
Google Glass hands-on: Not a good device for consumers - carlyle4545
http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/09/google-glass-hands-on-review/?utm_source=feedly
======
tomkarlo
If she's going to write about a product, maybe she should actually use it,
given that she actually has a pair.

It's bad enough when journalists write about a product without having it. She
has it, but she's not using it, and then she's writing sweeping articles about
it's long-term future.

~~~
JshWright
Not only that, but you could replace 'Glass' with any mobile technology over
the last decade (many of which are wildly successful consumer devices), and
the 'review' still makes perfect sense (albeit, with the same, incorrect,
conclusions). Maybe that should have been a signal to the author...

~~~
bradwestness
Yeah this is the same thing that happened with the iPad (it's a huge iPhone
without the phone part? who would ever buy that?!) and more recently, with
Windows 8 (metro is a failure! Microsoft is doomed!).

Google Glass, in its current iteration, will likely never catch on with
consumers. But it's a limited availability "preview" for a reason. Something
like this is eventually going to get cheap enough and usable enough that
consumers will buy it.

------
nlh
I love reading stories like this, especially with hyper-revolutionary products
like Google Glass.

Because the more people say "it will never succeed with consumers", the fewer
people will go into Gold Rush mentality (at least for now), and the more
opportunity there will be for folks like me (and, I hope, other HN types).

I couldn't be more confident that some variation of this -- whether it's
Google Glass or Apple Eyeball or whatever -- is going to really, seriously,
emphatically, be a multi-billion-dollar market.

So keep going VentureBeat and others. Keep telling the world it's just a nerd
toy or a fad or whatever. More time and more opportunity for the rest of us ;)

"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

~~~
wzdd
To be fair, the difference between this and 'some variation on this' is also
the difference between the iPhone and Windows Mobile 6.

~~~
rayiner
This.

Are wearable computers going to be a thing? Probably. But if it does become a
thing, Apple will make it one, not Google. Here is this product segment that
is, by necessity, the intersection between computers and fashion accessories.
Only Apple has the mind-share to pull that off.

~~~
joering2
> Only Apple has the mind-share to pull that off.

why do you think that? Have you seen the latest market share of smartphones?
Android?

~~~
rayiner
Out of all the companies doing consumer electronics today, only Apple has the
mind-share to fight the "I'll look like a dork using this" stigma. In the
1980's that company was Sony, but today it's Apple. It's definitely not Google
or Samsung. Once Apple makes the sector "cool", like they did with smart
phones and tablets, then it will be safe for lower-margin Android-powered
products to come in.

------
Delenda
"It’s robbing you of the joy of actually experiencing your life. You’ll
realize it the first time you step in dog shit or have your girlfriend get mad
at you for not listening to her or lose your kid in a store."

Last two things there? Both of them of them? It's you being a terrible person.
Stop blaming technology for letting you be awful and blame yourself for being
awful.

~~~
chadrs
I don't believe the world is filled with "terrible" people. I do believe the
world is filled with people who use their smartphones in inappropriate
situations all the time.

There's a discrepancy here, and it's clear new tech is being consumed faster
than we can propagate the social norms around the tech.

------
HunterV
It's amusing to see this back and forth of tech community where one side
thinks it's the next big thing, the other thinks that because these "nerdy"
tech journalists like Google Glass it won't be popular, and then the rebuttal
that the critics are either jealous or just naysayers.

Honestly, it's all fun and games till the average consumer has the ability to
buy it. The rest is just speculation.

~~~
danielweber
I feel slightly verklempt every time I see someone say Google Glass won't work
because no one wants to wear glasses.

~~~
arkitaip
Even worse: glasses are so difficult to wear that they make you step into dog
shit :(

------
bo1024
I'm not sure, I felt (and feel) the same way about tablets, and about
smartphones except in limited cases. But tons of people got them and now
they're standard.

So I wonder if a good litmus test for this sort of review might be to
find/replace Glass with iPad and see if any of the criticism __doesn't
__apply. Very little in the article seems to pass the test, so even though I
tend to agree with the sentiments, I'm not sure most consumers will feel the
same.

