

 I’m a Google Glass skeptic and think it’ll be the next Apple Newton - andrew_null
http://andrewchen.co/2013/03/06/im-a-google-glass-skeptic-and-think-itll-be-the-next-apple-newton/

======
devindotcom
I really don't think of this generation of Glass (including the cheaper,
better version to come later this year) as a real consumer product. It will be
available to consumers, sure, but so were MP3 players in 1997. I personally
was pumped about MP3-CD players and still dipped into my cassette collection.
I think Glass is ahead of the market, but is more high-profile than, say, a
Rio or something was back in the day, simply because Google is hyping it to
the moon.

I'm certainly skeptical about how successful Glass will be in the next year or
two, but not about the wearable, low-profile device market altogether.

------
nostromo
I'm reminded of a recent Apple patent: the iWatch.

Both a watch and a screen on my glasses provide me with the convenience of an
interface with my phone that is always visible.

I like the iWatch for most use-cases better: changing a track while walking,
seeing if I should answer my phone while at dinner, reading an SMS at a party.

Google Glasses really excels in other use cases: directions while driving and
GoPro video making. Other than that, I'm afraid it falls flat for the reasons
listed in the article.

If I had to bet on a winner between iWatch and Glass, I'd choose iWatch. For
Google to win out, they need to focus on situations in which augmented reality
is most useful, sending text messages isn't it.

~~~
r00fus
So Google Glass is really just useful when you're not interfacing with people.
I can't get past the anti-social nature of the device - people already mistake
my bluetooth headset for some sort of microphone that may be recording at all
times - and that's unintentional as I just sometimes forget to take it off (it
can rest on my collar) as it's still blinking and such.

Something that invasive up by the eyes would make me feel like a complete
pariah.

Perhaps having on your "glass" would be equivalent to say, having a press hat
- ie, you're on duty and publicizing the fact that someone could be googled at
any moment or being recorded, etc.

------
11001
I don't think I will be comfortable having a conversation with anyone wearing
GG. I don't want to constantly wonder whether or not I'm being recorded, or
information about me is being sent to a business or a government. I want to
know whether or not the person I am talking to is reading/seeing/hearing
something else at the moment as well. As much as I would love to _work_ on GG,
I don't think I can ever accept people using it around me. It should never be
a "social" gadget. Use it on your own all you want though.

------
Cowen
> The state of the art on voice input, frankly, really sucks on both Android
> and iOS. Have you tried to compose a message that wasn’t “ok” or “coming
> home” via voice? Especially in a noisy cafe or on the bus?

Just yesterday I had a long conversation via IM with my girlfriend using only
Android's voice input while I was walking down loud, crowded NYC streets.

And the commands for Google Voice won't be much longer than "ok" or "coming
home" anyway. Commands are literally "Ok, Glass, <short command>"

~~~
squidsoup
Every time I've tried speaking to Siri through my headphones which have a
built-in mic, I've always feel like a bit of a nob. I don't live in a crowded
city however. Is this becoming more socially acceptable in large cities, or at
least so commonplace that people ignore it? I feel like where I live people
would probably assume someone walking down the street talking to themselves is
schizophrenic.

~~~
angryasian
comparing siri to google is the first misconception. Second people already do
with bluetooth. Is it really different ?

~~~
squidsoup
People don't tend to walk around with Bluetooth earpieces here either (small
city in New Zealand).

------
sputknick
Every use case you mentioned was consumer oriented. I think where this product
will excel is in manufacturing and logistics. Any function where you have to
receive data then perform an action (or if you prefer: look at a screen then
perform an action) will be much more efficient. Imagine if you could make
factory workers even just 5% more efficient. That's $15 a day (assuming 3
shifts). The thing would pay for itself in less than a year. That's a
conservative estimate, just a thought. I might be wrong, I haven't worked in
manufacturing in 6 years.

------
junto
I think you are spot on with analysis. Here is my take:

Apple will 're-invent' it in ten years time and market it to us all for $1500
as a luxury product that all Apple nuts will be a 'have to have' product.
Google will then release Google Glass+ two years later, which is free, but
advertises products and services to you based on where you are and what you
look at constantly 24-7.

