
The Verdict Is In: Nobody Likes Google Glass - taylorbuley
http://www.businessinsider.com/nobody-really-likes-google-glass-2013-5
======
dasil003
I guess I'm well on my way to being a cranky old man at the tender age of 34,
but I find it extremely unlikely I'll ever use any device like glass on a
regular basis. I love technology as much as the next geek, but I feel like I'm
already a bit too much of a slave to my smart phone, and I don't think it's
healthy to be plugged in 24/7. Having notifications popping up in my field of
vision is just too high a price to pay for the convenience of not having to
reach in my pocket.

~~~
masklinn
> I find it extremely unlikely I'll ever use any device like glass on a
> regular basis

Glass definitely not, because it's kinda crap (what I've seen so far are
phone-style widgets — which I loathe in the first place — and telling your
shades to record a video — underwhelming). An actual HUD/Augmented Reality
system I can see myself using rather easily (as long as it remains fully under
my control), but this'll need severe improvements of image processing and
recognition (speed and flexibility).

I don't want notification popups, but virtual/augmented surface display could
be very neat, e.g. have buses display "live" in wireframe even when they're
outside field of vision (think "wallhack") to estimate how much time I have
until it arrives, that kind of things.

Or the ability to "switch in" to an other user of the system (and get direct
viewpoint) useful for virtual visits (potentially via "presence" robots, plug
into the robot and see through it), helping people with stuff or (the other
way around) getting help, imagine a tech of some sort doing an estimate of
building/fixing something based on what he sees through your eyes. Also useful
for things like surgeries (get colleagues in-viewpoints to assist/warn) or
single-person dangerous works e.g. underwater stuff, multiple eyeballs on the
same field of vision can pay attention to more things.

Or more "mundane" (but actually more difficult) applications such as ebooks
with the physical feel of real books by having a "blank book" and AR inserting
the ebook's content on the fly, or hologram/3D AR (easy to do when you've got
a display per eye)

------
marknutter
While I'm glad that over the past 10 years high tech gadgets have become
mainstream, I also lament it to some degree. Articles like this, written by
people not used to using early prototypes of gadgets, are always completely
off base. Most casual tech enthusiasts have a hard time seeing the forest for
the trees. Judging Glass based on its lack of wifi settings, email editing, or
a bulky case is nonsense. We're getting a peak at a very early concept of
something that we all _know_ could be awesome if executed on properly, just
like we knew tablets and smartphones would be awesome back in the 90s. There
is absolutely no question that some sort of Google Glass-like device will
become mainstream at some point. It's all a matter of execution.

~~~
gfodor
The author admits those bullet points can be fixed. The core argument against
Glass is it is trying to upheave social norms well before society is ready for
them. Are people ready to have conversations with each other where there is a
distracting screen in the corner of their eye at all times? Are you going to
be annoyed when it's clear someone is only giving you half their attention,
but doing so less overtly than if they were staring at their phone? I put my
phone away at dinner, will people be continually turning Glass on and off as
they enter and exit conversations?

The fact is phones and tablets had analogues going back hundreds of years in
the form of books and wristwatches in terms of social norms. You check your
watch, you check your phone. You sit down and read a book, you sit down and
read your iPad. Society accepts local distractions where the user overtly
makes it clear they are looking at something. There is no equivalent to Glass
where the user has a distracting bit of information floating right within
their view, but invisible to other people. This is a _genuinely new_
disruption of social norms and it's wide open how people will react to it, and
if they will ever accept it.

I don't agree that "it's all a matter of execution." Putting a cyborg-like
eyepiece on people and an always-available HUD in front of them is not a
foregone conclusion as something most people will ever want in their lives.

I've always said it's going to come down to how stupid you look to other
people. And yes, I realize cell phones, etc, were viewed as douchey when they
first came out. But the key difference between cell phones (and this is
important) is that you could put the cell phone in your pocket, nullifying the
douche-factor until you took it out again. If you take off your Glass because
you look like a tool, you just completely eliminated the purpose of Glass.

