I just wore Google's glasses for 2 weeks and I'm never taking them off
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
To me it's like someone getting the first Segway and saying they'll never live a day without it. It might be great to them as a nerd, but doesnt do anything to validate how everyone else is going to view it.
The only things he mentions using it for is directions and taking pictures, my phone works perfectly for both those things (I can't remember any time where I've missed a good picture because I couldn't get my phone in time)
Maybe its something you need to try to really understand, but I'm not excited by it.
But that's not enough to convince me of the usefulness of smart glasses.
Nonetheless, I'd love to try one out for a couple weeks and I can see me buying one for USD$ 200 if it gets to that price.
The future versions have unlimited possibilities such as automatically recording live events then replaying them, playing games, taking inventory, or even overlaying TV shows on top of screens at a bar so that you can effectively watch whatever you want. Infrared, night-vision, and auto-tracking of objects are also possibilities.
The military has had such a system for many years, it's called Land Warrior. It can map waypoints in a 3d environment, give directions, display messages, and display any information that the user needs. I imagine that in the near future the system will be able to identify hostiles or friendlies, detect mortars instantly and tell the user where to move, and will be integrated with the boomerang shooter detection system.
The possibilities are endless, we have to start somewhere though.
I buy a device for what it can actually do, not for the potential of what it could do in 3-100 years time.
The ironic part about you bringing up Land Warrior program is that Land Warrior was cancelled in 2007. It still lives on but has never been expanded and or been adopted by other units or branches of the US military.
[0] http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrheinmetall-starts-g...
The current version of Glass is for early adopters, if you are not purchasing a device to explore it's potential then you are not an early adopter.
Wave is still somewhat alive (donated to Apache). Google made it clear that Google Documents (and it's collaborative editing features) would be the replacement for Wave and would be more useful.
Not sure how you thought of the bar scenario, but people usually go to bars to socialize, they watch a game or show but usually in a group setting and that starts a conversation, debate etc etc about it. Not sure if enough people go to bars with dorky glasses on so they could watch whatever they like, alone. No doubt some would, but most would not.
>> taking inventory
Niche and "There's an [or 500] app/s for that."
>> automatically recording live events then replaying them
IMO that takes away from enjoying it, unless you're being paid to record it.
My point is that niche applications exist but most people will not see the benefit of having glasses on. Google loves them, imagine the "unlimited possibilities" of showing ads right in your eyeball, but what's in for the wearer? Not much, IMO.
P.S. I tune out people like Scoble, they're famous for being famous and they cement this by being social media whores "early adopters" or whatever. His opinion means jack, in fact it's worse since he's sponsored by RackSpace. Each time he gets mentioned, it's better for them and for him, thus the bombastic claims.
Maybe have a feature that records up to X minutes of video and overwrites it unless the user decides to manually save part of that video.
Even during sexy time, overlay a face of gwyneth paltrow onto your partner.
How about threat detection? Any snakes or dangerous creatures could automatically highlight in red and a warning message could pop up "Don't step here!".
The "dorky" argument is just a societal norm. They have many plans for less dorky looking versions. The eventual use of this would be built into your eyeball or a contact lens. Yes, it's a halfway scary future but our children will not see it that way. I'm not saying it's the right way to go but it's worth discussion.
I assume you've never been in a relationship. Nothing will turn a woman more than saying I am having sex with you because I'm dreaming of [movie star] ;)
How about threat detection? Any snakes or dangerous creatures could automatically highlight in red and a warning message could pop up "Don't step here!".
In the middle of Manhattan or in cities where most Americans live? Even for that niche application you have to wear glasses while climbing, running and sweating.
You think wrong, unless I was paid to promote them.
>>also, calling glasses dorky makes you one of those bullies everyone on here loves to hate. what's wrong with glasses?
People wearing them look like @ssholes and dorky. Of course IMO, some might find them sexy. I don't http://hungrytravels.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bluetoot...
I much prefer to start such sentences with "I", so that I don't come across as condescending.
I've recently took up cycling to work and back, and would love to have speed/gears/time up on the glasses, instead of having to look and focus down. Riding my scooter would also be better with it, since the speedometer and turning light indicators are a bit out of my normal field of vision.
Also, be able to see who's calling on the cell phone would be a plus (I've found that having the phone 'say' who's calling results in a jumble that I can't make heads or tails of, as most of the names are not English names)
So it seems Orwell didn't anticipate that we would carry the cameras that spy on us with us ... take it a couple more steps further and the secret service have a system where they can look through anyone's [with smart-glasses] eyes at what they're seeing.
Imagine Boston if after the bombing the authorities could requisition the view of everyone over the previous hour (cached for your convenience) and run that through a mapping program that can literally recreate the 3D scene with peoples movements and interactions for that whole period. Awesome power.