~~~
gms
Smartphones and iPads don't make you look like a dork while using them.

~~~
ben1040
Any product can make you look like a dork depending on how you use it. Even if
you're Spike Lee:

<http://i.imgur.com/OY5RBuo.jpg>

------
ignostic
I actually expected a "hands on" article. What I got instead were a couple
stories, and then a bunch of vague predictions on the future of Glass.

> _"And some overzealous Emily Post type (probably at an old-timey print rag)
> will write a much-mocked op-ed about the slight but growing disconnection
> between people."_

A few paragraphs later...

> _"...it’s not enhancing your life. It’s robbing you of the joy of actually
> experiencing your life. You’ll realize it the first time you step in dog
> shit or have your girlfriend get mad at you for not listening to her or lose
> your kid in a store."_

------
revelation
People think "HN is too negative", but can you believe the goddamn journalists
fretting over this, despite 1) never having used it and 2) this was clearly
presented as an early-adopter developer version?

Still mad about not having Reader available to do their work.

------
danso
I thought her allusion to the Star Trek:TNG's episode of "The Game" was
especially adroit. In a futuristic world where you have an unimaginable array
of tech toys, such as the holodeck, why would visors be appealing? Well, it
wasn't the greatest TNG episode, but I guess even in a Trek future, people
will value the immediacy of such eyes-only technology. Just think about how
phones have revolutionized thhe way we non-interact with each other in
physical space.

Last night I saw the "Great Gatsby" and thought, like the book, it captured
the timelessness of the story in that it would not feel any different in a
modern setting, despite being written 80 years ago. But I kept
thinking..."this is just like today, except no one is checking their phones"

~~~
rayiner
The thing about Great Gatsby is that, aside from the smart phones, it _was_
just like today. The 1920's and 1930's were modern times. Manhattan was a
place of 2.3 million people (substantially bigger than today), and was heavily
built up:
[http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=34300&pag...](http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=34300&page=30).
The electrical grid, subway systems, roads, etc, were all mostly in place by
then.

We have pervasive digital technology today, and there are more cars and bigger
high-rises in Manhattan, but you can picture a fancy dinner party today on
Park Avenue in a building that was built in the 1920's and 1930's (like many
luxury buildings in New York), with people who took a train in from Long
Island on a line that was already old in 1920, etc.

------
mvkel
Yet another person speaking for consumers on a device that isn't even
finalized yet.

The only evidence I need that it sucks (in its current form) is that

1) Robert Scoble loves it. 2) Robert Scoble thinks he looks good wearing it.

You can't buy taste.

------
Groxx
> _If you’re using it recreationally, not professionally to complete a task,
> don’t kid yourself — it’s not enhancing your life. It’s robbing you of the
> joy of actually experiencing your life._

Same with cell phones. And computers. And books. And your car. And Legos. And
art. And music.

Wait. But we _like_ books and creative things, right?

This is the sort of vacuous statement that irks me. "Well duh" is an obvious
response, but it goes deeper. This can be applied to doing _anything_ you
enjoy, but it's wielded most frequently against new things, in a "get off my
lawn" / rose-tinted glasses way.

Sure. New things get used for things you don't approve of. Easy art
reproduction brought about the proliferation of porn and the commoditization
of art in general. The printing press brought about the end of scribes, and is
used to spread Christian, Buddhist, atheist, communist, anarchist, and
democratic propaganda.

But new things also get used for things you _do_ approve of. Like porn, art in
every room, and spreading propaganda for your latest cause.

Can we please get an ounce of information, instead of vague new-thing-hate?

------
orangethirty
How long till lawmakers prohibit using Glass while driving? Unlike hands-free
ear pieces, Glass can distract the driver (like texting). Given Google's track
record, I would not hesitate to think of a future where Glass will have ads
pop in randomly. It is, after all, an advertising company.

~~~
tomkarlo
Some studies found that even hands-free phone calls impair drivers
significantly, as do traditional activities like changing the radio or just
talking to another person in the car. Arguably anything that increases
cognitive load (including a stick shift) could have this effect. Unless we're
going to get into regulating _everything_ you do in car, we probably need to
just leave it to drivers or have self-driving cars.

[http://mysite.verizon.net/horrey/papers/Horrey_HF2006meta.pd...](http://mysite.verizon.net/horrey/papers/Horrey_HF2006meta.pdf)

------
WalterSear
>But give it a few months. Soon, it’ll be streaming Netflix queues, taking
brilliant long-form blog post dictation, and offering up a wealth of casual
social games, a portal into an endless labyrinth of distraction.

No it won't. Give it a few years, maybe.

~~~
Zikes
And so what if it did? Would her article be any more or less true if she
dictated it as opposed to writing it? Is a movie watched on a private screen
close to our eyeballs any less entertaining than one viewed on a mobile phone
or television?

If the only real argument against Google Glass, as a product or as a concept,
is that it offers _too much_ , then I'm not sure I see what the problem is.

~~~
WalterSear
The argument against Google Glass is that we don't have the technology to make
it work properly yet.

~~~
Zikes
Well yes, but that's what the limited prototype is for, isn't it?

I mean, this one product isn't really sink or swim for the technology, and
even if it doesn't meet the loftiest of expectations there's sure to be a lot
to gain from the attempt in regards to features, usability, and UX.

