I see at least one eager early-adopter market for Google Glass: amateur pornographers who want to share their, um, personal experiences. Don't laugh -- throughout history, pornographers have been early-stage adopters of new media technologies -- e.g., see http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v49/no1/johnson.html
The TV show "Peep Show", which isn't about surreptitious leering despite the title, uses first person PoV in their series. Some people hate it, others grew used to the PoV.
That show is amazing. I feel like the name turned off a lot of potential viewers. The POV-style filming isn't even that central to the show. After an episode or two, you become used to it.
Even David Mitchell hates the name and says the late night time slot didn't help with peoples assumptions (see his SoapBox series), but says he's come to accept the name over time.
I have a feeling thought that "See it from their eyes" was their schtick, but that they dropped that when it became apparent that it was a good TV show (e.g. Season 2+'s title sequence doesn't explain the PoV thing)
I can picture giving premium users the right to "tag along for the ride", as it were, and watch as it's getting filmed. Could be quite cool.
I suspect as the hardware is further refined and becomes less intrusive, we'll start to see more interesting things done with the technology. My only real concern is, who pays for it? Taking advantage of seamless sharing would require a 4g connection. Do I pay another $60 a month for my glasses, on top of my cell phone?
> I can picture giving premium users the right to "tag along for the ride", as it were, and watch as it's getting filmed. Could be quite cool.
Ah yes, all the glamour of watching people make a porn film, with the constant starting and stopping, set changes, wardrobe snafus, and arguments when it turns out some tech crew can't make the shoot or an actor's medical paperwork is out of date.
TBH, this has more of a use for recording things on the fly that you normally wouldn't be able to catch due to fiddling with a camera rather than a replacement for higher quality film cameras for commercial productions. Of course, amateur productions (of any kind) are a different story.
Yes, it's from Snow Crash. I don't remember the whole description, because the Gargoyle included various additional modules/gadgets and one of the points was that it was odd-looking from outside.
guelo: please accept my apologies for my prior response at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4169385 -- looking at it with fresh eyes, it came across as rather condescending, which is not what I intended at all. Sorry about that.
guelo: Google Glass isn't about making movies per se but about sharing personal experiences -- live and otherwise. Think about it for a moment and you'll get it.
Not really that much different to recording Video with a Smartphone.
I get that there is a difference in that you are always wearing it and are theoretically always on, and photos/vids of Smartphones are huge, but … seriously … how many experiences of your personal day today would you like to share? Nah.
On the other side there are certainly people who are burning to attention whoring the shit out of Google Glasses. Perhaps it would be like a more extreme version of Twitter were 99% of people are following a very vocal 1% minority. And if Sergey Brin would publicly stream his Glass video I would watch it and place the video in a corner of my desktop screen. It would be like having a pet or the first Justin.tv all over again.
What was that website a few years back where these guys wandered the streets of Manhattan with a live camera strapped to them, and you could send them suggestions for improv-like interactions with the passerby? It was a lot of fun, really.
EDIT- "Mod My Life". Maybe that's an idea whose time has come.
That 'Porn drives the industry' is bullshit imho. Porn cares about money, and yes they do need technology to distribute their 'product'. But they are not the earliest of the adopters, they do not try out untested technologies unless they already have already proved potential and i can't recall a porn company who actually funded technology.
I 'm not up for any sort of censorship of course, but porn has also adverse effects (e.g. it's addictive (see http://yourbrainonporn.com), yet i do not see much talk about these.
Err... I hate to break it to you, but most pornography is done for cash. The people don't actually do it for fun, and, hope not to burst you bubble, but they are faking a lot of the time…
A little blue pill and some 'acting' is all you need,
Glass looks interesting, but (presuming the price comes way down, which it surely well) I can't see it having a whole lot of traction in consumer markets. Yeah it's small and light, but it's still going to be distracting - I've worn glasses for 30 years
That said, I could really see glass taking off in occupations that require field work - for example, a surveyor or construction foreman can use them in the field and managers/architects/engineers can review pictures and video of project progress or problems that might crop up in the field. It could be attractive to certain consumer markets like cyclists, etc.
Similarly I could see Glass being adopted wholeheartedly by military, security and police personnel, especially as replacement for military helmet cams.
All my opinion of course. We certainly live in interesting times, and kudos for Google for trying to expand our horizons.
edit: BTW if the developer preview were available to non-IO attendees, I'd seriously consider getting one. Like I said, it would be extremely useful during field work.
