Google Glass was prototyped in one day - with chopsticks
glass-apps.org
glass-apps.org
I guess the lesson to take is that big working systems are built on small working systems. You don't get a big system by envisioning the final result, finding someone to fund you, and getting lots of people to build it for you. You take the smallest possible first step, see if it works, and then learn from it and expand it.
I'm not doubting you claim, just wondering about the scope of it.
It's really funny, that this is the story of the the beginning of Gmail, when the part of Gmail that caught the whole world's attention was the AJAX web UI. I had always assumed Bucheit was a DHTML whiz. Storing and indexing mail already was rather old hat.
Wait, is this a part of Gmail? "other people could search his e-mail." o_O
That's the very definition of a prototype. Prototype != early version of a product. For one, it's often written in another stack, to make it easier to iterate. Second, it's more often than not, thrown away on the road to the actual product code.
>Wait, is this a part of Gmail? "other people could search his e-mail." o_O
Well, maybe not people, but their Ad serving service can surely search your email.
Because it was sth that we always wanted to use ourselves. It was a need that we felt. Okay, this should be like this and that like that. But working on it is tough! Because then comes the dirty little details. Making it happen usually too tough. Many give up, we might as well!
This is how companies get patents on obvious things. They didn't discover this.
I've been wearing glasses for nearly 30 years and have known for most of that that you can press down behind your ears and the weight seems to all disappear. Your ears don't notice it much, but your nose does.
This article seems to suggest that the core UX work could be replicated in a day, just by having normal engineers playing with clay and having a rough idea of what they want.
So, it seems to me, we must ask ourselves: how could you possibly justify patents for such a thing, given how simple it is to come up with?
Patents are awarded on novel inventions. An argument goes that if a particular invention were so simple then why hasn't anyone done it already? Motivation, ability, recompense?
One response is the right-place, right-time, etc.. That's basically the answer that everything would be invented at some point.
However the patent system has an answer to that too - the disclosure of the invention is key to gaining the limited monopoly. Earlier disclosure, as the premise goes, is beneficial to the people of the state granting the monopoly. Thus even if the invention is simple - provided it's not "obvious" [in the domain specific meaning of the term] - then the reward is still being provided for a benefit.
I think not. In fact, I think that the culture of hacking which has done so much good for this world pretty much demands immediate and unfettered access to the opportunity to play with these ideas.
Generally patent law allows unfettered access for personal or research purposes, including commercial research, but limits commercial exploitation.
So with [high quality] patents you get access to a vast database of knowledge which would otherwise be locked up in commercial secrets.
Anyways on a serious note, I for some reason, feel that though google glass would be a hit product, the concept is still lacking something important. I don't know what, but for some reason, I don't see myself, sticking to it, beyond a certain period of time.
The Attention aspect is being overlooked as well, no matter how good it can make our life, it would still require a lot of attention from me, like a heavy mental application of sorts.
This will be a very interesting test of Collinridge's Dilemma.
And it shows. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI
Come to think of it, still, I'd rather put chopsticks in my eyes than Google Glass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI