Google Deal With Luxottica Will Bring Glass to Ray-Ban, Oakley | Hacker News Reader

Google Deal With Luxottica Will Bring Glass to Ray-Ban, Oakley

online.wsj.com

35 pointsbane22 comments

So. Post-Snowden, does anyone think Glass is a remotely good idea?

I believe the only kind thing that can be said is that glass is "perhaps not terribly worse than carrying a cellphone".

I'd say "it depends". If Google actually lets people run any software on the thing, allowing the tech to be used without mandating upload to Google's servers, I think it could be great. Commoditizing tech is generally a good thing(tm).

If they keep with the silly stance that You Shall Only Use The Glass in Service of Google -- then, no, I don't think it's a good idea, and we should probably kill it with fire.

One would think, that after seeing what came out of licensing the 8086 (or even arm, for that matter), tech companies might get behind more (and/or fully) open architecture where they can lead by virtue of resources, marketing and lead-time -- and still we have these remarkably closed systems. Sometimes it feels Google is sorry they went with a GPL kernel, because now they have all this trouble with partners having to at least pay lip-service in the form of binary-blob drivers.

It seems inevitable that as we move from telecom to datacom (GSM/voicecentric networks fade into irrelevance as data-centric networks rise) and towards a (fully) software dominated reality for phones (as they merge with tablet/phablets/walkmans) -- the open architecture will win.

Does anyone seriously believe closed platform will be able to stand as all parts become (even more) "commoditized"?

Apple managed to launch a "smart phone" blending a couple of crucial pretty obvious technologies at a great price-point (arguably making iTunes work as a businessmodel was the real innovation, like it or not) -- only to, in many way, be overtaken rather quickly by not one, but two OSs (Android and Windows (As well as Sail, MeeGo and WebOS).

Google glass might be posed to do something similar: demostrate viability of AR for consumers -- but I fail to see how they could possibly stay relevant if they don't open it up. Arguably they're still catching up to the DYI wearable crowd.

The fact is, outside the echo chambers of HN and reddit--and even within, by a silent minority at least--people simply don't worry about NSA / etc concerns enough to let it affect their day to day life. I'm one of those.

This isn't to say I endorse in any way what's going on (and I've written to my congressional representatives to that extent), but whether rationally or irrationally I am really not concerned about NSA surveillance affecting me personally. Will it negatively affect the nation as a whole, sure, but I honestly don't think wearing Glass (once the price drops enough I'd even consider buying one) will pose an real threat to me.

So yeah, I do think it's a remotely good idea, as long it's useful to me otherwise.

I understand your position and I think it's pragmatic.

My concerns are mainly societal, as widespread use would provide unprecedented new surveillance capabilities.

The main difference is that cellphones mostly only compromise your own privacy, whereas Glass users are in a position to enable data collection on everyone around them too.

Data from Glass may already be available to existing collection efforts. It's just an Android device. Glass cloud syncs by default and uses the regular (insecure) Android backup mechanism.

Google have been careful to point out that Glass does not support facial recognition. Sure, but image recognition is much better done in a server farm across bulk collected data anyway.

If glass is widespread, it becomes plausible to track targets (non users, vehicles etc) through "crowd-sourced" surveillance images. This gets really interesting when you have fine-grained location data and the ability to correlate between multiple users (whose path in the world is known). Most of the time the system could just work off passively collected (synced) data. There would be no indication on the device itself that this is going on, but it would not be real-time.

However if a target is sought in a certain area, you could go active. Software could be pushed to nearby Glass units to conduct a high intensity search[1]. In a metropolitan area, you could turn on thousands of eyes at will[2]. Naturally you could also collect audio or other sensor data if you needed it.

What amazes me is that this is not science fiction - it's an obvious extension of existing collection efforts. A lot of the required infrastructure already exists.

Given what we know to date, I view efforts to develop such a system as basically inevitable. The idea is too obvious, too tempting. That's why I'm worried about Glass.