> Similarly I could see Glass being adopted wholeheartedly by military, security and police personnel, especially as replacement for military helmet cams.
As I mentioned in the TC comments, I'm wondering why protesters don't rig up their own low-tech version:
This would give an opportunity for those with disabilities to take part in protests as a part of the action on the ground. (They could be like Barbara Gordon as Oracle in comic books.) Since the user-side hardware is inexpensive and disposable, much of the implementation challenge would be on the software side -- enabling the device deal gracefully with low and intermittent bandwidth conditions and offloading data to a local backup carried by another protester.
I'm wondering why protesters don't rig up their own low-tech version:
For personal security, monitoring illegal police acts, sure. As a means for letting people who can't come be part of the action? That would get annoying real quick unless the wearer stared in one direction all the time, or only occasionally moved their head. Otherwise it's just shaky cam which lots of quick cuts as the wearer looks up/down/left/right/etc.
For personal security, monitoring illegal police acts, sure. As a means for letting people who can't come be part of the action? That would get annoying real quick unless the wearer stared in one direction all the time
You'd want to treat the "controller" end (as opposed to the "ground agent" end) as augmented reality.
The "controller" would inhabit a 3D virtual reality, moving smoothly along with "ground agent" with a "window" displaying the video. The "controller" would have to turn his point of view to see the window too.
The "controller" wouldn't be just a passive observer, but would be providing intel to the "ground agent."
It'd be interesting if it was a larger view and the parts that the wearer isn't currently looking at is merely blurred out. That way you'd just have the in-focus viewport changing and updating while still having a larger sense of what was previously looked at.
Not sure how that'd work for the camera-wearer actually moving around... but yeah.
The moment anything happens during protests, millions of camera phones come out and point at it. It's far more imposing than any glasses.
Yes, but a human-level intelligence anticipating what will happen, monitoring media coverage, and coordinating intel from other sources on the ground could be a very powerful resource.
As rough as the police can be with smashing people's faces into the ground while they arrest them for non-violence, I think your $1500 investment would not go far.
Then again, protesting is quickly becoming illegal so it probably doesn't matter anyway.
You're not reading carefully enough. The ground-side equipment cost would probably be under $200, with the option of having the smartphone protected in a case. The DIY version of the glasses are pretty cheap. (Under $40)
I'm going to assume that military , security , police will have their own contractor make something similar rather than use google's. After all they don't want to accidentally start uploading raw footage from a battle to a google+ hangout!
As much as I love Google, I would bet that they lose money on this endeavor, unless they have a really long-term plan where these glasses are just a stepping stone.
I just can't imagine that many people using these.
The iPod was actually a product at that point. That’s the big step that still has to be taken with Glasses. And it ain’t an easy one, probably the hardest thing about Glasses.
It’s cool tech. No more. Certainly not a product. We’ll see how this works out.
Imagine these in contact form that perform the same things. But also replaces your cell phone. You now see your messages when you want and can respond just by thinking (once we can essentially read your mind, if that happens).
Anything you want could be displayed there without having to check your phone or anything else. Obviously talking to it sucks but if it ever gets to the point where you can think something then this would be killer, for anyone.
Iono, seems to clearly be where things are heading. I don't want to type things to a person everytime I want to communicate with them, what is that? I just want to seamlessly send them a message I have on my mind and get back to real life. And this is the first step and whats possible now. But im sure they expect more.
I expect and want technology to get to the point where its not even noticeable. And these are what it is doing.
I think some big money needs to go into subvocal recognition (if it isn't being heavily invested in already). Devices like these will be a lot more attractive if they can be used without speaking out aloud.
I recommend reading Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End) for a few insights on how this and similar technologies effectively change the way we interact with "computers". As is brought out in the book, I expect a lot of early adoption for gaming.
All those technologies had all the basic pieces in place. A use case, a way to interact with them, an actual demonstration of the technology. I admit that it took me several weeks to realise the potential of the iPad though.
Brin has been seen wearing these for a while now. Why can't we see some basic software and interaction? There a lots of potential uses for wearable computers, especially one with a HUD. Even if all we can do is use it as another form of input/output for your phone or other devices.
