
Google Glass is Ridiculous - nicholas483
http://nickfranc.is/blog/google-glass-is-ridiculous
======
kevinconroy
People said the same thing about the huge, bulky cell phones that came out in
the 1980s. Who would want to carry around a phone with them all the time? And
one that large? It'll never catch on!

Some folks said the same thing about the iPad. Who needs a tablet when I've
got a laptop and a smartphone?

What strikes me is that this person is lambasting a product that he hasn't
tried first hand. He hasn't lived with it for a week to see how it benefits or
hinders his life. It's fine if you don't want one (I don't have a smartphone
by choice), but realize that just because you don't want the latest new
fangled gadget doesn't mean that it won't have mass market appeal.

~~~
calinet6
They also said this kind of stuff about Videophones, and those actually did
die.

~~~
nmcfarl
Sorta - I find I spend an increasing proportion of my workday in Google
Hangouts. (And of my holidays on FaceTime calls....)

------
calinet6
This needed to be said. The social implications of this device are indeed
ridiculous.

Most insightful: "Can you imagine having a conversation with someone that's
wearing this thing? I'd feel like they aren't even paying attention."

I already detest people wearing bluetooth headsets. They give off the wrong
social cues, they were never really accepted as fashion, and other than
government-mandated hands-free use in cars, they appear to be dropping out of
popularity (thank god). How is Glass any different, on a social interaction
level? How is it any better? How does it solve the problems that bluetooth
headsets had? It doesn't. It just requires you to talk to the aether even
more.

Which brings us to the other insightful quote: "I can only imagine my morning
commute on the bus, with 15 different people talking to the screen on their
head just trying to check email." If they don't solve this, that could be a
real problem. If anyone using one of these things has even a _moment_ of self-
awareness they wouldn't be able to stop laughing.

This is a really prescient article. It brings up exactly the right UI points,
and the right problems. These are problems that Google should have _started_
with, because that's how you design good human interactions. Instead they put
a computer on glasses with a HUD screen and are screaming "LOOK ISN'T IT COOL"
everywhere.

No, it's not. It's not human. And the reason is common among all Google
products, to the extent it's almost pathological in the company: they are
engineers first. They really aren't set up for human-focused design. It's just
not in their DNA.

Do they make cool stuff? Of course. But none of them fit together in the right
ways. They always seem to be using rivets when they should have been sculpting
from clay.

~~~
randallsquared
> insightful quote: "I can only imagine my morning commute on the bus, with 15
> different people talking to the screen on their head just trying to check
> email."

So, low-quality earbuds are the problem, here, right? I mean, you're talking
about listening to other people talking softly on public transportation, and
you say the conversation is the problem? Do you similarly hate people who use
cellphones or talk with friends on the bus? Should every bus and train be all
quiet car, all the time? :)

It's funny: I haven't seen a lot of objections to Glass based on how poorly it
seems likely to work[1] (which, you know, I'm hopeful, but wearables haven't
caught on, yet...). Instead, objections seem to focus on two aspects:

1\. Oh, noes, people can snoop on me! Well, first, they already could, and
second, there's literally nothing that can be done except to make
sousveillance tech illegal, which will ensure that we only have surveillance.

2\. Oh, noes, I can snoop on people! That's an objection that the article
seems to be making, here. I have a solution: don't pay attention.

[1] Well, Nick says "impractical", but I didn't see any examples of that
unless fashion faux pas are impractical.

~~~
pezz
If you can't see the difference between someone holding a largish device (say,
a phone), point it at you and record a video (hence, obviously snooping)
versus same said person closing their eyes, pretending they're sleeping,
having their head tilted in your direction and recording a video...