After all, Blackberry smart phones sold extremely well prior to iPhone coming
along and doing it "properly", but I'm sure Apple learned a lot of lessons
from it. Even if many of those lessons were in what not to do.

~~~
WalterSear
The limitations specific to this device aren't the problem. The genuine issues
will not be fixed before production, simply because don't have the technology.
Specifically: the battery life, the poor voice recognition and the headaches.

------
gavinh
_Imagine working on an airplane engine and having the manual right in front of
you_

 _For example, you already have Google Maps to guide you around your city with
turn-by-turn audio navigation. That tool doesn’t get any better when it’s
smack-dab against your eyeball._

I don't see why a manual for an airplane mechanic is better _smack-dab_
against his eyeball but a map in one's line of sight is not better for a
person navigating.

Her claims that Glass distract you from reality are counter to Google's thesis
that Glass frees you from the distraction of staring at your phone. Both
claims could be true, but I haven't seen much evidence regarding Glass.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
> I don't see why a manual for an airplane mechanic is better smack-dab
> against his eyeball but a map in one's line of sight is not better for a
> person navigating.

If I'm performing a series of complicated manual tasks, I'm going to need both
hands free. It's a pretty safe bet on something the size of an airplane that
I'm going to be moving around a fair amount, too.

My phone, giving me turn-by-turn directions, will always be just a foot or so
away from me, and clearly visible from the driver's seat. I don't benefit from
having it "smack-dab against [my] eyeball."

~~~
gavinh
Your phone might be 1' from your hands, but not your eyes. I always hated
trying to read a 4" screen on my windshield or in my cup holder while driving.
I am not sure if refocusing your eyes on Glass's display would be an
improvement though.

------
geetee
For the typical day to day, I just don't see the killer application for a
heads up display. My phone is never more than arm's reach away, and then it's
out of sight when I'm done with it.

~~~
ditojim
it's way easier to just look up and talk than to pull a device out of your
pocket, unlock it, pull down notifications/open an app, then interact with the
device. it will save you minutes everyday with that process alone.

~~~
geetee
I guess I could see that being a demanding and time consuming task if I had no
arms.

------
yellow
Well that's one way to handle a big review about technology of the future:
don't write a review and suggest weaning yourself off of technology.

------
nsxwolf
Sharp glass prism secured in front of your eyeball, just waiting for you to
bump your head on something. Imagining an airbag.

------
mtgx
A counter-argument:

<http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226604>

------
dilipray
You can't put your fingers on head all the time to control. It's the most
annoying thing.

Very human eye has focus, Google just think din't about that.

I would love something as lens in the future than glass in the present. I
would prefer glass for calls but not video calls.

------
ryusage
> And train yourself to rely less on your smartphone, while you’re at it.

This pretty much sums up this "review" for me. It's not a hands-on article so
much as a reaction to her husband's device usage habits. May as well be about
cell phones.

------
yamalight
It is so professional and insightful to discuss a product that's not even
finalized yet. Journalism ftw!

------
Dewie
This article seems to piggyback on the recent meme of 'technology can be
useful but also asocial and isolating/Why I deactivated my
Facebook/Twitter/Google+', which I agree with, but she is a bit too preachy;
please tell me why exactly Glass is bad, not just some general appeals to the
bad side-effects of modern consumer gadgets.

> On the other hand, for myriad kinds of workers, I can see Glass being an
> extraordinarily helpful, hands-free tool. Imagine working on an airplane
> engine and having the manual right in front of you or using it to photograph
> and catalog new species during a deep-sea diving expedition.

Imagine being someone who has to fix his sink, so he has to bust out a manual
and figure out the sink at the same time... oh wait, turns out this nugget
doesn't only apply to professional contexts.

Consumer-applications ← not just playing casual games and updating social
media about what you had for dinner.

I can see Glass being excellent for some things, while maybe not being ideal
for most of the things that you do. Imagine that you are in a foreign country
and don't speak the language and you want to talk to someone; do you bust out
your smart phone and let the other person spell out the words, then have them
played back to you or you read it yourself? Or do you simply talk to that
person and see the subtitles pop up as you go? The latter one is clearly
superior, IMO.

This is like a review of cellphones from the 80's, "Stuff like this will never
be used by anyone else than really busy professionals. It doesn't even fit in
your pocket!"

EDIT: A lot of the time I really only need my smart phone for special
purposes. Things like finding my way around places I haven't been is much
easier with google maps than with a physical map and/or asking directions.
Other than that? Well, surfing the web and listening to music, the former
being a way to kill time and the latter something that my iPod Nano does
better. Yet, smart phones are here to stay for most people.