As far as I can tell and google, all we saw today was a few stunts with people wearing little cameras. We'll have to wait until they start releasing the dev kits to see if there's actually anything to this particular attempt. Hopefully they will also have a product at the same time.
Well... but it isn't really the first draft of the technology, is it? Steve Mann was doing basically the same thing 15 years ago with equipment that wasn't really a whole lot more clunky. In fact, that's really the reason I can't get behind Glass as the Next Big Thing: I've wanted something like this for the better part of two decades and the display technology continues to suck.
Edit to add: Look here: http://wearcam.org/netcam.html That webpage hasn't been edited for a decade (a decade, that's 10 years), and it has a better-looking display unit (see the picture captioned "late 90's").
Maybe I'm in a minority but since I don't wear glasses nor contacts I feel reluctant to insert anything into my eyes unless absolutely needed (i.e. for eyesight).
However, other than that I agree with you. I'll just be sticking to the glasses form factor (when it's indistinguishable from normal glasses).
The specific form factor won't fly for the general public. Other form factors might. Specific occupations might not care. (Construction workers are already wearing helmets and often goggles, for example.)
My dad's a builder, has been for 35 years, when on site he tethers his iPad to his smartphone to download spec sheets for fixtures and fittings. He used to have to wait weeks for this info to be posted from suppliers.
Anything that makes it easier to access, share and collaborate on information will make peoples lives easier.
I am a glasses wearer that drives a lot (25k miles per year), cycles a decent amount (around 1,000 miles per year), plays sports and practices a martial art - I am constantly dealing with blind spots caused by bridges, nose-pad temples, as well as reflections off the lenses. Unless Glass becomes significantly smaller (it will get smaller over time, but I'm talking a few cubic mm) it becomes one more blind spot.
Certainly for me it would become enough of a hassle that I couldn't imagine wearing it around all the time, which means having to dig it out for the times when I do want to use it (which means remembering to bring, etc) - at that point, why not just use my cellphone?
I suspect I'm not alone, but we'll find out over the coming years.
Slightly off-topic but I always liked this concept: http://www.coroflot.com/billymay/Nike-Hindsight There's plenty of room for Google to innovate in glasses design if they're willing to throw away people's expectations of glasses-as-fashion.
My brain edits that sort of stuff out. In fact my current pair of glasses is frameless; there are some nuts holding the node-bridge to the lenses that I saw ALL THE TIME in the first few weeks of having them, but now never really see at all unless I'm explicitly thinking about them. Like now.
I would LOVE to be able to do things like summon up maps displays without having to look down at my phone.
I imagine Glass will handily compete, collaborate or compliment the GoPro market.
GoPro are in a lot of major retail outlets on and offline. Glass would be perfect right next to a GoPro.
Not only that, but I'm sure they will get more lightweight and portable - maybe even to the point of seamlessly clipping to your normal glasses or integrated right into frames as an add-on. I wear glasses too and I would love having this technology as accessible as simply putting my glasses on every day.
The connectivity to the web, ability to email with your eyes & voice, make calls, and more...could replace cell phones for some people.
They said during the key note that they are lighter than many sunglasses. Many of the team were wearing them when taking orders as well. So they are trying to show off they are natural and easy to wear.
Brin also said they do a lot more than share and view video feeds, but it is tough to show. I imagine they at least replace your mobile phone and headset, at the minimum. Consumers gave up cameras for their new smarter phones, and this can be positioned as just an even smarter phone doing more.
I noticed that too. It was a sensational, unexpected, brilliant demo that made me feel wonderful things inside, mixed with reflections about the entire human race, and then it was followed by an underwhelming, slightly silly and slow presentation. It didn't fit... it didn't flow.
But on the other hand, the fact that this seemed almost entirely unscripted (the presentation) and that Sergey felt strongly enough to go public with Glass as rough as it currently is, spoke more to me about the excitement and innovation going on at Google than anything else (seriously, Nexus Q?!?). As other posters have said, augmented reality like this is the future.
I get that they were going for excitement but for someone who wasn't watching it live I can't help like feeling: what a waste of bright minds. And I do think this comes down to the demo.
As others have mentioned there must be better uses but to me it seems like sensationalism that boils down to this if you weren't there: I can livestream something from (essentially) a helmet cam to a platform that not many people actually use.
I know I'm being cynical but I struggle to come up to a practical use where the technology does not already exist (thinking surgery, military, etc.) so my only assumption is they can compete on price or I'm just missing something and getting old.
