
Glass - nate
http://dcurt.is/glass
======
nahname
After trying google glass out last week, it still has a long way to go. Many
tech people lined up to try it out. All of us failed to do anything useful
with it. We had to be told how to activate it. We had to be told what we could
do with it. What phrases it keys off of ('Okay glass'). These were all highly
technical people and we couldn't figure it out on our own.

Contrast that with a few christmas' ago when I left my iPad out and found my
dad watching aeroplane videos on youtube. He didn't know what an ipad is (or
youtube for that matter). Yet, he still managed to find something he could
appreciate with it with no guidance.

Us tech savvy people couldn't figure out how to turn google glass on. Those
with glasses could barely see it even when it was.

~~~
canthonytucci
>All of us failed to do anything useful with it. We had to be told how to
activate it. We had to be told what we could do with it.

If I'm going to wear something on my head like a nutcase, I would hope that it
has been designed for _usability_ not _Discoverability_. Making everything
idiot-proof or at least "didn't bother to read the manual proof" leaves us
with only devices suited for idiots and people too lazy to read the manual.

EDIT: That said....I'm not going to wear something on my head like a nutcase,
because no matter how cool it is, I'm too shy/vain/self conscious to do so.
The only people willing to wear glass I would bet are people who are wiling to
learn to use something to get the most benefit out of it (I would bet a huge
overlap with emacs and vim users).

~~~
potatolicious
> _"leaves us with only devices suited for idiots and people too lazy to read
> the manual."_

Devices "suited for idiots and people too lazy to read the manual" have, in
the past decade, driven massive growths in computing, made it more accessible
to more people, changed the landscape of the entire world, and even fueled a
few revolutions.

But by all means, when people need to read a book just to use a device, we'll
consider it a badge of honor instead of a failure of design.

~~~
canthonytucci
> Devices "suited for idiots and people too lazy to read the manual" have, in
> the past decade, driven massive growths in computing, made it more
> accessible to more people, changed the landscape of the entire world, and
> even fueled a few revolutions

The touch devices I assume you're referring to are intuitive because as a
human you're naturally good at using your hands to make things move around.

Push a button and it acts like a button, push a thing that looks like a sheet
of paper and it moves in a way that you would expect a paper on your "real"
desk in front of you to move.

They're "idiot proof" because we've been trained to use them most of our
lives.

>But by all means, when people need to read a book just to use a device, we'll
consider it a badge of honor instead of a failure of design.

Glass is something we interact with through an entirely alien interface and
potentially an extremely powerful tool. I'm not talking about a podcast app,
but a head mounted computer you might potentially be using for hours at a
time.

Unless you eat a lot of acid, you're probably not familiar with how to
interact with imaginary things that float in space before you.

To me, "they had to tell me how to use it" is a much weaker complaint than "it
was easy but tedious to use" for something that sits on the side of your head.

This blog post, and the ones it links to, do a much better job of exploring
this than I could here:

[http://haacked.com/archive/2008/11/06/usability-vs-
discovera...](http://haacked.com/archive/2008/11/06/usability-vs-
discoverability.aspx)

(somewhat relevant and fun top gear segment on the evolution of car
interfaces) [http://www.streetfire.net/video/125-top-gear-first-modern-
ca...](http://www.streetfire.net/video/125-top-gear-first-modern-
car_187343.htm)

------
zacharycohn
As someone who just got their Glass last night, I have a FEW conflicting
points, although a lot of it is spot on.

-I don't think the screen is not bright enough, and I haven't had the issue where you have to look at something dark to see it.

-I also disagree about "dangerous while driving." In fact, I would argue quite the opposite. It's SO much safer than looking at your phone for directions. The fact that any information I need is a simple, and fast, glance away is much better than holding up my phone and looking back and forth between that.

(Side note- it's also fantastic for directions while biking. Previously I'd
have to do this scary "check my phone while biking" thing, which was no good
at all.)

-Looking at the screen has felt incredibly natural to me. You're not looking at the extreme top right. I don't have a lot more to say here other than YMMV, I guess.

