Hacker News Reader

> Neither the users not the developers really know what the application is.

While I do agree with the general point about not judging experimental devices too harshly you're making an assumption there that there is an application for general purpose, wearable smart glasses.

I'm really skeptical. I did some work with Google Glass back in the day and irrespective of the way it looked it was really socially jarring. You could be in a conversation with someone and see their eye drift upwards to read whatever notification arrived on their device. It felt rude. At the same time who can blame them for looking at the flickering message an inch from their eye? Snapchat sunglasses felt socially jarring in a different way: whenever you were wearing them you were constantly pointing a camera at someone.

There's something very fundamental to the nature of these things that makes me feel like they just don't work. I can see them being incredibly useful in professional contexts (IIRC there were trials with giving Google Glass to surgeons, makes a ton of sense) but as a general thing we're all going to be wandering around with strapped to our faces? I dunno.

Good points. I haven't used wearable tech like this and always thought it would a pain for the wearer. I didn't consider what it would be like for the person on the either end. Who wants to interact with a person that is distracted by visual information?

> You could be in a conversation with someone and see their eye drift upwards to read whatever notification arrived on their device. It felt rude.

I would like to extend this to smart watches. So many conversations I have had where someone is constantly glancing at their watch. I know it is just an automatic response to some vibration but sometimes it feels rude.

To be fair, looking at one's watch while in the middle of a conversation has always been a rude gesture whether the watch is smart or not. In some cultures, it's a deliberate gesture to indicate a lack of interest in the other person and/or the conversation.

It is rude, and exacerbated by smart watches; just not unique to them.

>There's something very fundamental to the nature of these things that makes me feel like they just don't work.

Possibly, though my intuition is the opposite. I don't think social norms are "fundamental" in a strict sense. They're just important. That said, the reasons not to jump in the deep end is because it makes fundamental-unsovlvable problems indistinguishable from advanced problems that will be solvable later.

IE, if someone is using smart glasses for work or some other activity where they are useful, they might expand their use into other activities.

You could not have invented Tinder or snapchat in 1994. User density, camera, ubiquity, and other hardware issues matter. Besides technical issuaes, culture also had to develop before people felt comfortable using real names, posting pics and meeting people from online. If everyone already posts on facebook, the world may be ready for online dating, online therapy, etc.

Great comment and it immediately made me think up the only use case which would appeal to me right now.

I have started swimming and I am timing myself with a stopwatch on my wrist. I am already wearing goggles because hard contact lenses and freestyle. The watch is hard to see with the goggles on, and I have to 'search' the stop button which adds latency.

I would love to have a stopwatch in-view.

I’m a convert to physical buttons for this reason (though I’m not a swimmer).

A Garmin watch that allows for all interactions to be done via easy to find physical buttons and well thought out data screens was a huge improvement for my own use cases.

I am using a 'dumb' Lorus watch ( 17 euros ). Those used to cost a fortune when I was a kid ...

edit: https://www.kish.nl/nl/428539/lorus-horloge-digital-r2365ax9...

I think what you are wanting exists https://www.formswim.com/

FWIW I tried them out, I liked the screen, but the shape of the goggles really takes out your already limited peripheral vision which I couldn't get used to and returned them.

Cool, thanks and will check it out ( I don't like the smartphone sync, but maybe it still useful without ).

> Failures like Google glass get so much criticism no one wants to try.

Uber has burned up over $100bn in capital, let's not pretend that hurt feelings is what's holding the smart glasses sector back. Maybe companies don't want to try because they've looked into it and decided that a pair of sunglasses with an EULA is too hard of a sell.

This. Inventors, either individual or corporate, are not afraid of repeating failures. Every inventor is 100% convinced that their version is revolutionary. Overconfidence is the problem, not sensitive feelings.

> Wearables, ultimately, are an expiremental product. Neither the users not the developers really know what the application is.

I think we know what the killer applications are, and the problem is that the killer apps for wearables (especially glasses type devices) have deep societal/ethical concerns. The apps that would sell well are mostly "situational awareness" for law enforcement, sales (used car credit checks before rep engages), venue security (don't let people with records/bad social credit in), etc... Connecting face recognition, credit/background checks and putting that at the point of sale or entry. Unfortunately, it's coming. I'm not sure this is going to make the world better.

BTW - UI, design and all of that really matters less than you would think if the application has great utility and benefit (to the wearer/wearer's employer). The problem is a lot of the apps I've seen don't really do anything that is all that remarkable or useful enough to make your "greeters" wear them.