Then yeah, I guess you're the kind of creep this product might appeal to.

~~~
randallsquared
Actually, what I want is everything logged that I could have seen or heard,
had I been paying attention.

I want to be trying to remember what someone said to me while I was distracted
by a road sign, and be able to pull up audio or video of that moment by
reference to the distracting sign ("triangular blue sign") by doing a video
search via voice input.

I want to have every moment of every day in my life available via search or
just for browsing, so that I don't have the experience, day after day, of
thinking, "Wow, I wish I'd captured that moment by taking a pic or a video
that I could send to my loved ones".

I want to have my systems constantly tag my ongoing conversations with
wikipedia lookups so that I can stop pointless debates and move on. And I want
other people to have this, too, so that I don't have to convince them.

I want to have systems that deliver on the promise that smartphones had, but
which are thwarted by slow wake-up times, bad connections, difficulty of use
while driving, low battery lives, etc.

The fact is that we're currently _losing almost our whole lives_ because our
current recording technology, human memory, sucks so much. I don't want to
forget things. Ever. Again.

~~~
pezz
* Most of your life is not fun

* The good times are real easy to remember

* Your loved ones don't want every piece of your daily minutiae, really, they don't

* Pointless debates are some of the most hilarious conversations you can have

* Technology will get better

* You never forget the best times, the rest is unimportant

~~~
randallsquared
> Most of your life is not fun

> Your loved ones don't want every piece of your daily minutiae, really, they
> don't

I'm not sure what to say to this. Try to have more fun? :)

> Technology will get better

I'm counting on it! But Glass is not the final attempt to do this -- it's one
of the first attempts. Within ten years, absent political dystopia, there will
be no way to tell if the person you're having a conversation with is
lifelogging.

> You never forget the best times, the rest is unimportant

Empirically untrue, sadly. From reminiscing with friends, it's clear that both
they and I have forgotten some of the best times, since I remember some of the
best times and have forgotten others, and vice versa. I can remember that I
had quite a bit of fun during the late eighties, but the vast majority of the
detail is gone. When I've written down decade-old memories and looked at them
a decade after that, it really, really often happens that I'm disturbed at how
differently I remembered that event when I was halfway closer to it than now.
Human memory is so sketchy and malleable that it's just barely useful at all.
:(

------
Jabbles
_certainly all their hardware has been a complete failure in the marketplace_

Nexus 7 sale estimates are 4.6 million. Fine, so they haven't ousted Apple
yet, but it's by no means a "complete failure". I like mine :)

That seems to be the only "argument" in the article. The others seem to be
arguments from personal incredulity.

[http://news.yahoo.com/nexus-7-sales-soared-2012-still-
fell-s...](http://news.yahoo.com/nexus-7-sales-soared-2012-still-fell-
short-225058966.html)

[http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#Perso...](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#Personal_incredulity)

~~~
ocean12
Unless I'm wrong, the big ASUS splashed across the back of my Nexus 7 seems to
say that someone other than Google made the device.

~~~
psbp
You mean the small ASUS under the big NEXUS?

~~~
ocean12
No, I don't.

~~~
ocean12
Exactly my point.

~~~
psbp
The Nexus branding is much more visible than the Asus one. It's over 2x as
large and centered directly in your line of sight as you're holding the
tablet. You can't seriously think that people would look at the branding and
think that it places more importance on the manufacturer than it does the
nexus brand name.

------
thomasjoulin
Disruptive products always come with harsh criticism, mockery. I have no idea
if this product will gain any traction, maybe the next one, or maybe it will
turn like the Segway. But the arguments in this article are exactly like the
arguments thrown at Apple when they lauched the iPhone : it's too expensive,
there is no keyboard...

> Puke. I find Glass to be ugly, impractical and completely ridiculous.

It's pretty good for a first version. Get used to it, of course nothing looked
like this before

> Let's look at the facts. Google has never ​had a successful product that
> people pay for

Never say never (again, remember Apple). Also, who says Google is in it for
the money (from the sold device) ?

~~~
bwah
But has Glass seen much criticism and mockery? The majority of early reviews
and press I have seen have been gushing.

------
jedc
I love how he formed such strong opinions without ever experiencing it or
anything like it. And then says "Puke" about an article from someone that
actually DID use it.

Not to mention that he clearly didn't read the article that closely if he
thinks that the only way to interact with Glass is to talk to it.

~~~
kcbanner
I agree, this was poorly written and comes across as immature.