It's not so much 'not missing the human element' as it is 'finding your mojo'. It's the first part of that whole keynote in which Google actually was itself instead of trying to mimic Apple's keynote style and approach. Immediately felt better (and more convincing, too)
Google Glass, or any similar product, is going to have at least one killer feature... real-life DVR. Instead of having to snap tho photo at just the right time or start recording before something amazing happens, w/ Glass (hopefully!) you can "rewind" and capture what you just saw happen.
Check out the movie Final Cut with Robin Williams. It's about a time when people have cameras embedded in their eyes that record EVERYTHING, then someone edits together a video of their life. It deals with the fact that these editors get to see literally EVERYTHING (sex, crimes, etc.) that the people do. Very interesting.
It's a cool stunt, but I don't quite understand why everyone is so excited about this as a tech demo - surely a head mounted camera is the least interesting use of Google Glass, and the big unknown is how it looks on the user side?
It was cool because it was live streaming from four separate devices at the same time into a hangout, and they were switching views between them live. Impressive that they all somehow had a stable enough internet connection while flying through the air.
It's a shame they over-promised out of the gate. If they didn't start with that absurd concept video, revealing a life-blogging/recording peripheral with future potential would be pretty interesting.
Instead, it's a guaranteed let-down every time they demo an incremental step like this.
I was disappointed there was no HUD showing GPS data or any data really. In hindsight the streaming was impressive, but I just couldn't get over that I wanted to see more from the concept video.
Agree. Connectivity is the hard part about streaming, not the recording.
I was also confused why I could not replicate with a helmet mounted cell phone.
I was pretty let down by the whole thing. It must have been a "had to be there" kind of demo because it doesn't translate to a video i guess.
I was in the living room with a couple non-tech people and I saw the post on HN and pulled it up on the TV. First comment was "why is a bunch of helmet cams amazing?". I did not bother explaining.
$1,500 for US-based Google IO attendees. Pre-order at conference only. They won't ship until early next year.
Yikes.
Edit: I know these aren't consumer devices. I'm speaking fron a developer perspective. Noticed how literally no one clapped when Sergey announced the price, unlike when the Nexus 7 price was announced?
I don't understand the freakout over the price. This is a beta, dev-only prototype device designed to get it into the hands of the hardcore for exploration, testing, and development.
$1500 is a blip in a dev shop budget. It's obviously not a consumer-ready device yet, and with it, no consumer-ready price point. There is no economy of scale at play here yet.
I don't get it. Either you're interested enough in Google Glass to pay a premium to work with a prerelease version of it, or you're not and can wait for it to actually ship before you buy it. I can't see any third category, nor can I see why either category would complain about the price. What's the deal?
If I was there I would have bought them. I will not be surprised if someone can sell a pair of them for $10k on E-Bay in a week or two after they ship.
$1,500 for US-based Google IO attendees. Pre-order at conference only. They won't ship until early next year.
By comparison, something like the Recon Instruments MOD Live is $400[1] for a device that snaps into existing Ski goggles (which aren't cheap themselves). Recon does have lower-priced models and a subsidised developer program too.
I don't understand this sentiment. These are absolutely not consumer products. They're highly specialized hardware devices being sold to interested, motivated hackers that would like to investigate the technology.
Google clearly isn't sure about what direction to take the technology. They've espoused some vague notions about the importance of first person views and the ability to instantly capture precious moments, but that's about the extent of their push right now.
I think it's really cool that they're interested in getting devices into developers' hands to help them figure out where to take the technology.
Actually ... this is a valid question. I have a pretty high prescription and can't bear to wear contact lenses. Am I out of luck?
Note: I think the price is pretty fair. If this was open to non IO attendees, I'd sign up for it. I want to understand what the solution is for people with prescription glasses.
Yeah, I'd pay fifteen hundred for a reasonably small and hi-res monocular display, and wait a year, but they'd have to have a prescription insert that I could send to my optometrist or something; I don't want to have to duct tape something to my existing glasses; I want something that fits well.
The other thing is that I badly want a display. I think wearing a camera all the time is kinda creepy. Most likely I would put duct tape (or something else that made it abundantly clear I wasn't recording) over the recording bit unless I was in a very clearly public situation.