Wired will then publish an article that states how often men really look at
women's breasts, because Google released anonymous data usage of Google Glass+
LiveStreetView (I claim the inventor's rights to this btw).

Microsoft will come late to the party with Microsoft 'Goggles', which confuses
everyone, because although looks good, everyone thinks must be crap, because
Microsoft released it. Steve Balmer finally retires. Everyone in Microsoft
breaths a sigh of relief.

Nix guys are just laughing their heads off. They've had retinal implants for 5
years and record everything to their private clouds.

Insurers start to demand that all people wear a Glass Recorder for insurance
purposes, and before you know it, all recordings legally have to be saved by
the government to prevent terrorism.

Future looks rosy through those rose tinted spectacles... Count me out.

~~~
angryasian
theres not one piece of advertising on Android devices, not credible.

------
cykod
I think he means it's going to be the next Google Nexus Q
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_Q>

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Haha, or the next Google Wave? Google TV? Google Buzz? Orkut?

------
Karunamon
For crying out loud, his entire article is predicated on the fact that the
device costs $1500.

This is true _of the developer version only_. It is a prerelease at that
price. The final version is not going to cost $1500.

~~~
alexgaribay
People seem to miss this point a lot when saying something about its current
pricing.

------
mladenkovacevic
I don't think Glass itself will be widely adopted, but it will get the ball
rolling towards full-on, externally invisible, computer implants.

These implants will not wait for your input to feed you information (although
they will certainly have that ability too). Instead they will serve
information as your environment and conversations demand. Having a
conversation where someone asks "So how did WWI start anyways?", the answer
will appear in front of you. Upon arriving at your local ski hill and telling
your friends "Ok let me to take a leak first and then we'll hit the slopes"
your invisible assistant would instantly give you directions to the bathroom
and queue up he directions to the ski-lifts. This will be cool on an
individual basis, but imagine if everyone had their "invisi-Glass". While
having a conversation with someone your implants would sync up, showing both
of you information as it relates to your dialogue. While basically eliminating
awkward pauses, it will also act as a kind of NFT (Near Field Telepathy)

~~~
philwelch
The implant will be supported by advertising. You will see banner ads in your
field of vision continuously. And as another bit of advertising, it will
broadcast this out loud if you ever meet someone without an implant: "We are
the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

~~~
mladenkovacevic
Why would you advertise to the Borg? I think they make very poor consumers.

------
sp332
_Here’s my list of what people are doing on Google Glass:

(12 boring things)_

The point is you don't have to look away from where you are or make the people
you're with feel ignored just to do a simple thing like checking the time.
Glancing at a clock on the wall is less disruptive to a conversation than
digging your phone out of your pocket.

~~~
taligent
No. You just have to point a video camera at someone and potentially record
their conversation. Do people have such poor social skills and lack of empathy
to understand why Google Glass will make many people really uncomfortable ?

~~~
corresation
Do people have such poor social skills and lack of active life that they've
never been around people wearing GoPro's?

You get over it. Really, really quickly.

The focus on the video camera....welcome to the modern world. Video cameras
are _everywhere_ , and if that is such a profound focus of people's concern,
you might want to fly around the planet a few times to turn back time because
it is unavoidable.

~~~
sp332
Most people have not met anyone using a GoPro. It's good to know that it's
easy to get used to though.

~~~
marssaxman
They are ubiquitous in snowsport environments - every time I go skiing I see a
dozen of the things. I've thought about getting one myself, to use as the
equivalent of a Russian dashcam for my motorcycle commute. It doesn't feel the
same as the Google Glass would, though, where the person just wears it all the
time. That seems creepy.

~~~
sp332
Depending on the state, it could be illegal to record a conversation without
the explicit consent of the person being recorded.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#All-p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#All-
party_notification_states)