------
admiralpumpkin
Bluetooth headsets are effectively a punchline. Google Glass—in its current
form—is even worse. Until that enormous blob hanging out in front of the
wearer can completely fade into the frame this will be nothing more than a
geek curiosity.

I think Google has excellent engineers, and very poor self-restraint. This
product is at least 2 generations away from what it needs to be, but instead
of working on it in the labs quietly and diligently until its ready, they trot
it out proudly. Beta obsessed indeed.

~~~
ocean12
I've never understood the argument against bluetooth headsets. I live in a
major city and see them all the time. I wouldn't wear one while sitting at a
meal with someone, but neither do I see the sense in holding a phone to my
head while walking or working with my hands when I can just as easily use a
headset.

------
ph33r
"Other than practical folks like Gruber ... "

I stopped reading after that sentence.

~~~
ocean12
Then you missed a cogent argument:

"If you have a phone in your pocket, why wear this? And it doesn’t seem to
replace the need to carry a phone."

~~~
bergie
You may want to ask the 70,000 people who put money into the Pebble smartwatch
Kickstarter... [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-
paper...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-
for-iphone-and-android)

Here are the arguments Tog makes for an "iWatch":
<http://asktog.com/atc/apple-iwatch/>

~~~
ocean12
I thought we were discussing Google Glass.

(for what its worth, Gruber backed the Pebble on Kickstarter:
<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/04/23/pebble-watch> )

~~~
bergie
The line _"If you have a phone in your pocket, why wear this? And it doesn’t
seem to replace the need to carry a phone."_ applies to both Glass and smart
watches equally.

Both are wearable screens augmenting your phone, though the Glass has
additional features, like voice commands and a camera

------
mratzloff
I'd say the set of responses in this thread are pretty expected. I think most
miss the point.

His point is that the media are falling all over themselves to praise Google
Glass and there is no journalistic skepticism whatsoever. Indeed, many in this
thread have no issue with that because they like the technology.

The issues he raises with Glass are reasonable points for _non-engineers_.
(Engineers put up with more than average people do.) The most pressing concern
for most consumers will be, simply: "Do I feel stupid using this in public?" I
feel stupid using Siri in public. If that were the main product it would have
flopped. I feel stupid using my Bluetooth headset in public, and wouldn't own
one if it weren't illegal to talk and drive without one. That's not to say
that it doesn't have value, just that social pressure is a powerful force.

I do think the media will turn on Glass once it's released. There's nothing
they like more than setting something up for a fall. I'm not saying anyone in
the press consciously does this; it's just what happens when unmoderated
enthusiasm meets reality.

~~~
boundlessdreamz
Tech media being positive on Glass is because they are techies. That is a
valid point. But it is not what the author says.

"They are competing to see who can do the most over-the-top, overwhelmingly
positive review, in hopes of making people at Google happy"

~~~
mratzloff
That's a fair point. He identifies a problem but misattributes the cause.

------
driverdan
The author isn't very imaginative. He can't think of how he'd use it so the
product must be shit.

I ride a motorcycle. Having a HUD for navigation, weather alerts, and phone
notifications would be awesome and make my life so much easier.

I'm terrible with names. If Glass could do facial recognition of people I've
met and tell me who they are it would greatly improve my interactions.

Using it to augment lifting weights would be sweet. It could time my sets and
cooldowns so I get a better workout. Doing so with a phone or a watch is much
harder and you can't actively look at them.

This list is just a start. I'm sure I could come up with plenty of other uses.

~~~
ocean12
Using it while driving sounds dangerous!

~~~
driverdan
Glass would be less dangerous than using a GPS. You don't have to look away
from the road.

------
davycro
Just the potential medical applications of Google Glass are enough for me to
believe the hype. Doctors could use glass to: collect patient data (by
photographing injuries, surgeries, symptoms, or lesions); automatically recall
patient information (bar codes on patient charts could be scanned by glass and
then used to lookup a patients history); automatically scan patients for
visual symptoms (such as measuring mole size and looking for melanoma); or
display a patients vitals in real time. I concede, however, that they may
interfere with the relationship between a patient and a doctor by making it
difficult for a patient to make eye contact, or by continually distracting the
doctor.

I do agree with the author that Google Glass is a ridiculous consumer product.
I wouldn't want to spend time with someone who wore them in a social setting,
such as a bar or restaurant.

------
weego
_Can you imagine having a conversation with someone that's wearing this thing_

You mean like someone with, well, glasses?

~~~
pinko
No. The implication of the quote is that, unlike traditional glasses, Google
Glass will distract the _wearer_.

~~~
weego
So his point is he is blaming the product for people not being attentive? That
would mean the car is at fault for driving without due care and attention, and
yet I'm supposed to buy that that is a valuable insight?

~~~
jiggy2011
I think the point is that when someone has a private always-on HUD right in
front of their eyes you can't necessarily tell how much attention they are
paying to you.

Are they look at me and smiling because they like me, or have they
superimposed a cartoon on top of my face?

~~~
king_jester
If anything Glass will make it really apparent which of your friends are
douche buckets.

------
Skiptar
People seem to assume that the Hoogle glass is going to be stapled to people's
heads. Obviously they are not going to be suitable in every situation, would I
wear it while driving? No. Would I wear it if I was having a conversation with
someone? No. However I wouldn't have my phone out while doing these things
either. I can see Google glass filling a function. I'd love to be able to
watch Youtube while I'm stuck in a waiting room or record business meetings
for later review. I have no idea if it will do end up doing what I hope,
however I'm not going to jump to a conclusion like this article without even
touching one.

------
mistercow
>Google has never ​had a successful product that people pay for.

Pretty sure people pay for AdWords.

~~~
estel
And despite their supply problems, the Nexus 4/7 are top quality products.

~~~
ocean12
No, the 4 suffers from horrendous battery life and it's camera is very 2010.

~~~
pook1e
Weird, I must be imagining the 16+ hours of battery life I've been getting
nearly daily for the past 3 and a half months.

I know different people have different usage patterns, but the Nexus 4 battery
is far from "horrendous", especially when compared to other flagship devices.

------
tomasien
I've realized that I'm in a weird time in my life where I've been a few years
out of college, am not an early adopter (more second wave adopter), and
therefore no longer have an innate sense for what is about to take off.

But I do not believe in voice recognition technology as a primary use case. I
don't use it when it's available, and even the people I know who advocate its
use only, and I mean ONLY, ever use it when they're 100% alone. So that's my 2
cents.

------
voidr
> certainly all their hardware has been a complete failure in the marketplace;
> from Nexus all the way through likely the biggest failure to date, Google
> TV.

"Reception of the Nexus 4 has been very positive overall. Reviewers were
consistently impressed with the Nexus 4's affordable price and impressive
specifications."

...

"On the day of release, the entire Nexus 4 stock on the Play Store sold out in
under 30 minutes."

source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_4>

To me it seems that in fact Google does make stuff that people actually pay
for.

Also Google glass is a prototype, the author is basically speculating about
it's future without any insight, he has no way of knowing what will happen to
Google Glass, unless he has a time machine or a crystal ball, sure the current
Glass is not trendy but the next version may become a lot nicer and less
geeky.

~~~
ocean12
Overall, LG did a good job designing and manufacturing the Nexus 4.

------
qdpb
> Puke. I find Glass to be ugly, impractical and completely ridiculous.

Well, that settles it then.

If only in the past we had examples of innovations that were previously
considered impossible.

------
VikingCoder
> ​In addition, I've yet to see one thing Glass can do better than any other
> product.

I've read that "the best camera is the one you have on you." If Glass is
always on you, it will be the best camera you will likely ever own. All of
those moments that last for just a few seconds are out of reach of even your
ever-present cell-phone.

Here, try this - click here:

<http://www.timer-tab.com/>

Once you click there, try to take a picture with your cell phone as quickly as
you can, and then stop the timer.

I hope you didn't cheat - if your phone was in your pocket, you counted the
time to get it out, if you have a PIN on your phone, you had to enter it.

I got about 11 seconds the first try, and 6 the second. Can you seriously not
imagine that Glass would be better at capturing those random moments?

------
thejerz
The key phrase here is: "Although I haven't used one"

------
S_A_P
I suppose these could be made into a fashionable or trendy item, and that
augmented reality is an inevitability. My problem with it is that I hate how
everyone is so distracted in public now. Walking through the tunnels in
downtown Houston is a maze of phone zombies. Maybe Google glass could help
this because they can at least look forward.

Im a terrible multitasker, and I think that using this (or any augmented
reality device) may make me worse at everything. I may be a curmudgeon here,
but my father was nearly killed by a texting driver. I wish people could just
focus on doing one thing at a time, and google glass seems contrary to that
aim.

------
seivan
Engineering is 90%. Is the guy an MBA?

"I'm deeply passionate about product, UX, customer experience and nearly any
topic that involves startups"

Snakeoil salesman.

