
The problem is with the product - kgarten
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/01/02/scoble-glass
======
overgard
So I'm just going to say: I don't like Glass. For this reason: as far as I can
tell, its only particularly useful function is as an eye mounted camera.

Having a camera on you totally changes the context of any interaction. Even if
the other person says it's just for their private use; you don't really know.
Maybe they upload it to facebook. Maybe they catch you in a bad picture, and
you end up becoming some reddit meme like scumbag steve or bad luck brian or
the "stop!" girl. Point being: if someone is wearing a camera on their face
it's impossible to act normal around them. Glassholes don't seem to get that.
I suspect it's that they're ok with being constantly on film, and don't seem
to recognize why other people aren't.

If you're wearing a camera on your face, you're only going to see my "public",
"don't say anything to offend people" persona, not the person I normally am,
and I'm going to avoid you. So frankly I hope Glass fails, hard, because it's
one of the most antisocial products ever developed.

~~~
derefr
Here's a question: imagine someone who loses an eye, and gets a prosthetic.
These days, that means a small camera that feeds a video signal to their optic
nerve. But, obviously, this camera could _also_ have its feed tee'd somewhere
else. How would you feel around this person?

~~~
overgard
Depends on the person, but I don't think I'd feel weird around them. The
difference with the prosthetic and glass isn't the technical capability,
rather it's the perceived intent.

------
erikpukinskis
All Gruber seems to be saying is "if people don't use a product all the time
it's a bad product" which is pretty obviously false to anyone who gives it a
second thought.

When it suits him he argues that history is irrelevant (Android won't
"windows" iOS) but because it suits him here he tosses in a fairly distant
historical analogy (Glass is the Windows Tablet of wearable computing) and
that's QED for him.

I really like 90% of Gruber's analysis, and the bulk of "Fanboy" accusations
against him are totally bogus, but this is weak.

Maybe he's jonesing for a team to root against because it's the baseball off
season.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
I don't think your restatement is entirely fair -- "if people don't use a
product _at all_ it's a bad product" would be closer.

Even that's somewhat reductionist, of course; there are a lot of good products
that we use only occasionally. But there are some products which are designed
to be with you most of the time: smartphones are an obvious example. Watches
are another one. How about a smartwatch? I think it'd be fair to say that if
you're wearing your smartwatch most of the time when you go out, it's a
success for you; if you don't like wearing it -- for whatever reason, whether
aesthetics or because it isn't that functional (or both) -- and mostly only
trot it out to show people, it's really a failure for you. If most of the
smartwatch's buyers are in the "only trot it out to show people" camp, the
product is arguably a failure.

And, I think it's fair to use the same criteria for Google Glass. Are most of
the people who own a Glass using it regularly, or are they only trotting it
out when it'll be cool to show people? Scoble is, whether he puts it that way
or not, effectively arguing the latter. Gruber is in turn saying that if
that's true, it means that Glass -- even if it's a marvelous technology
showcase -- isn't a good product.

(As for the contention that Gruber will argue history is relevant when it
suits him and irrelevant when it doesn't, well, we _all_ do that, and I think
we'd all claim that we're doing it because in some cases history is relevant
and in other cases it isn't, right? Whether Android will "windows" iOS depends
on whether you think the mobile computing market will follow the same
trajectory as the PC market did; if you think the _concept_ of Glass will take
off one day, maybe dramatically, but Glass itself will be something of a
footnote, then the Windows Tablet comparison is apt.)

~~~
erikpukinskis
> As for the contention that Gruber will argue history is relevant when it
> suits him and irrelevant when it doesn't, well, we all do that

Agreed. But tossing out an analogy and claiming it applies is the lowest form
of that. I think to make a real contribution you have to make some attempt to
justify why the analogical bits are more relevant than the contradicting bits.

I'm not saying Gruber is wrong, or that he doesn't have a point to make. Just
that he's "phoning it in" with this post. The points you make, in detail, make
for much better analysis.

------
amaks
Truth to be told, the original Scoble's article is full of inaccuracies. First
of all, not every Google employee is allowed to dogfood glass, it's only for
the selected subset of internal and external people. Second, statements like
"facebook is not on glass, therefore it's glass' fault" are simply BS. If
facebook wanted to implement an app for glass, they could clearly do it, the
SDK is available for a while. 'No contextual filtering', 'price is too high'
and 'photo workflow sucks' are missing the point that the glass is the work in
progress and cost of manufacturing, limited availability and _free_ hardware
upgrade for explorers totally justify the $1,500. Obviously, it's absolutely
reasonable to expect the market price to be _much_ less when glass goes for a
public availability. And, I absolutely don't buy 'the product is bad'
commentary from an apple fan boy, Gruber. What else one could expect him to
say?