I think the most likely path for Glass is that of the Segway: an uncool device
that has amazing practical applications for professionals in certain domains.
You'll see them on cops sooner than teenagers at the mall.

~~~
marknutter
I don't understand why people think that Glass will only be effective if
you're wearing it _all the time_. Sunglasses are not appropriate to wear all
the time, and it's incredibly douchey to do so, and people adjust their habits
accordingly. If you want to make sure you don't break any social norms, then
just prop Glass up on the top of your head or hang them off your shirt colar
when it's not appropriate to be wearing them.

And Glass isn't upheaving social norms any more than the iPhone did. It wasn't
acceptable to be staring at a phone all the time but now everybody does it. I
think people's reaction to Glass' is more a commentary on the current state of
smartphone use and social etiquette than Glass being any more intrusive and
conspicuous.

~~~
Svip
Just because something is socially accepted, doesn't necessarily mean it is a
good thing nor something we - as a society - can live with for eternity. Many
things we would deem completely unacceptable today used to be socially
accepted.

And numerous times, these acceptable items have been but mere phases in
popular availability, until people realised, 'hey, why are we ruining human
interaction?' and then it became unacceptable again.

People are already talking about - and have for a long time - the problem with
smartphone use and social etiquette. Personally, I try to avoid my phone as
much as possible whenever I am at a dinner party or visiting family. You know,
be polite and show some goddamn respect.

~~~
marknutter
I agree. I think, should Glass catch on, there will be the same awkward period
of time where everyone figures out the etiquette for using it.

------
apendleton
The Google Glass devices serve both as a specific prototype consumer
electronics device and a test-bed for a general user interaction concept, and
I wish people writing reviews, or meta-reviews like this one, would pay more
attention to the distinction. Many of these complaints could be fixed either
with a software update (if, for example, the apps aren't sufficiently
configurable), or with improved hardware in an actual production release
(battery life, for example) without compromising the potential of the _idea_
of Glass. These seem not to be such a big deal, since this initial iteration
is just a prototype.

Some of these, though, are criticisms of the concept: if, for example, it
really does cause lots of people disorientation or headaches to look at
displays close to their faces, that seems to be an irreparable flaw in Glass-
like devices as a product class, and is much more damning.

~~~
vm
I've been dying to hear the use cases ("killer apps") where Google Glass kicks
ass. Scoble talked about how it speeds up photo so much, that I could it
change the way we document our lives & experiences. That's big.

What else???

Any HNers use Google Glass yet and found killer uses?

~~~
Spooky23
The obvious use case is for military-type applications. Relay photos to an
overhead drone to give commanders a situational awareness of what is
happening. Designate targets. Provide video-game like HUD.

For consumers, I'd say the recording stuff is an uncanny valley. I'd love a
HUD for navigation.

------
raldi
Also from Business Insider, an article headlined, "I've Changed My Mind: After
Using Google Glass A Second Time, I'm Blown Away"

[http://www.businessinsider.com/google-glass-
experience-2013-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-glass-
experience-2013-5)

Seems to me that they're just writing anything and everything about Glass
because it makes for outstanding linkbait.

~~~
guelo
That article is much less researched consisting of one guy's short experience
with the device. It also includes a list of negatives which mirrors some of
the issues listed in the OP article.

------
United857
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." -- Slashdot on the original
iPod.

[http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-
ip...](http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod)

Wonder how that turned out.

~~~
gfodor
"The Segway is expensive, solves no real problem, and you look like a dork
when riding it." -- society

------
niggler
The verdict is in: Business Insider is blogspam (ghostery 17, disconnect 24)

~~~
johnbellone
Exactly what I was thinking.

Who the hell reads this garbage and why are we posting it on HN? Flag this.

------
Steko
Glass is the headset display analogue of Microsoft's early tablets. It's not
likely to be a blockbuster consumer product this year or maybe not next year
but moving displays next to our eyeballs is a natural next step and putting
cameras on headsets is a natural next step. I'm hugely skeptical whether those
steps need to happen together.

I'd guess the killer app for next gen mobile headsets is the ability to record
your surroundings. Yes you can do that with a phone today. What you can't do
is have your phone in your pocket constantly holding 5-15+ seconds of audio
and video so that when you hit record you get the thing you actually wanted to
record whether it's something adorable your kid/pet did, a great joke, an
illegal act etc.

So that's the killer app imho and it's going to require an insane amount of
battery life up front (and we're putting it right next to people's brains so
it better not catch fire or blow up). Then we'll probably need an insane
amount of mobile bandwidth and cloud storage for persistent streaming.

