recording right now."

Also google's decision to market an experimental device in the most pretentious way possible still is a pretty amusing and cringeworthy. We got one and went through the sales "gallery" thing. We were struggling not to laugh the entire time.

Hopefully they'll be smart and hand out devices to people like photojournalists, doctors and other professionals who will help make the idea more... adult.

Google definitely could've done a better job addressing concerns quickly. But while a red light, sure, would be more recognizable, I doubt it would be any more reassuring if it wasn't on.

Again, almost anyone who complained about this issue had never actually encountered a Glass Explorer IRL. My experiences interacting with people for real were entirely different than the comments of those online expressing such concern.

Google allegedly did select Explorers based on what they said they'd do with the device. But then it turned out they outsourced evaluating or completely not reading responses to the contest, and pretty much selected randomly. The person who said they'd use it to "cut a b----" won one.

Honestly, the best thing they could've done to dissuade concerns was to have more events in more places where people could try them on, and see what the thing was about. (And early, before selling them widely.) In my personal experience, nearly everyone I encountered wanted to try them, and wanted to know more about them. I encountered zero people with strong concerns about the device in my daily travels.

That was always a silly argument. Every bar has security cameras. Everyone at the bar has a camera in their phone. It was a pretty crappy camera without enough battery to stay recording. If you wanted to record someone this would be the last thing you would use. Bars started banning them because other customers were made uncomfortable but it was always just FUD.

The real problem is the design. They're too conspicuous. The state of art in electronics (or design) isn't quite there yet. When they make a version that's less Borg-like, more people will want to wear one.

I personally hope they keep working and iterating on Glass because I like the concept.

I'm also wondering if their investment in Magic Leap will lead to improvements of Google Glass.

It seemed to me like it was the camera that provoked a backlash from general public. People still like to know when they are being photographed or in a video and I'm not sure putting a light on it is going to solve that. Wish Google would make the camera a separate and obvious accessory for those sort of social interaction concerns as I'd actually be interested in a quick heads up display.

Or maybe make it produce a loud "snap" sound, like all Japanese cellphones do (by industry-wide agreement, to prevent... perhaps obvious things), but that might not persuade the public.

It would be almost impossible to enforce this. I've had several phones that try to force a shutter sound on me and I have always found a way to disable them.

Yeah, that's a problem. A determined person could even open it up and just remove the speaker.

While the wink-to-take-a-photo feature added much later might've been a concern, the two primary (and most reliable) ways to take photos were to physically raise your hand to press the shutter button, or to say "Okay glass, take a photo". Neither of those two methods are remotely subtle.

It's unlikely this is any less obvious of an interaction than anything you could accomplish while holding a smartphone.

I wasn't a big user of the camera feature on my Glass because of Google's mandatory policy of Auto Upload, so it certainly wasn't a key requirement for me. But I don't see that backlash as legitimate. I also never got concerns or complaints while wearing it for over a year, most people who took issue online, when asked, admitted they'd never seen the device in real life.

I think you're absolutely correct that Google Glass users taking lots of unwanted and unnoticed pictures wasn't a big issue. I do think that most people won't understand those nuances and just don't like having a camera pointed at them all the time. It will be interesting to see if social norms catch up to the current law that people in public can be photographed/recorded freely. From a product standpoint I'd like to see Google launch a camera free version, get people used to it and then put a camera on it.

I had an on the cheap solution, that I never had to use: I have a 3D printed slip cover (designed and printed by a fellow Explorer) which fits snugly onto the Glass frame and covers the camera.

Why have a camera-free version, when you could simply put a cap on the camera?

I'm not concerned about glass photos as much as video. Neither the physical gesture nor the spoken command do much if it's started/executed out of eyesight/earshot.

The screen is on 100% of the time when video is being recorded. While it's not bright enough to be distracting, it is very clear it's active if you look at it.

I still don't understand why so many people get absurdly, irrationally angry about something that's pretty much the equivalent of duct taping an old cell phone to your hat.