~~~
corresation
Telephone laws are completely irrelevant to this.

~~~
sp332
On the contrary
[http://www.securitycameraking.com/securityinfo/2009/08/legal...](http://www.securitycameraking.com/securityinfo/2009/08/legalities-
of-audio-recording/)

 _In both one party and all party consent situations, audio can still be
recorded. The governing law with regards to recording audio is Title 18, Part
1, Chapter 119 of the US Code. As with most laws, trying to read and
understand it is a daunting task. But it all comes down to one definition in
this code. Section 2510 Paragraph 2 states:

“oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person
exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to
interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term
does not include any electronic communication.

So, this essentially means that, if a person expects their conversation to be
private, then it is illegal to record it. So, it is up to you to ensure that
they don’t have any expectation of privacy_

~~~
corresation
_On the contrary_

Google Glasses are not surveillance devices. They are not surreptitious. By
the notions of all party consent, every smartphone video capture (which
includes audio, and often includes the conversations of other people) would
see people thrown in jail. Is that happening?

By any rational measure a big camera on the side of your head tells everyone
that they are being recorded. No one will ever see any legal issues for this
and that is a gigantic red herring.

------
vicbrooker
In regards to the author's skepticism with using voice input, we had a bit of
a theory running in a HN previous thread that Glass will measure sound
vibrations of your skull to accurately work out what you're saying.

Similar tech has been used in some headsets for years to create a fairly
accurate speaker that, when I used it at least, was whisper sensitive. From
what I remember nobody knew if the tech was 'reversible' in the sense it could
be used as a mic but I guess it's theoretically possible.

I hope this, or another suitably accurate replacement, is used in Glass. I'll
be really disappointed otherwise.

~~~
astrodust
The Newton was a hilariously heavy and clunky device that made you look like
you were gunning for a position in Starfleet. In that era, _nobody_ had a PDA
except Newton people and even notebook computers were cripplingly expensive,
so having one made you part of a fairly elite group.

At the time, the Newton was ridiculed for it's less than accurate handwriting
recognition. It was a touch-stone for comedy, where shows like Saturday Night
Live and The Simpsons would find endless potential.

Google Glass should be so lucky as to have this kind of presence.

If anything, it's destined to be the Nintendo VirtualBoy.

------
taylodl
The killer app segment for Google Glass is augmented reality - which is quite
awkward on cell phones but natural on devices like Glass. It's also an
application segment that hasn't received much mainstream attention. Check out
some of the stuff companies like Metaio have been doing:
<http://www.metaio.com/>

(I'm not affiliated with Metaio, nor am I currently developing any augmented
reality applications)

------
cryptoz
> Most of these are basically simple things you can already do on your phone-
> checking the weather

Ha! I'm very, very excited about Glass _for the weather opportunities_ ,
actually. The data collection that Glass will offer with regards to the
weather is going to be incredible. With a simple app that pings outside Glass
wearers, I'll be able to automatically gather incredible amounts of valuable
weather data.

I'm doing this on phones right now, too, of course [1]. But Glass opens up
whole new doors that the author of this post is completely missing. Author, if
you're reading this: You're making the assumption that nobody will innovate,
nobody will build anything new that would provide unique value to the device.
You're wrong.

[1]:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbu...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbus.barometernetwork)

~~~
PanMan
How would this work, assuming Glass doesn't have a air-pressure sensor? That's
the main thing you are using now, right? Would you ask people to take pics of
the sky? What does Glass add that currently isn't possible WRT gathering data?
Serious question.

~~~
cryptoz
Those are excellent questions. I obviously hope Glass has a barometer but I
highly doubt it will, since it is likely going to use phones to handle GPS and
similar operations. So assuming it doesn't have one:

> Would you ask people to take pics of the sky?

Yeah, maybe. I'll add more to that below.

> What does Glass add that currently isn't possible WRT gathering data?

Since we don't know the hardware specs in very much detail, the only
functionality that we know for sure that will be helpful is the camera. The
key difference between this camera and a phone camera is that this one is on
the user's head. Asking users to take sky photos is likely much less intrusive
through Glass than through a phone. But asking them to do this isn't really
our style:

The original Glass demo video showed the wearer just looking at the sky in
order to have weather information delivered [1]. I was imagining something
like this for pressureNET. If I could hook into that same operation, I'd be
able to automatically take a photo of the sky whenever the user intentionally
looks up.

Imagine millions of people every day looking at the sky. So. Much. Data.

And of course, this is only using the camera that we know is there. We'll have
to learn more about how Glass actually works and what developers will be
allowed to access in terms of background functionality.

[1]: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6W4CCU9M4>

~~~
Erwin
CrowdEyes (or alternative, EyeBay or GlassBay). Crowd-sourced public
surveillance auction platform. It's legal to take pictures in public, right?