The 3D mapping thing has already been done. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.5982v1.pdf
I don't think it's about understanding, but rather imagining what could be done better with this technology. A lot of workers are carrying barcode scanners and tablets around in the field today because they need to input or access information. That's a potentially very lucurative niche.
I don't really think (and certainly don't hope) Google Glass will ever be socially acceptable, though.
People who purchase one for the games are doing nothing but providing funding to help improve the technology for the people who actually do have uses for smart-phones.
There are TONS of practical uses for smart-phones, but there are also billions of people living on this planet who don't have a use for them.
I know people who thought smartphones weren't for them, but suddenly they discovered they were easier to use than their old Nokia phone and had QWERTY keyboards so they could write text messages without learning T9. I never imagined that a tablet would be so useful for flying and didn't see a need for one before that.
2., Valid critique - wearing Google Glass is like wearing Bluetooth headset all the time. Which guys like Scoble probably did, way before anyone else. Anyone being pretentious assholes.
If it generates such interest and attention the way the first mobile phones or the first iPhone did, then it might really be something that in a few years will be a "common sight".
I think it's really something that excites the imagination, and rightly so, it remains to be be seen if it will be a substantial improvement in terms of functionality compared to current mobile devices.
But then I couldn't justify my iPad when I bought it. $600 for something I can check email on and browse the web? I already have a laptop for that right? Well I ended up using my iPad loads for far more than I could have imagined.
I really shouldn't have bought my MacBook Pro. It was twice the price of a Windows laptop that would have suited me fine, and I could have even installed Linux and had a great development setup right? Well yes, but I'm so much more productive on a Mac now than I ever was on Windows, and I have to fix the software a lot less than I do on my Linux computers.
Just because I can't justify buying a Google Glass doesn't mean it's not worth buying. I've got that feeling of excitement about a technology that I haven't had since I bought my first smartphone. Is it worth it right now? Maybe not. But if no one bets on it, it's not going to happen, so I'll give it a shot.
*until they stop getting me attention
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/28/living-with-glass-day-fou...
This has the potential to be a huge safety problem.
Because cellular phones do not affect a person's health, no matter what a small group of tin-foil hat wearers may believe.
I'm not surprised Robert Scoble loves them, he's a hardware lover and an early adopter. I'm not surprised audiences at places Scoble has been too love it. I'm not sure my parents would love it. I think they'd actively avoid it for the most part, and whilst there's lots of geeks like me who'll get them to at least experiment I'm still unsure of whether it's got significant mass market appeal. Maybe v2 or v3, but it'll take time.
Naw, they love it. You have to keep a false sense of exclusivity to make a product look sexy before it becomes a commodity device.
OK Glass, show me traffic to Home.
I wanted a sixth sense, to be able to see a map of London with all traffic marked out so that I could pick my rat race run through the back streets and at least be moving.
And whilst I got out of the traffic fine, I wish I had Glass and it knew to tell me before I got into it.
I have a TomTom but the map & traffic subscriptions equate to over £100 per year. And I can't even update the maps using Linux, so I basically let it expire and have abandoned it.
I do occasionally use Google Navigation on my Android for sat nav purposes, but for driving around a city that I know really well it is redundant except for traffic info (but even then I can usually work out my own route with better local knowledge of where traffic goes).
So yes, I could've fumbled around and got my phone from my bag (behind the seat), and wired it up, and viewed the traffic. But I was driving, even when I was mostly stationary I wouldn't take my attention away from the road like that.
Hence, if I had Glass, then I wouldn't need to prep in advance, nor fumble around... the tools would just be with me for when I needed to activate them.
Yesterday seemed exceptional though, something fouled up the whole of Fulham and Chelsea and the domino effect knocked out all major routes around too. That's an exception, not the rule... even if my TomTom subscription was active and up to date I wouldn't have wired it up just for a cross-town drive.
In principle that looks really good.
I probably won't use it though as I really do not trust apps that ask to access information on all my contacts when nothing in what the app appears to do would require it.
I don't feel I have permission from my contacts to share their details with someone else. I got to the install screen and backed off.
Point 3: Nearly everyone had an emotional outburst of "wow" or "amazing" or "that's crazy" or "stunning."
Takeaway: $200 is the going rate for people willing to be "wow"ed or amazed
This is quite a forgiving attitude; I'd expect both to work.
It's because Palm used a standardised, single-stroke learned script, whereas its competitors used full natural handwriting recognition that sucked balls. Glass is clearly going for the same thing.
What happens to the muscles, blood flow and eyesight of people that need to wear glasses every minute they're not asleep? Why their eyesight and general eye health doesn't deteriorate over time if it "can lead to weakened muscles, worse blood flow and worse eyesight"?
It might be worth mentioning that the authors of "health books" generally tend to be more concerned with selling more books than they do about actually improving your health. I would be very skeptical about claims made in a self-help health book that weren't backed up by actual studies.