~~~
jccc
_> an apple fan boy, Gruber. What else one could expect him to say?_

"This is such bullshit it hurts my head." [...] "The point isn’t about what
Apple can do but what they should do. And they shouldn’t be doing this."
[http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/podcasters_rejection](http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/podcasters_rejection)

From an imaginary app-store reviewer diary: "Rejecting all of them,
consistently, would in fact be no good at all. The feeling of being part of
the monolith — of being the monolith — really only surges when I use my
position to act capriciously. To act fairly would be to follow the rules. To
act capriciously is to be the rules."
[http://daringfireball.net/2009/05/diary_of_an_app_store_revi...](http://daringfireball.net/2009/05/diary_of_an_app_store_reviewer)

"Translation" of Apple PR into English: "We decided from the outset to set the
formula for our bars-of-signal strength indicator to make the iPhone look good
— to make it look as if it 'gets more bars'. That decision has now bitten us
on our ass."
[http://daringfireball.net/2010/07/translation_iphone_4](http://daringfireball.net/2010/07/translation_iphone_4)

~~~
valleyer
Now _that_ is some cherry-picking.

~~~
jccc
amaks: Gruber is a "fan boy" whom we can expect to say only positive things
about his irrational religion, Apple.

jccc: Here are three examples (from three separate years) of not just
criticism but particularly hostile points of view against Apple.

valleyer: Cherry-picking!

What amaks did not say: Maybe Gruber sometimes gives them heat for things they
do, but he tends to favor Apple so take what he says with a grain of salt.

What jccc did not say: Gruber is totally even-handed and doesn't favor Apple
any more than Samsung, Google or Palm.

------
edtechdev
Google is just researching and trying out new products that can potentially
help their bottom line - so what if some may not explode in popularity.

Their bottom line is to get more exposure to their ads, and I'm not arguing if
that's good or bad. Driverless cars would mean that passengers have more time
to be exposed to web ads on their phones and tablets (I'm not saying that's
the primary motivation or benefit, but it certainly is a factor in Google's
involvement). Expanding Internet access in cities through Google Fiber means
more people can be exposed to their ads. Sharing Android freely with anyone
means increased access to the web and thus Google ads. It's not too difficult
to see what the motivation for developing Google Glass is - you would
potentially be exposed to ads all day long, not just when you whip out your
phone or when you are using your computer.

~~~
enome
I never really understood the reason behind driverless cars until I saw that
they create 3D models of the environment they drive through. If everybody
would drive a google car that would mean google has the potential of mapping
the outside world in 3D in real time or atleast any place where cars can be
used. The possibilities with this kind of data are pretty crazy and also a
little scary.

~~~
praptak
< I never really understood the reason behind driverless cars

Really? It might sound crazy but I think people would just buy them because
they are, you know, useful for getting places.

~~~
robotresearcher
And will save perhaps 20,000 lives and many more serious injuries in the US
alone every year.

------
pedalpete
What Gruber I think is missing is that if Microsoft (or Google) employees
continued using products that weren't great products yet, but were commonly
viewed as 'the future', the company could take the experience of those
employees and improve the product to the point where it was good enough and
they did want to use it.

I think Google did the right thing making Glass a limited release product,
what they don't seem to have done well enough yet, is to iterate it to the
point where it is adding value. Sadly, with the current backlash, I doubt
they'll get there.

~~~
ddebernardy
I doubt it. What you describe is a continuous process that normally occurs
_before_ releasing a product.