~~~
ry0ohki
I just got my invite to order and his comment about it being dangerous while
driving is a non-starter...that's the main reason I'd find this useful (while
cycling)

~~~
lambda
Hmm. I can't see how it would be much more dangerous than using a mirror. I
ride with a mirror mounted on my glasses, and I glance up at it briefly then
back at the road again. The same would be true of the glass. Sure, when you're
first getting used to it you will probably linger on it for longer due to the
novelty and getting used to the exact focus point. But once you get the hang
of it, I can't imagine it would be much different than glancing at a mirror,
which is perfectly safe.

~~~
Thrymr
The mirror is there to increase your situational awareness while cycling.
Glass has a strong potential to do the opposite. If its use is limited to HUD
for information useful to you for cycling, fine, but if you're getting text
messages or anything else you have to think about, it's distracting.

~~~
zacharycohn
Those do not pop up while navigation is on.

~~~
danellis
And, it's worth pointing out, even navigation isn't displayed all the time. It
only pops up when giving instructions.

------
rdl
I'd personally settle for a voice-output-only Glass (maybe with chording for
text input to avoid the "talking to yourself crazy person" problem, and with a
camera/microphone built in for ambient data gathering).

Hardware we could have built for the last 10 years, and really unobtrusive.
You'd need _better_ UI and software than with video, since information needs
to be more closely tailored for a lower bitrate channel, but I think Google
(or a smart startup) could do it.

99% of the reasons I use video are because I need to do the filtering and
postprocessing in my head. If I had complete trust in a great software agent,
I could just let it tell me what to do, vs. showing me enough data to make a
decision. e.g. for driving, you can give directions by voice (if you're a
talented codriver) which do NOT require any visual information to the driver
during a high-speed rally. Almost no car nav systems are that smart, but if
Google can build a self-driving car, they should be able to make an awesome
codriver/navigator.

Extends to almost anything. I don't need to see a picture of someone and a
dossier; just remind me of the most critical facts as needed, by voice.

This should be just as good as having a clone of yourself, or an entire team
of ops people, watching/listening to what you do, and giving you voice
prompts, just like a video game, or being the President on TV in a live
debate, or whatever.

The _hardware_ is trivial; it's all software and back-end processing, which
Apple sucks at and Google/Amazon/Startup should rock at.

~~~
gwillen
You don't even _need_ Glass for that -- just an unobtrusive bluetooth headset,
and a good backend.

~~~
rdl
Video and ambient mic would be nice, and data. We could have had this 10+
years ago, although it really only became practical with 3G I think.

------
Shenglong
_The industrial design is solid, and though it is being manufactured in small
batches, it has the build quality you might expect from something being mass-
produced._

Not sure what to make of this statement. The design _is_ beautiful, but I
don't see why that would be an artifact of mass-production. The early
prototypes for Glass were much sexier in terms of build integrity (optics, for
example) than the current mass-produced models. One of the big challenges, in
fact, was lowering expenses for mass-producibility. However, yes, the design
is wonderfully intelligent. You'll notice some optical tricks when you look at
Glass. For example, you'll see as if the frame takes up a portion of the
sides, but in reality, there is circuitry hidden behind it--by looking at it
you'd never know :)

 _The interface is not intuitive. It is actually very difficult to use the
first time, for seemingly no reason. ... I would have expected more design
attention to have been spent on interacting with the software._

I really feel this is a non-issue. Yes, you don't know how to use it when you
first get it, but after a few instructions from a friend, I navigated the
entire interface just fine for about an hour without needing additional help.
Mostly, I just had to learn about the well-disguised touchpad. I've used a lot
of silly software and hardware, and Glass is _not_ one of them. It's a new
product class, and it's going to have a new interface.

 _Glass doesn't communicate with you very much, and when it does, it doesn't
use audio. It makes heavy use of the screen when possible. When navigating
Glass, you can rarely speak selections. The only way to fully navigate the
interface is to use the touchpad by holding your hand up near your face._

Navigation is definitely an issue. However, the Glass team planned on external
devices being used to navigate Glass. Once Thalmic's MYO is fully operational,
I don't think navigation will be much of a problem.