I somehow can't understand the positioning of the device. Is the satisfaction of urge for 'sharing wonderful moments of your life' really how Google sees the Glass are going to be used? No augmented reality demos, no business/production/field applications, not even an x-files-like process documentation or hot-news-like POVs? All this emphasis on the 'sharing' aspect feels really weak for the product with such a vast number of applications. Or maybe it's just the result of the Glass being in a very alpha stage right now.
Firstly, Google is on a social binge. They push G+ with everything they have and that demo was probably partly designed to contribute to the subliminal image of G+ being "the future". Also noteworthy in that regard the casual placement of competing products (apple) in an "also-ran" fashion.
Secondly, Google is probably fully aware that they don't need to promote the glasses to industry and military. These sectors will adopt the technology without a blink anyway and are probably already in touch. There's little need to address them in a public keynote, those battles are fought in dim conference rooms.
Instead Google seems to be using their earliest opportunity here to gauge and tease the inevitable yet still completely unknown consumer potential - basically exercising their first-mover advantage.
Then again, if you were to draw conclusions from their terrible choreography and execution of the keynote (you know, the 2 hours before and after the parachute jump), it might just as well all be completely random and I'm merely reading way too much into it...
The only useful innovation they've found lately is Google Hangouts. It makes sense that they'd like to reproduce that success here. Augmented reality has never been proved useful: on the other hand, people share photos all the time.
I am worried that they didn't address input or show examples of what the view actually looked like. Even for sharing, those will both be key.
They could change form factors for wider acceptance. A form factor that looks like hipster glasses with lenses that dynamically darken would do very well.
For some different and older crowds, building these into visors and caps would be good for tourism applications.
Add an app that can do limited communications -- like yes/no/maybe/Google-that-please using 1-3 taps on your cellphone, or give a human assistant the ability text and ask questions and pop up a dynamic menu, and this would be very useful to businesspeople and diplomats.
This is a really smart insight regarding seniors. So often technology is something that leaves the elderly behind, but occasionally something wonderful and unexpected happens as a side effect.
Specifically, I'm thinking of eReaders ability to adjust font sizes and the 'magic' side effect of making every book a large print edition.
I could see similar outcomes with augmented vision glasses: magnifying modes for reading menus, high contrast adjustments for when it's dark, etc.
> A form factor that looks like hipster glasses with lenses that dynamically darken would do very well.
My startup is making exactly this. We're taking pre-orders for $189 that ship in December, with a form factor of hipster glasses, wifi link to stream through your smartphone, and electric sunglass lenses!
>A form factor that looks like hipster glasses with lenses that dynamically darken would do very well.
Make them shatter-resistant wrap arounds and I'd imagine you'd get some interest from people in the shooting sports, too. You already see people clipping things like Contour Roams to their ear pro to get match footage for later analysis.
From a strategic point of view I think that one of the main goals with Google Glass is to map and store information about areas that cant be reached easily via car, plane or other transportation method. I am pretty sure that as soon as we see Google Glass in the public Google will have software that can combine photos and videos with GPS-data so that we get Google Street View even in areas such as the himalayas, forests and other areas where a person can reach but no vehicle with advanced photo equipment. It is a big crowdsourcing experiment.
Another cool thing would be to actually look at routes on runkeeper for instance before heading out to get a grip of vegetation and climbing distance etc.
Or while going for a run on a favorite route, to actually see a shadow of your recent best time just a little way ahead of you. Now that's motivation..
I am starting to see some really good use cases here, that was an awesome idea. I think there are so much you can do to increase motivation when it comes to fitness with stuff like that, audio cues, real life achievements etc.
But given 3+ hardware generations, it'd be useful to have a HUD with customized real-time data. Probably information overload for most people, but wearing googles beats checking a phone in your pocket for convenience.
Lots of people currently wear glasses to help them see. Regardless of whether you have good optical vision, why not wear glasses to help you see the internet?
Miniaturize this into a standard and stylish eyeglass format, integrate it seamlessly with the glass (or empty frames for those with good vision), sell it in a dozen different styles and designs, and it will fly.
That's surely where they're going with it. And it will be awesome and entirely socially acceptable.
This is the kind of thing you can see saying in the future, "Man, remember when we had to carry around those big phones with hard displays in our pockets? Crazy." They're moving forward on what could possibly be the next cell phone, and if they do it right (read: good human interface) then they might lead the market.
It's cooler than people are giving it credit for, I think.
