

Thoughts on Google Glass - jordw
http://daringfireball.net/2013/12/thoughts_on_google_glass

======
justina1
Mat Honan's article was a valuable critique. And interesting. Gruber's
reaction on the other hand...

> It’s a cool lab demo that they’re presenting as a finished product.

Google couldn't be any more clear that it is a beta and they've never once
said that the current price is what it will hit the market at (or if it will
hit the market, for that matter). So that's just flat out wrong.

> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does.

Again, assuming it's a mass market product and not the experiment in wearable
computing it is.

> In the meantime, to me, Google Glass is the new Tablet PC.

And there it is. Glass is Microsoft's failed foray into tablet computing. He's
not even sure that this form factor will be popular, yet he compares it to a
technology that took off in spite of an initially poor execution. He's
convinced it will succeed, I guess, when someone other than Google does it. I
wonder who he has in mind.

~~~
reidmain
They said they are going to release a consumer version in 2014. Perhaps
something is going to drastically change but the vibe that I get is they are
beta testing it so they are hammering out bugs and other rough edges not
looking to drastically overhaul the hardware or software.

~~~
MBCook
> Perhaps something is going to drastically change but the vibe that I get is
> they are beta testing it so they are hammering out bugs and other rough
> edges not looking to drastically overhaul the hardware or software.

I remember listening to people discuss Glass on a couple of podcasts after it
was released and this is the one thing that sticks in my mind from the
reviews. While Google called it a beta, the reviewers said it felt more like
an alpha or an engineering sample than a beta product.

------
cargo8
> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does. To me,
> that’s everything. Same thing with all existing smartwatches — the problem
> isn’t the idea, it’s the actual execution. There are no points for being
> first to market with a bad product.

This is just wrong. Google gains massive points in my book for putting
something like Glass out there. They get points for showing the world a
glimpse of what the future can be, and getting everyone else to think about
it. The wearables revolution was started with Glass, and whether or not Glass
ends up being the flagship product of the wearables market it doesn't matter.
Google started it either way.

~~~
acgourley
His point is that no one remembers the Tablet PC and everyone remembers the
iPad. But that's a really weak argument to me. The Tablet PC didn't just fail
because the form factor was 10 years too early and because the design missed
the mark... but because the product was abandoned. If Google keeps up, stays
hungry and keeps working through the early issues they can come out as the
market leader just as easy as Apple or whomever tries to follow.

~~~
stcredzero
My HP tc1100 has about the same functionality as a 1st gen iPad, only with
more RAM, 1/5th the battery life, resistive stylus screen, and twice the
weight. That's what it means that it was "10 years too early." That said, HP
was a premier tech company in its day, and the tc1100 was a tour-de force of
industrial time for its time.

If Google Glass is the best one of the premier tech companies can do now, then
it's clearly too early.

~~~
51Cards
There is no such thing as being "too early" to market. That is how you cut
your teeth, learn and get ahead. You fail when you give up on the idea (or are
proven that it will never catch on... either way). However if you create a
product that eventually takes off, and if you continue to iterate it and not
abandon it, you can't be too early. And, if nothing else, it is 100x less
risky to be too early, than too late.

~~~
throwawaykf03
History is littered with counterexamples. If you look at people or companies
that have been refered to as "ahead of their time", it is frequently in the
context of why they ultimately failed.

Tablet PCs are a case in point -- Microsoft or HP had not abandoned the tablet
market. They were iterating and releasing tablets even after the iPad was
released. They just didn't make the leap that Apple did to create a tablet
that appealed to the masses.

Also, regarding the "riskier to be too late" comment: The book "Copycats" by
Oded Shenkar makes the case that it's frequently the imitators that win the
market rather than the innovators. This blog post reviews it and cites some
interesting statistics from it: [http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/08/03/down-
with-innovation-up...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/08/03/down-with-
innovation-up-with-imitation)

~~~
ncallaway
"They were iterating and releasing tablets even after the iPad was released.
They just didn't make the leap that Apple did to create a tablet that appealed
to the masses."

I think this is a succinct refutation of the Tablet PC being a counterexample
to something "ahead of their time". The lack of success of the Tablet PC
wasn't because it was "too early for the technology", but it's because
Microsoft and HP were developing the wrong device for the wrong market.

That said, I do tend to agree with your premise that you certainly can be
"ahead of your time", and that being first to market does not always correlate
with being the best to the market.

------
allsystemsgo
I disagree.

I own Glass. 99.9% of people who see me wearing them want to know more about
them. They want to try them on and experience glass. And of course, I let them
give Glass a whirl. They love it. Yes it's WAY too pricey but, it's still
awesome. I don't find them _that_ unattractive. I look at it like, "I'm at a
sporting/concert event and I obviously want to take pictures, so I'm wearing
this, which is more convenient." Once I explain that to people, they totally
get why I'm wearing Glass.

Glass makes sense and it's a step in the right direction for wearable
computing. At least for now.

My gripes:

It needs Bluetooth LE. I'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support
notifications at least.

iOS is hamstrung until I can send iMessages. I don't see that changing.

Swiping through all the cards can be kind of a nuisance.

Battery life.

Google is a software company so, I imagine the more Apple opens up their
notifications etc, the better Glass will get.