Collecting feedback from employees is indeed useful and in effect priceless
when done right. Doing the same with a set of early adopters who know what
they're getting into as well.

The same with a large pool of anyones, however, is a recipe to turn your not-
yet-quite-ready product into something customers buy, eventually stop using,
and never touch again no matter how much you improve it later on.

Think of it this way: You buy a game that is get mostly good reviews. You're
unimpressed and are left scratching your head as to why it's getting them. It
eventually gathers dust somewhere. A few years later, you hear that it needed
this or that patched up ruleset, along with this and that mod or extension to
be fun and playable. I predict that your odds of unearthing said game to give
it a second try are about nil. The game had its chance and failed; you moved
on, and so might Google Glass users.

~~~
pedalpete
But Google Glass hasn't seen 'public' release. I can't go out and buy one.

~~~
ddebernardy
From where I live I can't say for sure, as I've yet to see any Google Glass
near me. But seeing how it's been widely available as a product to the press
and early developers (to build hype; and it worked), and how basically any
developer can now get one [1], that seems widely available enough.

Look... If, by now, Google execs consider they've collected so much feedback
from its plethora of potential in-house users that they look elsewhere for
more feedback, and employees ultimately aren't excited to use it themselves,
it doesn't bode very well for the product's future. A golden rule to good
product development is to market dogfood that you're drooling to eat (and
ideally eating) yourself.

[1]: [http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-to-get-
one/](http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-to-get-one/)

------
jasonlotito
The coolest example of someone using Glass was a friend of mine on our recent
company retreat. Up in the mountains in a beautiful hotel, out early in the
morning, and looking at a beautiful view. I wanted to take a picture, and that
meant fumbling out my phone in the cold, cold morning air, and taking a
picture.

My friend just stood there, taking it all in, and just had to utter 5 simple
words, and took a picture, never taking his eyes off the view.

We can talk all day long about how some people might find it creepy, others
might find it useless, or how it's not feasible in real life yet. But what
Gruber and many other miss is this simple point: why shouldn't I be able to
just look at what's in front of me and take a picture? It's so much easier
than anything else.

~~~
samastur
We didn't miss it. It's just that its benefits are not worth its costs to many
of us.

He also didn't say you shouldn't wear it. Just that if you don't, it's not
your fault.

~~~
jasonlotito
You missed it. Again. And I spelled it out simply for you: why shouldn't I be
able to take a picture of what I'm seeing?

That's it. Full stop.

Back to the Glass itself: "If Glass were a good product, people who have them
would wear them." But they do wear them. Do they wear them all the time? No.
But then I'm not always carrying my phone with me, either. Does that make it
not good? What Gruber is saying is essentially: "Yes, the iPhone is not good
because I am not using it right now."

Just like my friend would use Glass when it made sense, I use my phone when it
makes sense. It's as simple as that. And he preferred it to pulling out his
phone. And I was envious of it.

So yeah, you missed the point.

~~~
samastur
I didn't miss it. I completely understand that you'd like to take pictures of
what you see and nobody or certainly not me is saying that you shouldn't.

What I am saying to you is that _I_ don't dislike Glass because I couldn't
fathom a useful application, but because on the whole I see more or at least
more substantial downsides than upsides. I don't expect you to share my view,
but just because I don't share yours, it doesn't mean I don't know what it is
and why you have it.

I also made no comment about how much you should or shouldn't wear Glass (or
phone). What I said is that _if_ you are using something less often than
expected, then it's not your fault (at least not in most cases).

I know English is not my first language, but I am reasonably certain my
previous short comment said more or less this same thing.

~~~
jasonlotito
I'm curious than, what's the downside to being able to take a picture of what
I'm seeing?

------
suprgeek
Google tries many more high-profile "MoonShots" than most other companies.
While this is not motivated by some altruistic desire and in the end is
expected to make money, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

In fact this is the essence of Silicon Valley- try innovative stuff, move the
needle on what the public sees as "cool" & get more people talking about the
possibilities.

Gruber is too quick to write-off products that are "creating the market" if
they do not have a certain Fruit logo.

Edit: Spelling

~~~
IBM
Google attempts high-profile "moon shots" to appear innovative.