~~~
tsahyt
I love how "MBA" is thrown like a cuss word around here. Makes me feel at
home. I thought along the same lines by the way. He _does_ have a point that
customer experience is a part of making a successful product. After all,
customers don't want to make an effort to do something. They paid for it after
all. The engineering though is the gateway to everything else and hence the
most important part of actually _making_ a product. If you can't do that, you
don't even have a product to sell.

------
gavinh
'Other than practical folks like Gruber...'

The rest of the article is easily predicted.

------
darxius
This just sounds like someone whining over tech for no reason other than to
whine. I'll pass.

------
QuantumGood
A killer app scenario seems to the most likely path to widespread adoption for
Glass—something that would promote widespread adoption. Meaning a key use case
or feature that makes it popular. Think email, and then the internet for
personal computers.

It's _hard_ to make new kinds of products that a lot of people want.

Disruptive products (by the original definition) start out as something almost
no one wants, and create new markets for themselves or die. And they aren't
"disruptive" until they iterate features to take them into markets that are
mainstream for their category.

Basically, they are more innovation than invention, more evolution than
revolution.

Google glass is one of those products people get excited about from time to
time that tries to jump right to the end game, skipping the evolutionary
stages.

Often they are simply ahead of their time, for various reasons. Think tablets
before the iPad, for example, or video chat phones decades before computers
and mobile phones.

So without a killer app, Glass seems like one of those products that needs a
LOT of real-world evolution and iteration before it could become at all
mainstream.

Thus a strategy could be to make Glass appealing to developers to better
optimize for the possibility of popular features or use cases to be found.

------
eliben
"... _Google has never ​had a successful product that people pay for_ ..."

plonk

I hope the crowd here is old enough to remember what this means in
newsgroups/irc ;-)

------
ebbv
There's no question in my mind Glass is a gimmick which will never see
mainstream adoption.

As I Tweeted a couple of days ago, it's the Bluetooth headset times a billion.
Something that might be legitimately useful to a small percentage of the
population, but wearing it in public makes you look like a tool.

------
kayoone
Many accidents happen when people are distracted by their mobile phones. In
Germany its not allowed to talk on the phone while operating a car for
example. I can only see this getting worse with something like Glass that
basically constantly inteferes with your vision and concentration.

------
Mahn
It's true Google has yet to sell a hardware consumer product that is wildly
successful, but that's also why this is exciting: unlike with nexus tablets or
phones, the possibily of becoming the "iPhone" of a new product category
exists here, thus from this point of view it might well be the most important
thing Google does in the next few years and they (probably) know it, hence
they'll (probably) invest more time and resources than they've ever done with
a consumer product before. (I'm not saying it will actually become an
"iPhone", just that it's strictly speaking possible)

------
melling
So what. In 5 years we may look back and say it was a dumb idea. Live and
learn. I am positive that whatever happens some aspect of the technology will
morph into something useful and even better.

------
keyboardP
I'm not that excited about the product itself but the technology behind it and
the opportunities it creates for future tech. I'm sure I'm not the only one
looking at it from that angle.