 _The battery life is dreadful. After ten minutes of use, the battery level
reported went down by at least 8%. The owner told me that it would probably
last about two hours with constant use. (This is hopefully a temporary
handicap that will be improved in the future, but I find it hard to consider
even this level of battery life good enough for a device that is sold.)_

This is supposed to be fixed. Especially if you use video recording, the
battery will drain really quickly. The idea by final product, is to have it
last about 12 hours with passive use (kind of like a cell phone).

~~~
roc
> _"I really feel this is a non-issue."_

For geeks, probably not. For normals? It's a pretty big deal. Normals weren't
entirely convinced by the mouse. They learned it. Sort of. But many never even
grokked the whole 'click vs double-click vs right-click' thing.

And the mouse was at least a fairly consistently-behaved indirect pointing
device. Tapping and swiping an inconsistent, indirect touch surface,
particularly after having learned direct-manipulation touch-screens, is not
going to go over well.

Keep in mind that to make a Glass-style wearable make sense to a casual user,
it has to be more efficient than simply taking out their cell phone. And for
people whom HUDs are a natural advantage, it needs to be efficiently usable
without requiring that person's hands being used.

So seemingly minor annoyances can add up quickly to a determination of "not
worth it". You've probably got about a half-second of grace before people go
back to their phone.

> _"Once Thalmic's MYO is fully operational, I don't think navigation will be
> much of a problem."_

Hand navigation might be easier, but the social problems will get massively
amplified. Nodding/tapping/talking is 'weird' enough. Throw in some
finger/hand/arm movements and this thing's never leaving the den of
specialized technologists.

And requiring hand gestures can kill usefulness for those (hands-full) people
that most naturally benefit from a HUD.

To me, Glass is looking more and more like Microsoft's stab at tablets. It's
an early attempt that's going to make a class of specialized users very happy.
But it's not going to be in casual use on trains, in coffee shops, etc. It's
supposed efficiency gains are largely hamstrung by interactivity problems that
are just annoying enough to send most users back to the alternative tools.

The real test for Google, is whether they address these problems or pretend
they don't exist -- as Microsoft did -- until someone else comes along and
eats their lunch with a far more modest solution.

~~~
Joeri
Glass needs to be an overlay for your entire vision, so that active UI could
be shown overlaid on any surface. Tapping out a private message on your sleeve
wouldn't be that weird once people are used to it. It wouldn't even need to
drive up the hardware much.

------
pixie_
I spent an hour tonight debating someone on how the Oculus Rift is
revolutionary while Glass is not. The first hand reviews of the Rift vs Glass
are night and day. One is the future the other is meh.

~~~
falcolas
At the potential of starting a flame war, I would categorize the Oculus Rift
as the meh, and the glass is the future.

I was able to use a head mounted (and tracking) 3d display with a computer
back when ROTT was popular (circa 1994). It's a novelty at best, and a
headache inducing nightmare at worst. I didn't see the magic then, and I
certainly don't see the magic now.

A seamless hud, on the other hand, has the potential to do great things for
your interaction with the environment. Based on reviews, however, it's still
years out.

~~~
cstejerean
Seems a bit unfair to dismiss the Oculus Rift based on the state of head
mounted displays from ~20 years ago. Yes, they used to suck. That's exactly
what the Oculus Rift is trying to solve. Have you tried one?

~~~
falcolas
> Yes, they used to suck.

Actually, no, this one didn't. It was fantastic technology. The resolution was
the same as the monitors on the other computers, and the tracking was very
fast. The only downside to the technology itself was that it was heavy.

The problem was that it was only a window, and a relatively small window at
that. It's a glorified 3d monitor that denies you vision of your surroundings
(and works very poorly with anyone with glasses).

Worse? You still need some other sort of controller (which you can't see when
you're wearing them), and unless you're standing up, you can only look a
limited amount around you. In any environment other than wandering around a
virtual world, it's a curiosity at best.

FPS games - the head moves too slowly to make an accurate method of aiming
(and think of your neck muscles afterwards), so you still need to use a mouse
as your primary aiming device, and a keyboard to move.

MMO games (perhaps the ideal target for these) require extensive use of the
keyboard and mouse (neither of which you can see with the device on), and are
rarely played in first person view.

I just can't really see a market outside of VR, and then not without a whole
new class of controllers and tactile feedback methods. It's the first (and
arguably the easiest) part of a new class of technology, which when combined
could be interesting. Until then... meh.

------
tomasien
Anyone want an unsolicited opinion? _waits for everyone to leave_

I hope Google Glass is an experiment, because voice reco isn't particularly
important outside of when you're driving. When I get tired of texting and
consider voice reco, 2 things hit me (and others, I've done solid research on
this)

1\. Voice reco would be slightly better now that I'm tired of texting, but not
much. 2\. It is nowhere near socially acceptable to be speaking to no one.
That's why you only see old people using bluetooth - how is that not an
unbeatable sign? You can't just be speaking to no one.

The next step in communication has to be either low input "aware" communcation
(aka, the check-in) or communication that somehow otherwise reads your mind.