~~~
CamperBob2
_It needs Bluetooth LE. I 'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support
notifications at least._

Does Android even support BLE yet in a way that's accessible and standardized
across hardware manufacturers? I was looking at doing some work with Bluetooth
LE last year but was amazed at the lack of attention Google was putting into
it. It seemed likely they were going to ignore it altogether for a while.

~~~
nickbarnwell
Android 4.3 brought about much improved BLE support [1]. Unfortunately, driver
support from manufacturers is still fairly limited, and hasn't been appearing
very quickly.

[1]: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19717902/does-android-
kit...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19717902/does-android-kitkat-
allows-devices-that-support-bluetooth-le-to-act-as-a-periphe)

------
jwcooper
I like gadgets and various electronics, but for some reason Glass just rubs me
the wrong way.

I'm not sure if it's because of the 'creep factor' or what. I guess I'm just
not ready for a society always recording everything. I can't even imagine what
high school would be like. One embarrassing thing happens, and 30 people have
it recorded, uploaded to the internet, and commenting on it in minutes. I
guess that could already happen with phones, but at least right now not
everything is being recorded at every minute by every person.

If Glass use does become widespread, I have a feeling many private companies,
such as restaurants, and malls will ban its use indoors, which would make it a
pain to use (especially if it's connected to your prescription glasses!).

~~~
MisterBastahrd
Worse... being in a social situation with someone who is wearing Glass now
means that Google has identified who you are (and the NSA for that matter) and
where you are, and from there it probably isn't that difficult to determine
what your mood is at the time. It'll be like your own digital stalker out
there, times a thousand, given that Google will just use the data to sell ads.

~~~
abraham
> being in a social situation with someone who is wearing Glass now means that
> Google has identified who you are (and the NSA for that matter) and where
> you are

What? Glass is not always recording, has no facial recognition and is no more
invasive than the smartphones everyone already carries.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
Yes, because obviously the originally stated intention for the device is the
only use the device will ever have. The difference here is that a phone is
usually in your pocket. The Glass is usually on your head, and the camera is
pointed at the same thing you're currently looking at.

~~~
abraham
I can 100% guarantee the current hardware iteration will never support always
on recording. It would kill the battery in 45-60 minutes. That added to the
fact that almost everyone has a phone on them that can already be geolocated
makes using Glass unnecessary for tracking. You could argue that Glass would
be useful in taking a photo snapshot every minute but with the growth of
security cameras it's estimated that in some areas people are caught on camera
as many as 300 times/day. That makes Glass not all that useful.

------
laureny
It's quite entertaining to see Gruber struggle so much with the idea that
Google has out innovated Apple. You can tell he really wishes he could say
that everything about Google Glass sucks but deep inside, he knows that Google
is onto something, so he ends up making a weak, half positive and half
negative point about the product.

He knows deep inside that regardless of how Google Glass (and wearable glasses
in general) fare in the future that Google has out innovated Apple, and he's
really having a hard time coming to terms with that idea.

~~~
corin_
I read it more that he's expecting Apple to be the company that comes along
with the sexy, socially-acceptable version of Google Glass that takes it
mainstream. Admittedly based more on the author than his words.

~~~
laureny
And that might very well happen, but if it does, it will still be described as
Apple copying Google, which probably drives Gruber crazy.

Personally, I think that the simple fact that Google came up with the idea
means that Apple will never create such a product.

------
vinkelhake
_It’s a cool lab demo that they’re presenting as a finished product._

They do? It seems to me that they've been looking for early adopters that can
provide feedback. It'll be a finished product once it's available for order on
Google Play.

~~~
reidmain
They've said that they are going to release the consumer version in 2014. Sure
it could drastically change from what a developer could be receiving in
December 2013 but odds are it is going to be stuff like the price that changes
the most, not the actual hardware.

~~~
turing
That's not really relevant. The point was that Gruber stated that Google is
presenting Glass as a finished product, which is something they have never
done.

~~~
reidmain
Based on this website they are putting A LOT into presenting it to the public
as pretty polished
[http://www.google.com/glass/start/](http://www.google.com/glass/start/)

That isn't a developer website that is a website designed by marketing.

------
randallsquared
It's confusing that people at Wired found Matt Honan's Glass weird.

I also work at a news outlet (NPR), and I have a co-worker who wears Glass
during the workday (not every day, but enough that I notice). I've never seen
anything but polite interest.

~~~
allsystemsgo
I agree. I work at a small mobile dev shop. At least 10 people there own
Glass. No one cares.

------
ajre
Google could probably price the glass for just a few hundred dollars, but they
don't. Why? Because Glass is not yet a polished consumer product with
apps/features that create a compelling reason to wear them all the time.
Google is releasing them intentionally to 'thought leaders' who will critique
and come up with the ideas for features that will make Glass broadly
compelling to consumers. By the time Glass is released as a mass market
product it will already have app store loaded with apps. Seems like a simple
strategy!

------
julianpye
What surprises me always is that people act as if Glass was the first of its
kind. The tech has been around for ages and actually Glass is very poor in
terms of its holographic projection technology. What is new is that Google is
the first company who is really serious about this and has the guts about it
flying in the face of negative publicity, not shying away from its weirdness
for many people. I led an AR/VR project at Vodafone using Sony's far superior
tech with local startups and the project while technically successful didn't
make it past the prototype stage. All there is: Google has really high
innovation reputation, they can shape the market even if it 'feels weird',
that is why the article is spot on saying it 'will help grease the wheels for
social acceptance'.

------
ojbyrne
When I heard that Strava was on it, I instantly wanted one (and had no
interest beforehand). Sports is to wearables what the spreadsheet was to the
PC.

------
rahimnathwani
"we won’t be able to tell who’s wearing built-in-HUD-and-camera glasses and
who’s just wearing regular glasses"

Oh no! I might have to get laser eye surgery and stop wearing glasses.