After installing CrowdEyes on your Google Glass, your Glass will automatically
take pictures every so often, or whenever you think you saw something
interesting. Those get aggregated and categorized.

As a client of CrowdEyes you can then say: I'd like to be 25 cents to see
pictures people have taken of the sky today in my town. Or, I'll pay 50 cents
to see what the lines are outside some hip new restaurant right now.

Or as a jealous wife, I'll pay $15 to run facial recognition on pictures taken
with Glass in a 3-block area around the house of a suspected mistress.

As a law enforcement officer, I'll request (for free) all pictures taken of of
my suspect. Or maybe multiple vantage points of some crime that was committed.
Or if someone is out there and running, maybe I can request all Glass within
the suspect area to be on real-time lookout for the suspect. Think about that
"Ambert Alert" system times 1000.

As a marketing manager at some Big Brand , I can find some perhaps anonymized
informationa bout who's using my products (easiest with things that have
logos, can you make a watermark in clothes that would not be noticable but
visible when analysing a high resolution photo?)

As a reporter, I can get hundreds of shots of some event and pick the best.

As the TV report on the new Glass-24 channel, I can get multiple real-time
streams from some disaster happening.

------
stcredzero
I think the only way an executive or VIP would use Google Glass in primarily
social situations would be to have a personal assistant who is wearing one.

If someone is in a highly technical situation, where the primary focus isn't
other people, but technology or architecture, then I could see a lot of
applications for augmented reality through such a device.

I can envision teams of several to a dozen people in a virtual reality
supporting one or two people wearing Google Glass in the field or on a
business trip. The fields of vision of the Glass wearers would be shown as
"screens" floating in a virtual reality, so that the support staff wouldn't
get nauseated from having their vision entrained to the POV of the field Glass
wearers.

------
27182818284
It is true that list sucks, but as soon as you start to think about a possible
SDK, both laymen and professionals can start imagining really neat stuff. In a
phone call with a friend we realized after citing a litany of good ideas that
really what it came down to was that it would allow for a heads up display of
everything. Don't know where to go? It will help. Need to find gluten free
foods, activate that app and just hold up the items you're looking at. Cooking
and need your hands free? Great! Increment through the recipes steps with
simple voice commands.(I know the article mentions voice sucking, but I've
actually been quite happy with Google's transcription and for simple commands
like 'Next' it will be doubly fine.)

------
tawgx
I'm actually a big believer in Glass. In my mind getting the average person to
use them is actually simpler than it was to get them to use a cell phone.
Everybody has sunglasses and they're used to wearing them (even indoors). With
phones it was a complete new paradigm. People weren't used to carrying a phone
with them and most didn't feel they needed to, and we saw how that went. As
for pricing and design, 6 years ago phones were expensive bricks and look how
far they've come. I feel the same about wearable computing and glasses
especially.

~~~
testing12341234
_Everybody had sunglasses and they're used to wearing them (even indoors)_

A quick quiz of the people in my office shows that:

0% were wearing sunglasses inside at the time of asking

~7% said they wear sunglasses inside on a regular basis

~25% said they do not own sunglasses

I don't dispute the other points you make, but on this issue it seems you are
a bit bubbled/optimistic.

------
lukevdp
One thing he didn't mention which I think fits in the same category is "how
does it feel to look into a tiny screen above one eye?". In the demo videos
it's shown as this all encompassing, easy to see, no squint required HUD. Is
it really like that?

If its a good experience, I can see voice control, lack of apps, price, etc,
all being overcome.

If it's a sucky experience, I think it's doomed

------
garg
I'm partially color blind and have made an app for personal use that lets me
confirm whether or not a color is what I think it is. I will develop something
like that for Google Glass as well whenever I get my hands on it. So, there
are definitely use cases out there that aren't covered by the 12 point in that
list in the article.

------
ericb
#ifihadglass: I would use it to remember my life. I will wear it for a full
day once to each different job, and each new house, and to significant events.
Reminiscing will be sweeter, and my kids and grandkids can get a sense of who
I was and how I lived my life.

Does the author think cellphones would let me do this?

~~~
Apocryphon
More pertinently, do you think everyone in your life would let you do this?

~~~
ericb
Good question. I think everyone in my house and on my commute would have no
choice, and the people at work would be cool with it if I did it for a day. I
don't need the whole day for it to be useful as a record of my life--just a
short summary of my day would be cool.

------
doktrin
I have similar leanings.

I may own Glass v1 and develop for it as a hobby, but I doubt I will have it
replace any functionality which I currently rely on other devices for.

However, I'm incredibly excited about the technology and what it means for the
future of personal / wearable computing.

------
kiba
Rather thank think Google glasses is going to replace your phone, you should
think of it as complementary.

------
LeeHunter
Might be incredibly useful for the police, military, and anyone else who needs
a heads up display for messaging and information capture. For the rest of us,
no. Just no.

You will never see me hanging out with anyone who has a camera pointed at my
face at all times.

------
ank286
Google Glass has a processor. Processors give out heat. Google Glass will lead
to sweaty eyebrows -- eww. How do you solve the heat issue when Google Glass
is transmitting/querying images? Transistor sizing dissipates more and more
heat.

~~~
mowgles
This is definitely a problem, but I think it's an easier one to solve than the
unknown effects of radiation (assuming some version of Glass has a 3G/4G
antenna built in). If holding a cellphone to my ear makes me nervous, what
makes you think I'm going to wear Glass around all day?

------
loeschg
In case anyone else was wondering what the heck the Apple Newton was/is --
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)>

------
sigzero
Maybe so. Sometimes an item like Google Glass comes to light and then dies but
there are things that are learned or ideas seeded from it that makes it well
worth the effort.

------
codeboost
I think Glass plus a smartwatch is the way to go.

This way the Glass can be controlled from the watch using touch and voice
commands.

------
ebbv
I've tweeted a bunch of times about how stupid I think Google Glass is, and I
don't know anybody in real life who will admit to wanting one. But it sure
seems to be exciting the people most vocal on the Internet.

I know for a fact this won't see mainstream adoption, that's obvious. But
whether Google will sell enough to the excitable people with no fashion sense
to make a v2? That's hard to predict.

~~~
jvrossb
What happens when they look the same as sunglasses or normal glasses? Fashion
sense won't be as much of an issue.

~~~
ebbv
That's a distinct possibility, though I'm not sure that walking around talking
to yourself will ever be cool.

~~~
MrJagil
Arn't you walking around talking to yourself (in a sense) when you're doing a
hands-free call? I see that everyday...

~~~
ebbv
You are and it's really not cool. I never do that. I mean to each his own but
blue tooth headsets, and especially talking on them in public are generally
seen as douchey.

------
kunai
The question isn't really with use cases, it's about practicality. Having
instant access to what you do _most_ of the time with a smartphone is
practical. People certainly will appreciate that; it doesn't matter if the use
cases are limited in nature.

Of course, the price is too high for what it offers right now, but it's kind
of like the Pixel: a vision of the future that can be attained relatively
easily for anyone with the dough. It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like
the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices. The
Newton wasn't like this -- PDAs were already being developed at the time. So
far, we've seen nothing like Glass. It's a milestone.

So it will take time, and it is a paradox to have two devices that do the same
thing connected to each other, but Glass is only going to spur a big change.

The Newton did not.

~~~
taligent
The Pixel is nothing more than a featureless MacBook with a fixed web browser.
If you think that is the future then you're in for a rude shock.

And you seem to be obsessed with the future and less concerned with reality.
People don't need to check email, weather, time, ask questions so frequently
that they need a fixed device on their head.

~~~
xaa
20 years ago, a skeptic might have said, "People don't make phone calls often
enough to need to carry around phones with them."

The technology can affect usage patterns as well as the reverse.