~~~
Volpe
sitting at a table messing on a computer in your hand used to be socially
unacceptable.

~~~
roc
And speaking to a live person via cellphone, in many places and contexts, is
still considered socially un-acceptable. And this hasn't changed all that much
after a decade-plus of near-ubiquitous cell phone ownership.

So I can't see how replacing the phone-and-person with wearable-and-computer-
agent is going to see social change along any further/faster.

------
ars
Can you retitle this to "Google Glass"? I know the policy is to copy the
original title, but "Glass" is too generic.

~~~
revscat
Given the topicality of the word I very much doubt that many HN users will
confused.

~~~
JacobAldridge
I was confused. Not a big issue, but a fair request.

------
djloche
>"Google Now is integrated, and it makes a lot of sense with Glass. The more
intelligent Now becomes, the less actual interaction you need to do with the
interface."

This is the "big thing". The battery issues will be a minor footnote if the
majority of your use of Glass is it providing information as you need it,
rather than you fussing with it trying to get the information you need. Google
Now allows for this to happen - the better it becomes, the better Glass
becomes.

~~~
snogglethorpe
> _Google Now allows for this to happen_

I've never quite figured out what's up with Google Now—I have it on my phone,
and I hear it's supposed to be some sort of (semi) intelligent assistant type
of thing, but so far it doesn't seem to do very much at all, much less
anything "intelligent."

On my phone, it gives me weather info every day (which is nice), and dutifully
tells me how to get to work in the morning and return home home at night
(thanks Google Now!) but ... other than that, it basically does nothing.

Am I doing something wrong? Is there some setting I need to set
("intelligence: on") that will make Google Now suddenly start telling me what
upcoming movies I might like, or interrupting my dinner to tell me about that
great TV show I'm about to miss?

~~~
jordanthoms
You might need to signup for the Gmail search field trial to get some of that
stuff: <https://www.google.com/experimental/gmailfieldtrial/> , you also need
search history on for it to learn from your searches.

~~~
estebank
"This trial is only accessible on <https://www.google.com> in the U.S. in
English for @gmail.com addresses (not available on Google Apps accounts)."

There are three points in that sentence that exclude me.

------
kumar_navneet
I don't know if there is a way for the person next to the person wearing a
glass to tell whether the glass is on or off, but if there is no way then
there has to be one which will take care of the security issues like recording
a video, taking a picture etc while talking to a person and that person don't
know about the same.

------
kposehn
This is a perfect example of a primary difference between apple and google.

Apple makes sure that before you ever use it that almost every single thing
akin to what Dustin pointed out is a non-issue.

Google gives you an alpha/beta product and wants you to find the flaws for
them, and maybe help shape it.

Using bread as an analogy, Apple gives you a beautiful tasty loaf ready to
eat; Google gives you some dough and tells you to start kneading if you want
some bread. With Apple you know you are getting a fantastic loaf and with
Google you get to help bake.

Each has their benefits and drawbacks.

~~~
raldi
I think ice cream shops might make for a better analogy.

Apple is like one that makes the absolute best vanilla and chocolate ice
creams you've ever had. And maybe in the back, they're working on an amazing
mint-chocolate-chip, but they haven't quite found just the right supplier of
peppermint extract, and until then, nobody gets to try it.

Google is like that crazy experimental ice cream shop that has all sorts of
weird flavors available at any time, and sometimes they don't quite work out
(like "pancakes") but sometimes they're huge successful breakthroughs (like
"bourbon and cornflakes"), and they have no way of knowing which is going to
be which until the public starts to taste them.

~~~
nsns
And at times they would, out of the blue, cancel a taste you really like.

~~~
FireBeyond
Not really fair to reference Google here.

After all, the flip side is, "or announce that a flavor that you paid $600 for
barely 14 months ago is end-of-life and will not be getting any updates".

~~~
ianstormtaylor
Is that really the flip side? With an Android you don't even have to wait 14
months to be guaranteed no updates.

------
uptown
In many of the reviews - the camera is noted as one of the most useful or
interesting current features. As unique as the camera perspective offered by
Glass may be - virtually none of my favorite photos using traditional cameras
were taken at head-level.

~~~
aetherson
I don't think that glass will take to many beautiful photos. The lack of
framing, the uncertainty of the moment of capture, and the compromised size of
the optics and sensor argue against it.

But it gives you the opportunity to take photos that you'd have missed with
less available hardware.

------
john_w_t_b
Google glass seems like a solution looking for a problem. Impressive tech, but
what is the use case that makes up for awkward controls and two hour battery
life? You can strap your smart-phone to your wrist for $30 and get hands-free
operation.

I am much more excited about self-driving cars. Maybe Google could transfer
some of the tech to heads-up displays for drivers.

~~~
nosuchmethod
Could you somehow hook it into Ingress? That could be interesting.

------
pooriaazimi
> _15\. If Glass is “on” and anyone near you says “OK Glass,” they can control
> what you see, take a picture, etc._

That's what I thought, though oddly, I haven't seen this obvious fact
mentioned anywhere else. It can be fixed in future I'm sure - but in the short
term it might cause some problems:

"OK Glass. Tweet 'I'm an idiot'." - _someone shouting in the subway_

~~~
saulrh
If it turns out to be a big enough problem, Google could probably add a way
for people to run Glass off of a throat mike [0], simultaneously solving the
"crazy bluetooth headset person" and "hostile takeover" problems.

0: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laryngophone>

~~~
cheald
Given that there's a bone conduction speaker, I rather assumed that Glass was
going to pick up on bone-conducted vibrations to make sure the wearer is the
one speaking.

------
koko775
You might want to check which of your eyes is dominant. At Google I/O they
mentioned that if Glass shows on your dominant eye that it might be a safety
issue - but if it's on your non-dominant eye, it'll be more of an overlay and
less of an obstruction to your vision. They're working on a mirrored version
that goes on the other eye.

~~~
PiersonBro
Interesting that Sergey Brin called Glass basically done when something as
major as a mirrored version is in the works. That doesn't bode well for the
project.

~~~
metaeaux
A mirrored version is relatively trivial. It does not introduce any new
technical challenges. From a technical point of view, the hardware is done and
that's what google[x] focuses on.

------
wtracy
Oddly enough, the thing that's disappointed me the most about Glass so far is
that there's no real SDK for it that I can find. There's something called
"Glassware" that lets you build views in HTML and throw them up on the screen,
but that's it.

Am I just missing something? I suppose Google could be mirroring what Apple
did with the first iPhone and letting the tech stack settle down before
opening things up to third-party development.

(C'mon, who doesn't want to make a game where you turn your head to aim and
say "pew pew pew" to fire?)

~~~
smackmybishop
At I/O they said the SDK is on the way.

------
orangethirty
The big question is: Can I trade in my Segway for it?

~~~
panacea
Only if you also offer a hypercolor t-shirt and some crocs as loot.

------
mtgx
Google needs to make the camera very good in low-light and they _desperately_
need to add Optical Image Stabilization, like we've seen in some of the latest
phones. Watching some of the Glass videos makes me sick, because people move
their heads even more than they move their hands when recording with their
phones. So OIS is _that much more important_. Even if it makes the product
cost $50 more at retail, I think it's worth it.

I'm not sure what they will do about battery life. Maybe if they'll use more
efficient chips like Cortex A7 or Cortex A53 instead of Cortex A9, battery
life would increase. But I think the main reason is the small battery, and the
reason they can't increase it much more is because they don't want it to be
heavy. So they can only really try to optimize the device with a more
efficient chip, more efficient voice recognition, more efficient video
recording, and so on.

~~~
tmzt
Or BIG.little which would allow selecting the ARM processor core to use based
on the current needs, using the more power efficient chip when passive.

------
wojtczyk
> 3\. When you look at the screen, your eyes have to focus on something
> extremely close to your face, which leaves everything else in your field of
> vision totally blurred.

Not true! Completely wrong! You don't have to focus on the glass device
itself. I doubt anyone here even can. It would hurt very soon and you would
have an extreme cross-eyed look when trying to see the display.

The display is set-up for a focal plane somewhere in front of your eyes.
Google mentioned it is equivalent to a 25" at 8 feet distance.

------
nicholassmith
If the issues with having to look at dark areas are common and persistent in
the consumer release, it'll kill mainstream adoption. A geek might dislike
having to do it, but they'll do it, but explaining to most people "oh sure,
you just look at a shadow and hey presto" isn't going to convince them.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the product, I just hope that Google can nail
these issues before they release it, otherwise wearable tech might get a bit
of a bump back in terms of adoption.

~~~
djim
there is a sunglasses extension. put that on and the issue he described
disappears. you can see the screen in direct sunlight. this is the problem
with someone giving such a detailed review when they don't fully understand
the product features (the sunglasses extension is a feature).

~~~
nicholassmith
So there's an additional widget that's required for you to use it in direct
sunlight, so you need to have the sunglasses extension for it to work
correctly. I understand there's a technical reason for this, but that's not a
solution that's going to work for the majority consumer.

~~~
djim
most people wear sunglasses in the sun.

------
antonpug
I think it is mildly ridiculous how much attention "Glass" receives. The
concept behind the product seems remotely OK, however from all the initial
reviews this seems like yet another failed Google experiment. Poor, buggy
software, and bulky hardware that looks like a joke - I'd be embarrassed to
wear those. I think people really need to stop spinning the whole Google
Glasses topic, they don't really deserve the attention.

~~~
Fuzzwah
1) give your product to every tech journo and blogger

2) ???

3) coverage!

------
marcosscriven
Basic question - is the little screen focused at infinity?

~~~
Filligree
Clearly not, if this article is to be believed.

Yes, that's a problem!

~~~
wojtczyk
Don't believe this article. You do not focus on the glass cuboid and I doubt
you even can. Just hold your finger up close and try to focus on it. You
probably can't at this distance.

------
timcederman
This reminds me a lot of PDAs, etc, 10 years ago. Not sure how long until we
solve the ubicomp issues of something like glass, but I'm bullish we will.

------
fauigerzigerk
I suspect that one day we will have to make a step away from general purpose
computing. Not every device has to be a little PC.

PCs, due to their general purpose nature, cannot be shaped to fit any one
situation perfectly. They also require a lot of interaction to tell them which
particular function they're supposed to perform in a particular moment.

I'm sure there will still be wearable PCs, but it's going to be transitional.

------
coldtea
Sorry, but this sounds like a pre-alpha gizmo.

And not of the "beta coming in Fall" kind, the check-back-in-ten-years kind.

If, say, Apple was also presenting such pre-demo quality stuff, they would
have flooded the media with BS. E.g they could have shown their iPad
prototypes in 2004, in a similar crappy form.

Google only presents this half-baked shit to show us it "innovates". I'd
rather know if they can deliver.

~~~
kryptiskt
Google and Apple are different. They have different cultures, but also quite
different businesses. If someone else takes the Google Glass as it is now and
makes a more attractive product out of it, Google still wins, as they make
their money from usage, not hardware sales. Therefore it often makes sense for
Google to throw half-baked products out there and get help from others to gain
traction, Android being the shining example.

~~~
coldtea
> _Therefore it often makes sense for Google to throw half-baked products out
> there and get help from others to gain traction, Android being the shining
> example._

I'm not sure Android is a good example of "Google making their money from
usage".

For one, have the Android development costs been recouped even? Including the
Motorola buyout.

Second, the more successful companies (Amazon with Kindle and Samsung, which
is 95% of all Android sales IIRC), are either already having or in the process
of locking Google out of it. The Fire's already doing it, and Samsung is
investigating it's own path there too.

And if they could replace the web search to something else, they probably
would -- but there's nothing much at the moment, which is why even iOS using
Google as the default.

------
petenixey
Is the image from glass projected into your eye or onto a screen? If it's
projected directly into your eye then wouldn't it possible to set the focal
distance to be roughly the same as where you're already looking?

NB given I have never ever heard of this happening i suspect there's a hole in
my knowledge of optics but it would be awesome if it was possible.

~~~
DanBC
There are some "virtual retinal displays", but they're mostly vapourware
rather than actively developed and sold devices. They use a laser beam into
the eye.

(<http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/vrd/>)

([http://ascentlookout.atos.net/en-
us/enabling_information_tec...](http://ascentlookout.atos.net/en-
us/enabling_information_technologies/virtual_retinal_display/default.htm))

([http://eclecti.cc/hardware/blinded-by-the-light-diy-
retinal-...](http://eclecti.cc/hardware/blinded-by-the-light-diy-retinal-
projection))

That last link is a DIY (terrifying) project. Your eyes, your choice. Retinas
are delicate.

EDIT: One company doing stuff is "Microvision" -
(<http://www.microvision.com/index2.html>) but they've changed to pico-
projectors.

------
triplesec
To be fair, it is in alpha, so this is the kind of feedback they are looking
for.

------
danielweber
_Nowhere in nature does moving your head also move the thing you want to look_

It's not nature, but everyone who already wears glasses knows what this is
like. It's just part of my software by now.

~~~
rmk2
I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense, but I don't understand your comment. :(

If I physically move my head, nothing I am looking at is moving with me, i.e.
the computer screen does not move to where I look.

The point is that you look _through_ glasses, yet the Google Glass screen
makes you focus _on_ it, not through it, and hence it moves with your general
head movement.

Or have I misunderstood what you said?

~~~
danielweber
If you want to look at your glasses themselves, bespectacled-people learn to
flik their eyes, not their whole head.

~~~
rmk2
> If you want to look at your glasses themselves, bespectacled-people learn to
> flik their eyes

I still fail to see the point. Maybe because I never try to look at my own
glasses...

edit: When I want to look _over_ the rim of my glasses, I still move my head
while looking up with my eyes, otherwise I wouldn't be able to look at what I
was looking at before.

------
randomsearch
What problem does Google Glass solve? Is it the best way to solve that
problem?

Would Google have been smarter to not include a camera, at least initially?

Is the tech there to make this a viable product yet?

------
csomar
Anyone can take control of your Glass? Wow, this needs some fixing. I guess
this will become annyoing for owners as people find out this type of trolling.

------
senthilnayagam
"Before you even turn it on, Glass feels like something from the future that
is worth at least $1,000."

taken from Google PR?

------
kayoone
i can totally see myself using something like Glass while working, but in my
private life i believe that a smartphone + maybe a smartwatch is more than
enough.

~~~
seraphimserapis
I guess that's the approach that many people are going to have. Glass (or
something similar) might be a worthy addition for lots of professionals.

------
djim
the camera takes the photo when you tell it too - i'm not sure where the
author gets the idea that google glass can somehow go back in time to take a
photo...

------
SimpleStatement
Dustin Curtis does not even own Glass, he is using a 'friends' item.

He just wants readership/attention/validation, hence the opinionated and
slightly snarky blog post.

~~~
mikeg8
This comment adds zero value to any meaningful discussion. aJust because he
doesn't own it himself doesn't mean he is incapable of a thoughtful analysis
of his experience with the product. Keep your jealousy to yourself.

~~~
djim
actually, the author got quite a few key facts wrong, so in this case, i think
not owning the device does factor into the equation. for example, he complains
about not being able to use them in direct sunlight. google provides a
sunglass add-on to all explorers, which is a critical component for using
glass in direct sunlight. sergey brin himself told me as much the day i picked
them up. he got a few other things wrong as well. all-in-all, he has a lot of
valid points i agree with, but with some false information mixed in, it could
end up leading to a lot of folks further misunderstanding this device.

------
mattbarrie
OK GLASS FORMAT C:

------
drivebyacct2
If you think Glass is the end product that matters, you're not paying any
attention. Tim Cook wants to start shit-talking Glass and talking about how
they're going to bring out watches? Cool. So are three other Android
manufacturers.

Who is the _only_ person with the AI and data sets to power things like Google
Now and really make form factors like Glass or Watch practical? You don't hear
anyone talking about that. They're talking about SDKs or users or app stores
or whether or not I can set my own default browser on my phone.

Google Now is the big deal here that everyone glazes over when talking about
Glass. They're already putting it into Google's web interface (for the
desktop, yeah), Chrome (though it makes more sense in Google.com rather than
Chrome to me), Glass and I'm sure more and more services will continue to feed
into it. They announce more every few weeks.

~~~
Osmium
I wouldn't exactly say Tim Cook's "shit-talking" it. His quote from D11 on
Glass is:

"There are some positives in the product. It's probably likely to appeal to
certain vertical markets. The likelihood that it has broad appeals is hard to
see."

I think that's actually a fairly well-balanced statement. He also says this
about glasses _and_ watches:

"Nothing that's going to convince a kid that's never worn glasses or a band or
a watch or whatever to wear one. At least I haven't seen it. So there's lots
of things to solve in this space."

This isn't saying that Glass will never work or that it's a bad idea, just
that as it currently stands it needs a lot of work to have a mass appeal,
which is probably true. I, for one, am looking forward to see what Glass
becomes in two or three iterations time.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Look, I'm not a fashionable guy, but come on:

"Nothing that's going to convince a kid that's never worn glasses or a band or
a watch or whatever to wear one."

I'm kind of embarrassed by Tim's comments. He won't even make a non-
pessismistic comment about watches, which, I guess everyone could be wrong but
it seems they'll introduce one soon; it's as if he's already pushing the
notion "Apple iWatch is magical and people want to wear it and not the three
competing Android watches that better integrate with your phone and have more
features".

Who knows, it's taken HTC years (and losing tons of market share) to design
fashionable looking hardware. Maybe Apple will win purely on design and Tim's
comments will be vindicated. Either way, I hope he's not putting all his eggs
in that iPhone basket, unless iOS7 just prints money.

------
kmasters
There's a problem with glass. As far as I can tell.

What Google is hoping for is to tease us into wanting something, that no one
has asked for.

Google is not alone in this historically.

Let's step back a decade, when we were all told that Microsoft (by Microsoft)
had the biggest R&D budget in the world.

What products came out of that R&D? ZERO.

Apple on the other hand spent years developing the iPhone with iPod profits
and never let on what they were going to reveal. What happened? A mobile
revolution.

Google is telegraphing R&D to try and leapfrog Apple in the public mind while
having no viable consumer product in the pipeline much less on retail shelves.
Thats tantamount to product suicide.

I think Glass or something like glass could be important, but I think that
Googles approach to pushing alphaware in front of the masses, will, if it
really is viable force google to play catch up to Apple or someone else once
again.

Google has never, not once, in its history, had a successful launch of a
hardware product.

~~~
DominikR
"Google has never, not once, in its history, had a successful launch of a
hardware product"

Sure, Apple brought us the iPad Mini because the Nexus 7 failed so hard. The
Nexus 4 and 10 are also known as big failures that customers hate.

~~~
kmasters
You are correct, No Nexus device from the time it was released to today has
sold as much as the iPad or iPhone sells in one day.

Google has never had a successful launch of a hardware product, not even once.

~~~
cbr
Supposedly Apple sold 23M iPads in Q1 2013, or 250K/day [1] but Google sold
4.6M Nexus 7s in 2012 [2].

[1] <http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/23/apple13q1-iphone-ipad-ipod/>

[2] [http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/19/analyst-estimates-peg-
total...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/19/analyst-estimates-peg-total-
nexus-7-sales-in-2012-at-around-4-6m-compared-to-roughly-10m-ipad-minis/)