A lot of the criticism comes down to the fact that the ideas seem objectively terrible. I don’t mean for a design standpoint. Look how awful smartphones have been? Wearables, at least currently just seem like even more intrusive, physically uncomfortable smartphones. Especially when Google or Meta are the ones designing them. I just don’t see a world where a Meta wearable is anything but terrible.

Wait, smartphones have been “awful”? In what way?

I just grabbed a Starbucks that I ordered on the way so there was no wait, exchanged some texts with friends who live 8000 miles away, and responded to an urgent work email that 30 years ago would have been a “drop everything and drive into the office” phone call.

I mean there are downsides, like anything, but it’s hard for me to see smartphones as anything but a net godsend. Do people really think they’re in the same category of bad as Google Glasses?

> I mean there are downsides, like anything, but it’s hard for me to see smartphones as anything but a net godsend.

That smartphones involve tradeoffs means that some people will find the downsides worth it, and others won't.

I used to find them worth it, but starting a couple of years ago, I realized that they aren't for me. This is why my current one will be my last one.

> Do people really think they’re in the same category of bad as Google Glasses?

In the sense of there being tradeoffs, yes, I do. The eyewear form factor has much larger downsides, though. The primary reason why I don't like them is the same reason why I hate using my smartphone in public: it seems very rude. But with the eyeglass form factor, it's harder to slip them into my pocket.

> Wearables, ultimately, are an expiremental product.

Undercover cops love tech, the apple airpods are a classic example, they are excellent for recording conversations, so when you get a stranger wearing a pair, or meta raybans, or even a mobile phone in hand engaging you in conversation, they are phishing for self incrimination.

So can you really say, they are experimental? Seems like they are being put to good/bad use.

When you are a company the size of FB/Googs, a product that is only used in such a niche way by such a small number of users is not a successful product. So yeah, they would probably much rather the public think of it as an experiment that didn't gain traction to save face rather than releasing yet another failing product. The example you described would probably have users described with numbers in the thousands. These companies are used to numbers in the billions, so that doesn't even make them get out of bed in the morning.

This is my take as well. "...audio, connectivity, and 'some of the hardware features, including battery life.'" So similar complaints to early smartphones. That sounds like a great outcome to me.

What you wrote is well written and thought out. I do agree with the sentiment that it’s worthwhile to try to make such products. I wonder though if a large part of the backlash has more to do with the who is behind the product than from a failed attempt. People don’t trust Google or Facebook. There are people like me who want them to fail when coming up with new products because ultimately those products, if they succeed, are going to be ad filled experiences.

> if they succeed, are going to be ad filled experiences.

So will self driving taxis be an experience where the passenger is bombarded with adverts projected onto all the glass so you cant see where you going?

I'm surprised this has not already appeared in the US!

Seven years ago I got a taxi in Las Vegas to go from the airport to my hotel. The whole ride had ads blaring from the radio and the backseat area was filled with display ads. I’ve never taken a taxi since then. What you describe will be a thing in the U.S. if self driving becomes a thing. We already can’t get gas without being bombarded with ads. To me this fact is the main reason I hope to get an electric car someday.

> We already can’t get gas without being bombarded with ads.

Thank goodness this hasn't become common in my part of the country yet. The only gas stations that do this are the ones near the major hotels that out-of-towners stay at (where the gas is also more expensive), so they're easily avoided.

> I'm surprised this has not already appeared in the US!

It has, but on touchscreen displays instead of the windows. It's exceedingly terrible.

> People don’t trust Google or Facebook

yeah, even non-HNers aren't likely to want to use hardware tied to something called "Facebook View" to manage their photos (it actually doesn't sync photos with Facebook unless you specifically ask it to never mind having any means to display ads or inject viral videos and political content into your eyeballs, but if they need to explain that...)

If they only optionally sync it's better than I thought - clearly they're explaining badly enough that even some articles I've seen about it didn't mention that was optional.

>yeah, even non-HNers aren't likely to want to use hardware tied to something called "Facebook View"

The sales of Oculus Quest units seems to disagree

People don’t trust Facebook but still use Facebook. I believe given two equally good implementations of a product the one made by Facebook will be less popular. As it stands now Oculus is the only standalone VR device and people will use it despite being owned by Facebook.

When I got my Oculus, it was half the price of the Vive. I always assumed that zuck is eating a loss to capture eyeballs.

Thanks

... and sure it is. I certainly am not hoping for Meta to succeed in owning the metaverse.

That said, the sentiments can add up to an impulsive "roast em!" habit that discourages risk taking, even risk thinking. It's ultimately much easier and less interesting to consider how things can fail than how they can succeed.