Can't say I like the idea of glass in general. I'm going to be getting PRK surgery this year to finally ditch the glasses, hopefully this isn't a new fad of wearable devices. I know some family members that have been in the air force aren't huge fans of hud type technology as its too distracting.
True. I'd love to see where this stands after 3+ iterations rather than just forming in opinion after the launch. I feel this is a viable new platform rather than just being a fancy gadget. How often would I use my smartphone if I use a Glass?
Sorry for the cross post... Glass was the "one more thing..." moment for sure; heard that there was a long line to purchase them for $1500 per -- any comments from any new HN owners?
Met with GOOG employees today who were testing newer versions, better resolution & new comms. I wasn't allowed to wear it but it looks bulkier than I imagined.
The odd thing is, during a meeting with an employee who was wearing Glass, it was hard to figure out where to focus my eyes on their face -- it was like talking to someone with a lazy eye. Made me especially self-conscious: felt like I was being rude, and my rude act was being filmed using the Glass!
I'm not that interested in live sharing personally, but I definitely think that there are several ways I would find it useful to be able to easily record what I see and hear unobtrusively (note I really don't mean secretly here).
The biggest thing I was hoping to see out of Google Glass though was the possibilities for augmented reality. Things like being able to easily ID a painting that you see or even better to be able to look at a game board and see a projection of the best next move.
I haven't seen any details on Google I/O other than the text of this article, so I'm wondering if any of that stuff was touched on.
You are confusing b/w software and hardware. But that's understandable since Google has primarily been a software company. Ads are only needed in software. Google's revenue will come from selling the device. So no ads needed. Do you see ads in Windows or OSX or iPhone/iOS?
Can somebody else from Europe confirm, that by their law Google Glasses are illegal? Here, in Latvia, we have a law, which forbids selling, buying or using (even transfering) certain objects, which are listed as "goods and services of strategic importance". And Google Glasses fall under one list item.
Most notably, the part which, I believe, applies to Google Glasses is as follows (bad translation, done by me):
Wired or wireless video and television cameras (with exception of mobile phones and computer cameras), which are masked as other objects, or their dimensions are smaller than 40 x 40 x 40 mm, or their diameter is smaller than 25 mm, or they are fitted with a pinhole lens.
Although it looks really cool in demos like this, I personally wouldn't care that much about the video sharing, but I still think Glass is one of the coolest products Google has ever worked on.
There's just so many uses for it, and many of those things a phone can't really do well. I think the killer app for me would really be "subtitles" while talking to somebody in a foreign language.
Guess a lot of people would only use the contacts-version though ;)
Interesting. If people are going to be wearing glasses all day to have access to all sorts of data, then they may as well have prescription lenses on those glasses if they are nearsighted. This could potentially destroy the market for LASIK.
One thing I'm hoping for with Glass: the ability to connect to a bike computer and show speed, heart rate, cadence, etc. in a HUD. Would be awesome compared to having to look down at the handlebars all the time.
Was looking forward to an augmented reality demo. I thought the idea was that info was projected on the "glass". It would be cool to build a hack for a heads up display with some custom telemetry.
I don't think total augmented reality is the goal with these devices. Besides, I sense that truly useful augmented reality is still so far off; to the point where the AI needed would totally negate the need for AR beyond some one trick pony act that's amusing for about 30 seconds.
I was thinking of something fairly easy and specific. I happen to be married to a Dentist. When she is working she has her hands full and is already wearing protective eye wear.
A cool use case is to display patient specific display on an unobtrusive heads up display mounted to the glasses rather than turning her head to look back at the monitor to see the patient's chart. I am sure this technology is possible right now but google glasses would presumably dramatically lower the price and availability.
So, this isn't pie in the sky AR but something more specific and approachable in the near term (and great for developer hacking).
I agree. As a musician, I'm looking forward to some sort of heads-up display that I can use to show chord charts. The same sort of system you describe here should work, I would think.
I would at least like to see the data they already have from Goggles in a live overlay; that way it could at least identify and display information about notable landmarks/stores/etc, but I'm sure they're struggling enough with getting the hardware and the basic OS working that they probably have not had time to refine the content beyond basic camera/G+ functionality.
agreed, I wasn't impressed with this demo - how does it defer from a head mounted camera streaming video through a smartphone? The fact that it is a piece of hardware made by Google?