Even on "technophile" web hangouts, I saw all kinds of comments and the like about things like "if I ever see somebody wearing that I'm going to punch them in the face and take it away from them!".

I think it's kinda simple. If I told you I was watching you right now, it would be creepy. People don't like being watched when they can't control it. Some people don't like being watched at all. It's a pretty normal human response. I know that I for one get all weird and vain and uncomfortable when someone is taking a picture. At least then I know I can relax when they put their phone down. I'd guess the reaction is some variant of that reflex.

This is probably more related to the cost. Someone who can throw away USD 1500 (or similar, I believe it was that ballpark) on Glass is not only an asshole, they're a rich asshole, and therefore fair game. Never underestimate the way money can unsettle people irrationally.

Or more realistically, people don't want to know when they're being photographed. It's trivially easy to photograph covertly and have nobody know about it. People just don't want to know.

I think a big goal was not just the HUD, but having augmented reality. You can't do AR without a camera. But I'm with you. A HUD simple HUD product would alleviate much of the backlash.

Given the likes of Amazon, FedEx, UPS etc, I would think that inventory management would be a huge use for something like Google Glass... drivers, part pickers, packers, etc... anyone that needs to move the right products from A to B, mapping where A and B are, etc. The time savings could be significant.

I think Google should solve a problem with this hardware internally, baking it until its something every employee wants and then look towards the consumer.

Between glass and google plus, I don't get why they try to force these lame things nobody wants on their customers. Shouldn't google be smarter than that??

It's called experimenting. You can't always get it right without getting it wrong sometimes.

> Then again, consumers might not be the main focus for Glass anymore.

So, that's like saying it's dead for the consumer market, and isn't this the playing field we're talking about? It shouldn't be a surprise that a product like this would cater to a niche market, but that doesn't qualify it as "coming back".

I'm not sure Enterprise is niche. There are, of course, the "privacy concerns" against glass that make it not much of a consumer product - but it has shown to be fantastic for certain use cases.

So maybe it's not "coming back" but it's not "dead"

What use cases is it fantastic for?

It's been used a bit in the medical industry. Just do a google for it and a lot more articles come up.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2015/02/medical-stude... http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/google-glass-enters...

It can be very useful as a personal protective equipment in some industrial sectors too. Augmented reality can save lives!

This. http://vimeo.com/101826751

The "privacy concerns" the news focused on was mostly nonsense. It's pretty impossible to covertly record someone with Glass. Yet most people didn't realize the real privacy concerns... Google insisted on uploading Glass owners' photos to their servers without their permission.

I think uploading users' photos without their permission definitely counts as a privacy concern.

I'm still unconvinced by the form factor. Perhaps Google Fedora would be an easier sell?

Oh God, can you imagine the jokes? "Fedora guys" are an Internet joke already.

I actually loved the form factor, if it wasn't for the software, I'd still be wearing mine. As a prescription lens user to begin with, the majority of people I interacted with didn't seem to notice my Glass a lot of the time, and I forgot I was wearing it myself when I wasn't using it.

Does adding a light to Glass really solve the problem of covert recording? Does getting rid of Glass even do that?

Cameras are tiny. Privacy is dying.

The difference is what's called "normalization". Sure, everyone can get a covert camera. But few people are going to buy and use one, because they'd feel like a creep and/or they can't use it as a fashion statement and/or it's not as useful by itself. So unless you're being specifically targeted, the chances of being filmed are small. But if using a device with a camera always pointed at others (unlike cellphones, which usually remain in pockets and bags) and which uploads everything to "the cloud" becomes normal, it becomes almost impossible to avoid the pervasive monitorization.

As the US Privacy Study Commission wrote in 1977, "the real danger is the gradual erosion of individual liberties through automation, integration, and interconnection of many small, separate record-keeping systems, each of which alone may seem innocuous, even benevolent, and wholly justifiable."

I think they could tap into "The Selfies Craze" - in other words, turn the camera to face the wearer.

