
How Google Screwed Up Google Glass - chrisdinn
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/04/21/how-google-screwed-up-google-glass/
======
beat
Methinks the author really needs to read _Crossing the Chasm_ , and understand
the difference between early adopters and early majority. Google Glass doesn't
_need_ to be pretty and perfect right out of the box. It just needs to be far
enough along that the early adopters will use it to shake out the bugs. A
mainstream market is still a rev or three down the road.

What Google Glass needs isn't to be instantly perfect and mainstream. No, it
just needs to avoid becoming a Segway. That's the hard part.

~~~
SoSquidTaste
I think what muddies the waters here is Google's track-record with "beta"
products. Namely, now-standard things like Gmail were technically in beta
forever, but were practically speaking consumer-ready products by the time
people were buzzing about it.

Not that I don't agree with your original point (I do), but I think the above
is perhaps a relevant peek into the author's mindset.

------
forgottenpass
I expected them to mention the camera and microphone. It's not the only thing
to pick on but it's what killed my interest in a devkit. The camera turns me
from an idiot wearing some nerdy bullshit into asshole. I'll gladly look like
an idiot if I have to, but I'm not going to force a camera into social
situations and expect people to be OK with it using "just deal with it"
rationalizations about how expectations w/r/t cameras are changing.

~~~
lsc
Yup, the camera is also what killed it for me. I'm exactly the sort of guy who
would pay fifteen hundred bucks for a hud, especially if it had even a nascent
software ecosystem (I've already got a twiddler) And I'm absolutely okay
wearing a bunch of nerdy shit on my face.

The thing that annoys me is that because of google glass, the average person
now expects a HUD to come with a camera, too, which takes the whole concept
from nerdy, which I can embrace, to creepy, which I try to avoid.

Google may have killed the very concept of a ubiquitous HUD.

------
hahainternet
> The world “glasshole” has now risen to the same prominence as “selfie” and
> “twerk.”

No, no it hasn't. With that goes the argument.

~~~
DonHopkins
How did you get from "the term 'glasshole' isn't as prominent as 'selfie' and
'twerk'" to "glass is successful"? Please fill me in on the rest of your
argument.

~~~
hahainternet
I never made that statement. You've invented a quote.

~~~
DonHopkins
The article argues that glass is not successful (that's what they mean by "How
Google Screwed Up Google Glass"), and you say you disagree with that argument.

Didn't you read the article? So what did you mean by "with that goes the
argument", if not to disagree with the argument presented in the article, and
what did you think the article was arguing?

What I don't understand is why you'd throw out the entire argument, which
makes a lot of sense to me, just because you don't agree with what it said
about selfies and twerks.

~~~
hahainternet
> you say you disagree with that argument

Disagreeing with an argument does not mean supporting the inverse of the
argument. That is a false dichotomy fallacy.

The argument is that Glass is a failure as a product as it is universally
disliked and too expensive. Glass however is clearly not an actual product on
sale in general and does not appear to be universally disliked.

With that, goes the argument. If Glass were a real product and really disliked
they might have a point. At this point however it's a technology demonstrator
focused on by people with a loose understanding of these matters.

~~~
DonHopkins
The terms you disagree with were NOT the only reasons they gave to support
their argument, you know.

Disagreeing with one part of an argument does not make the whole argument
invalid, because they gave many reasons Glass is a failure, and the argument
does not depend on every reason they gave to be true.

For example, maybe they wanted to make a joke. To be funny, you know. Ha ha.
Oh wait, your name is "hahainternet," so why do I have to explain this to you?

Is it that the word "glasshole" tweaks you so much, and you don't find it
funny? Hey wait, you're not actually wearing one of those things, are you??!
Aren't glassholes socially obligated to disclose stuff like that in public?
Are you recording this??!

[https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/1015157966444465...](https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/10151579664444655)

[https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/1UfNLdZAN4h](https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/1UfNLdZAN4h)

~~~
hahainternet
Only just noticed this response Don. Sorry for the delay.

Those are the only substantive arguments they offer, and no, I don't own a
Glass. I wish I did but I can't justify $1500 on alpha/beta tech.

I wear glasses though, so they could be incredibly useful to me.