I'm not bashing Google here - I really think AR will be the next big game changer in UI interactions the same way multi-touch was back in 2007, but there is honestly nothing new in that demo technology wise.
This would be great for people who get lost a lot , if you phone someone and ask for directions it sucks trying to describe exactly where you are. Here you could just jack into someone and guide them.
Also be interesting to see the impact on crime if these get smaller over time. You basically have a world where you have no idea whether each person you pass is recording and streaming online.
I think Glass is not a consumer device,there will be market for it in future but only among makers/publishers.I do not see people wearing it out on street look at other wearable devices watch,cell phone they are non intrusive and utility devices.
Does anyone have any idea on how's the HUD actual imaging capability? Eg.: what kind of resolution/image would fit on it, how much one would have to squint to focus, where on the field of view it sits, etc?
Seriously, the bluetooth earpiece quickly became a universal symbol for pompous idiot. Much like the Segway is a well understood symbol of doofy nerd-dom. I will be very surprised if Google Glass wearers don't fall into one or both of those categories real fast. Until wearable computing gets MUCH more seamless, I think there will be social pressure on people who use it.
You could argue that's just because those things never hit critical mass. People checking their palm pilot calendar was doofey. People checking their smart phone calendar is normal.
The social pressure of always being video recorded could be interesting. Same pressure you feel writing something on facebook: "What will my Mom think of this comment..." Now you see someone with Google Glass show up at the party and it's time to put your video persona on (and your pants).
it's on the side of their head and its very small and hardly noticeable.
This is on your face. In front of your eyes and it's very noticeable. They need to partner with fashion brands and put this on real fashionable glasses/sunglasses. Imagine Versace with Google Glass.
One of the things that struck me while they were doing the "fashion demo" was that if they made it symmetric (even with just a plastic facade on the other side), it'd be a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm sure we'll see styles like that.
Google may or may not be able to propel Glass into being a fashion icon - but if they fail I really don't think the device being asymmetrical will have anything to do with it.
I agree. However, G-Glass is a bigger cross between fashion and tech than regular smartphones.
IMHO the G-Glass should just be a monitor+camera for your phone. I think manufacturing it will be much easier and the the size of the system will be smaller which will allow people use G-Glass without anyone even noticing. Like people can go buy regular sunglasses for $100 and the G-Glass version would cost i don't know $200.
i can very easily see younger kids, live streaming , recording just about everything they do. They already text constantly, facebook and tweet everything.... seamless sharing of video is definitely the next step.
This is just one of the most amazing thing I've seen in my life. Maybe the people who watched the first guys land on the moon felt the same way? This is the future.
I always wonder how the projected screen feels. Someone said, it's like a floating transparent screen. Someone said it can only display simple information.
You must be confusing me with someone who hates Google or Google products in general.
I didn't say Google couldn't impress me, I just happen to believe that really exciting products don't need showy fanfares like that and when someone compared that "spectacle" with a Steve Jobs keynote, I pointed out the obvious contrast.
For all his other flaws, Steve Jobs put the product front and center.
What I mean is, you said these two things back to back:
"Steve Jobs never needed to have someone jump out of a plane to get people excited about a product"
"I was far more impressed with the Nexus 7 and Jelly Bean than any of the rest of the demos."
Doesn't the second sentence mean you're excited about a Google product? A product that they didn't demo by having someone jump out of a plane with? Isn't that a direct contradiction to what you're saying about Google with first sentence?
I wasn't saying that Google can only impress by firing people out of airplanes, I'm saying that if their products are good, that's enough, they can stand on their own, and people can be excited by the products themselves.
Let me map it out:
Steve Jobs, professional product demo, no parachutes or BMX bike acrobatics == Good
Nexus 7 and Jelly Bean, professional product demo, no parachutes or BMX bike acrobatics == Good
Google Glasses, no real product demo, several parachutists, pathetic BMX stunts, lame high-five at end == Sad
Okay, I thought you were making no distinction between your #2 and #3.
But eh, I thought it was kind of cool. The jumping out of planes part didn't help sell the product to me, it was just fun to watch. Brin was so genuinely excited.
Very weird demo. Felt like the boss pet toy that he wanted to show the world. Interrupting others in a improvised way to show people jumping out of a plane made me feel like the complete opposite of steve job's classy and user-oriented demos...
Definitely wouldn't like to work at google on other projects.