Edits - so instead of "World, here's what I'm seeing" they should focus on "World, here's me looking at cool stuff". Sad, but probably more consumer friendly.

I mean, that's not a BAD idea. It's crazy and a total abuse of a great tech. But the selfie stick inventor and cardboard sleeve around the coffee inventor dude probably both thought the same thing.

Post Snowden, I don't think Glass can ever happen

Downvoters: don't just hit down... let me know why I'm wrong!

Why not? Have significant numbers of people changed their behaviour post-Snowden?

Even when talking with non-tech people, I've seen that it's had a chilling effect. People are now aware of the depth of the surveillance state. Sadly, this hasn't caused any uprisings.

Amazon hired some key folks who worked on Google glass v1 (babak parviz and friends). Best guess, they're building something for warehouse workers.

not likely, Amazon is building something to _replace_ meatbag workers, why would they want to invest in meat?

They're replacing some "meatbags", in the next decade. And they only add Kiva to new warehouses, they haven't been retrofitting. So they'll have "meatbags" for a while. If they can build a compelling warehouse assistant HUD they'll then sell it to others and then expand into larger markets like everything else they do?

If they can get something compelling for 5 years that saves 10% on labor, that's billions of dollars and established expertise in a major market.

> ...they'll then sell it to others...

But they didn't do that with Kiva, they stopped selling those awesome warehouse robots the minute they bought the company.

retroffiting probably wouldnt work due to layoffs compensation, severance package etc. Instead they will shut whole warehouses and replace them with cheaper ones. They already did that in Europe (moved from Germany to Poland)

Um.

As a programmer I am in the job-destruction business. I think a society with fewer jobs and more automation can be a better society for everyone provided we simultaneously shift in the direction of more of a social safety net for the unemployed and hopefully a UBI. But right now a lot of people are very frightened by that job destruction and they're not totally wrong to be. It is causing a lot of short-term suffering, and a lot of people blame us.

Let's not start calling the people we unemploy "meatbags", ok?

Maybe we can also get Clooney to fire them. Sorry, I mean give them an early retirement opportunity.

Thats what we are from robots perspective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXvVVCr_6P8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-1ry9zMi4o

Ignoring the tone-deafness of "meatbag", human workers will continue to be part of Amazon's systems for a long time to come, so it makes sense to develop things for humans.

Robots are - and will continue to be in the foreseeable future - massively expensive, require long lead times, and slow to scale. In the current state of the US economy I can hire several thousand humans to do a job practically overnight, while buying/renting several thousand industrial robots requires both considerably more money and time.

Amazon's business is highly seasonal, which naturally favors options with low initial cost but high marginal cost (humans) rather than high initial cost and low marginal cost (robot). Near-total replacement of a high-variance business process with robots is likely impractical and will continue to be for a long time.

ugh, meatbag is a pop culture reference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-1ry9zMi4o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYMnimTvt3M

Phones continue to be a bigger or equivalent privacy threat to the individual user and others than Glass ever was. The ability to discreetly take photos and short, low-quality videos also continues to be something highly possible with phones and other consumer tech.

One can at least assume that most people carrying phones don't have their microphone and camera on all the time - with Glass, that intrusion into privacy is designed to be unavoidable.

There is again absolutely no difference between phones and glass in this regard... Android phones now have trigger word detection ("OK Google") available as well, which is all that glass did. Again like a phone, the camera is only on when triggered.

The only real difference is positioning, but you can hold a phone up, and most people won't notice.

Why don't you go spend a day with your cellphone taped to your forehead recording video and see how many people notice?

I don't think the idea of a wearable computer is inherently a privacy concern. Having computers is an enablement, it puts information (and thus, power) in the hands of everyday consumers.

The key differentiator, of course, is that Google Glass is a cloud input device. Auto Upload of photos taken with Glass is mandatory (despite my constant feedback to the Glass team regarding the concern).

I would really love to see a computer in the Glass form factor which was truly open, and kept the control of the platform in the hands of the user. I loved my Glass hardware, but I had issues with the software and the cloud dependence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com