But wait we're jumping ahead, you don't need an eye display to do this, you
get the functionality from just a camera on a bluetooth headset while the slab
in your pocket handles the storage/radios. In fact powering a display is going
to kill overall battery life which is the most important constraint. The
display is also the most expensive part of Glass today.

So I think the first blockbuster consumer Glass-type product is going to be a
bluetooth headset with a camera and no display.

------
Shank
I've heard quite the contrary from initial feedback (Scoble, Verge reporters,
etc.) based on the concept. The thing is, the currently released Explorer
Edition is a prototype to see use cases. It's hard for there to be a "verdict"
when the "to-market" product isn't even close to being ready.

Glass doesn't even have notifications right now, that's coming "soon."

------
martythemaniak
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

------
mtgx
Right now it has almost no apps, and it's a year away from launching as a
consumer device. The verdict is certainly "not in".

There is a good reason why you almost never see BusinessInsider articles on
HN. This is a good reminder why.

------
motters
Google may be able to improve on most of these problems, but they won't be
able to eliminate the headaches unless they fundamentally alter the design.
The problem is that this type of display requires the wearer to change focus
when using it. Enough of that activity is going to become literally nauseating
after a while.

For AR to really work the display needs to remain in focus no matter what the
wearer is looking at, and that means an Eyetap-like design.

------
cbr

        Why is it so expensive? It's not using top of the line
        processing, according to leaked specs. It's about as
        powerful as the original Kindle, which cost $159 right
        now. Is miniaturization and a metal headband a $1,341
        cost?
    

What? It sits on your head, so it has to be small and light. It uses a new
kind of display. It's made in low volumes. I suspect the hardware costs are
actually _more_ than $1500.

~~~
hrayr
Hardware cost has nothing to do with the price at this point. It's expensive
because it's simply NOT mass produced for a massive audience. This is a
prototype and they don't want anyone's grandma to get their hands on it just
yet.

------
cpncrunch
Reminds me of 'virtual reality' from 20 years ago. It seemed great at the time
and we were all waiting for a real-life 'cyberspace', but it never really
happened.

------
Felix21
This reminds me a lot of a Large iPod touch type device everyone was hating on
3 years ago.

The fact that i now own (and LOVE) an iPad is why i will never again make
early judgements and conclusions like this one.

------
mpyne
Nobody liked the Nintendo DS when it first came out either. Should it find a
"killer app" at the right price it will be wildly popular, just like any other
new hardware.

~~~
Filligree
The killer app for eyewear like this is augmented reality, but the technology
is not yet there. It will be, maybe in another ten years. Until then, devices
like Glass will become progressively more useful.

A good take on it is the television series Dennou Coil, set in a future where
augmented reality has become truly transparent. It shows the concept from the
viewpoint of children, conveniently escaping a lot of the potential pitfalls
of predictions.

------
jcub
I was really wondering how this was going to play out, seeing as my staring at
a computer screen for hours on end already gives me killer headaches.

------
mrtksn
it could be very useful professional gadget for some but at this time it looks
like the times when Microsoft was pushing the tablets without solving key
problems. then one day the ipad came and did orders of magnitude better than
all the tablets that microsoft endorsed for years.

one day a company may figure out how to solve all these things and then we can
have a glass that is a mass market product.

------
ImprovedSilence
meh, me being a hockey fan found this pretty awesome: [http://gizmodo.com/pov-
hockey-with-google-glass-is-better-th...](http://gizmodo.com/pov-hockey-with-
google-glass-is-better-than-rinkside-se-487240083)

------
jared314
I sounds like it doesn't, yet, have a good use case.

~~~
Apocryphon
I'm sure there are, if anything it can be a substitute for the GoPro. But
there just doesn't seem to be a use case with enough mass appeal to justify
the price.

~~~
threeseed
I fail to see how. People use GoPro in generally sporting or rugged
situations.

Google Glass is pretty fragile and in those situations having a one inch
glass/perspex cube in front of your eye is very dangerous.

------
nick007
Reminds me of early reviews of the DynaTAC 8000X

------
oniTony
As claimed by someone who...

> haven't worn Glass.