------
hu_me
every new technology goes through the hype cycle[1]. generally with new
services we are at the peak just before the product launches and that's where
we appear to be before I/O.

But the op comes across as very harsh against a product that he hasnt tested
and at most has been used by very few people. I think it may generally be bash
against the hype of the product rather than anything it offers.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle>

------
gushie
Regarding Google losing interest once it's gone to Engineering. Perhaps that's
the idea? Google just wants the advertising revenue from the searches. They
will probably be more than happy for Asus/Samsung/HTC to come along and do
Glass (or whatever) better/cheaper, just hoping they'll stick with Google as
the engine. I think Google's aim with the Nexus and other products is just to
keep some competition out there so folk don't all flock to Apple/Siri.

------
vxNsr
He comes off as over the top jealous, and a little bitter....

~~~
pyre
Please refrain from ad hominem...

------
mattquiros
There's too many assumptions and subjectivity in this article to even warrant
a good discussion. What if voice wasn't the only way to control glass, e.g.,
gestures? What if the Glass that we see now isn't the same design as the one
that goes public? And about people wearing Glass who probably aren't listening
--can't the same be said for people who own a smartphone?

If you don't like it, don't buy it. This article is ridiculous.

------
superasn
_Although I haven't used one, I can easily tell you why I'll never buy Glass_

Wow. This line should be on the top of the article (not bottom).

------
6cxs2hd6
> I can only imagine my morning commute on the bus, with 15 different people
> talking to the screen on their head just trying to check email. I much
> prefer taking out my phone and pointing to my email.

Of course. But -- envision a Kinnect-like motion sensor on the front. Watching
your hands.

Screen privacy is a big win, for me. Not want "so, whatcha doing?" snoops.

------
mikerg87
Is there any photos or information out on how Google Glass is going to work
for people who already need to wear glasses?

~~~
eloisant
[https://plus.google.com/110625673290805573805/posts/Nmc8LuwF...](https://plus.google.com/110625673290805573805/posts/Nmc8LuwFw5M)

------
speedyrev
Do we really want strangers in the crowd constantly pointing cameras at us?
Stalkers should love it!

------
jre
This immediatly reminded of about Ballmer's reaction to the first iPhone [1] :
he started laughing explaining it's too expensive, doesn't have a physical
keyboard.

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U>

~~~
SquareWheel
Though to be fair, you can't expect a competitor to gush about how great it
is.

------
rikkipitt
See, I thought this recent demonstration of Google Glass was of a prototype. I
heard it was going to be fully refined and released by the end of 2013.
There's a lot of work left to do in my opinion to make it sexier and more
usable. Will they ever manage it?

------
AdrianRossouw
I'd have no problem with somebody wearing this while I am in conversation with
them. I would probably find it better than trying to speak to someone who is
glued to their phone.

------
dmak
I think people won't buy it because it's not fashionable. 1) People already
opt out of glasses in favor of contacts. 2) People already wearing glasess
will just look awkward.

------
anttipoi
Products that make their users look like dorks seldom succeed.

------
kcbanner
The author seems to think he is going to forced to get one. If you don't want
it , don't buy it.

~~~
bergie
Well, eventually the author may have to get one if this succeeds. There is
quite a strong social pressure for people to get mobile phones, Facebook,
whatever.

Just imagine the conversation starting with _we do our company staff meetings
daily using Hangouts on Glass, and everybody is expected to join_...

------
pgcosta
I don't know what is more ridiculous: the article or the fact that it is on
the first page.

------
melvinmt
The main problem with voice control is that you don't know who people are
talking to when they talk in the air. That's why bluetooth headsets are
considered awkward while holding a cellphone to your ear is not. Glass would
need a simple social cue, like touching the side of it to enter voice
commands.

------
jschuur
Sweeping generalizations are ridiculous. Always.

------
hawleyal
Cliche-heavy writing.

------
senthilnayagam
anyways the pre-release is subsidised cost, they can very well make it 499$ or
better 199$ no they want to price it 1500$ .