[1] Take lots of pictures. Be willing to drain battery. You might want to do some local processing to minimize load on the cell network.

[1] Google can push software to Android devices. Carriers can push updates. There are probably a bunch of other ways to get software on there.

There's a huge difference between the government spying on its citizens without their knowledge and citizens recording others. If I knew that constantly being on camera would be inevitable in the future, I would definitely choose Glass over CCTV and the NSA.

David Brin puts it best in The Transparent Society (which I would strongly recommend to anyone concerned about privacy):

"We may not be able to eliminate the intrusive glare shining on citizens of the next century, but the glare just might be rendered harmless through the application of more light aimed in the other direction"

>> There's a huge difference between the government spying on its citizens without their knowledge and citizens recording others.

You obviously haven't been paying much attention lately. The difference is illusory, and the government will likely have access to anything a glass user sends over a network, if not direct access to the devices themselves.

I'd generally ask if this is something we need. A wearable smartwatch I can see because it's unobtrusive. But having a Borg-like device in front of your eye at all time? What's the point? Offers very little (in terms of added functionality vs. carrying a cellphone/smartwatch) but costs a lot (in financial but even more so in social terms).

That's a prototype for augmented reality devices that will offer orders of magnitude more than smartwatches or cellphones. I for one look forward to more of it.

Oh we all do...

Just when I thought those sun-glasses couldn't get any more douche-baggy . . .

Interestingly, both Luxottica and local rival Safilo are both from small towns in the middle of the Dolomites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safilo

Not the first place that would come to mind for precision manufacturing, but there you have it.

> Not the first place that would come to mind for precision manufacturing, but there you have it.

Why not? Aren't Swiss watchmakers in the Alps as well?

And regarding sibling poster saying they have production mainly in China: I remember reading they've actually moved some of the production to Italy after acquiring firms that were making their frames in China. If I find a source in English I'll post it.

Old article stating 85% production in Italy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/style/27iht-rglass.html

Marketing page about manufactoring:

http://www.luxottica.com/en/company/world/places/manufacturi...

> Why not? Aren't Swiss watchmakers in the Alps as well?

This says... not really:

http://www.fhs.ch/en/history.php

At least not compared to someplace like Agordo, which is still not that easy to get to today:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Agordo,+Belluno,+Italy&hl=en&...

Which is probably why Luxottica moved to Milan, and Safilo here to Padova.

These are really just design houses that aggregate brand names and manufacture largely in China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdq2rIqAlM is a great watch if you have time. Nothing too surprising to those that understand where this stuff comes from, but certainly interesting to see it laid out.

There is a great 60 minutes episode about Luxottica @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdq2rIqAlM

Sad that Google will sink to doing business with Luxottica over some awesome company like Warby Parker. I have no interest anymore.

It does seem to make sense to me that Google would partner with a company that can place Google Glass in front of the average consumer. Luxotica owns 7000 retail locations [1] and I am pretty sure most of those locations accept EyeMed insurance (which Luxotica also owns). People would be very happy to put their insurance benefit towards a pair of Google Glasses.

I'm on my second pair of WB frames because I don't like spending a ton on eye-wear. I understand the value that WB provides to consumers. I just think Luxotica currently offers way more to Google than WB could.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica#Retail

True, and your right. It's good for them. I am just so apposed for so many reasons and I rarely feel that way about google products. Oh well.

Google is reportedly talking to Warby Parker.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/20/google-reportedly-in-talk-w...

For fashion-oblivious people like me: who?

Warby Parker is an American company that sells stylish glasses for a reasonable cost. They emerged out of a frustration with the cost and control of Luxotica an Italian company [1]. Luxotica dominates the eye-wear market by owning manufacturing [2], retail [3] and insurance [4] related to eye-wear.

[1]: https://www.warbyparker.com/our-story/ [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica#Brands [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica#Retail [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica#Medical_managed_care

Yes, because instead of a widely established worldwide leader in eyewear, they should instead go to the company that hipsters' prefer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com