~~~
adventured
Given the dramatic nature of that statement, can you back it up with more than
just a one-liner? You're implying an extreme cascade of things.

As one example in that huge cascade of implications, you're suggesting they're
spending ... a billion dollars a year to look good and that Sergey Brin has no
intention of creating anything ground-breaking with his life & time (while he
stares down the looming parkinson's while having $30b in wealth; ie there are
other things he could be doing with his time, but his goal is to appear
innovative, rather than be innovative).

------
nightski
So many are commenting on how it "looks" and if they were as fashionable as
sunglasses that it would become mainstream.

I couldn't see this being farther from the truth. If it was a useful product
in its current incarnation then people would be using it. I think the real
problem is as of right now it just isn't that useful.

~~~
notatoad
exactly. fashion is completely abstract, whether something becomes fashionable
is largely based on how useful it is otherwise. Dark glasses covering your
face would be supremely ugly, if they weren't so useful at shielding your eyes
from the sun. Because they are useful, they have become fashionable.

Wearable technology will come into vogue the same way - you can't make
something fashionable just by making it unobtrusive or inoffensive, it will be
considered fashionable when the celebrities who set trends find it useful
enough to start wearing it. And no google, paying models to wear it during
fashion week doesn't count.

~~~
Theodores
I think they need to rethink the design to make something more along the lines
of conventional eyewear. For instance if they teamed up with Oakley and had
some useful actual glass in front of the eyes then - in an instant - the
sports market would be not just interested in the product but able to find new
applications.

For instance, I would not mind an overlay 'head up display' on a cycle commute
with cadence, an idea if I was on time relative to my normal journey and
generally better 'telemetry' than available with the glorified digital watches
that pass for cycle computers. If I could also use Glass to communicate with
other riders on the road then I would be able to find more uses, e.g. if
cycling with a friend and not wanting to shout whilst riding two abreast. Just
having decent eyewear - the part an Oakley could bring to the table - might be
the reason I would wear the things.

The rise of Oakley - starting way back in the 80's when their cycling goggles
looked like ski glasses - is something I think the Google Glass team can learn
from.

------
taeric
I think a search for a single cause/effect in what makes a good product is
misguided. Of course, I also think if Google were to make a marketing effort
to get glass out there, it would probably do surprisingly well. And I don't
even know if I like the thing.

------
increment_i
The concept of eyewear computers is cool as hell and has tons of practical
applications, but they have to actually look like eyewear. They can't make you
look like the Borg.

~~~
rasur
Check out meta's spaceglasses. They look a bit "aviator", but I'm keen to get
hold of some. Plenty of potential.. plus some serious domain knowledge behind
them (e.g Prof Steve Mann).

------
paulbjensen
In my opinion, the form factor is the key issue.

Ask people if they would wear one? Not just techies, everyday folk out on the
street.

Until the form factor is indistinguishable from a pair of sunglasses, this
wonderful piece of equipment will remain a niche tool.

~~~
walshemj
And will the average person want wear glasses all the time?

The another point is people might not want to advertise the fact they work for
Google in case they are subject to rants from weirdos in bars etc.

This is the one of the main main reasons that British Telecoms' staff where
told don't post in the uk.telecom usenet groups.

------
niels_olson
I always wanted a tablet PC, but mainly for the resistive touch. I continue to
be in the silent majority that wishes Apple would add fine-point stylus
support to the ipad (via resistive touch or any other technology).

~~~
pavlov
IPad-style capacitive touch can be combined with a pressure-sensitive stylus.

I have a ThinkPad Tablet 2 which includes a Wacom pen. The pen is great - the
sensitivity is very fine-grained and makes a big difference from finger
painting. For finger use, the screen is as responsive as the iPad. (Windows 8
knows when the pen is hovering over the screen and treats it like a mouse, so
you get a crosshair cursor near the tip the pen. Otherwise the cursor never
appears.)

------
yelnatz
If Google wants to send Glass my way, I'd wear it every day.

~~~
pavlov
Why is that, do you have some particular use case? If not, are you sure you'd
keep doing it after the first couple of days?

~~~
hahainternet
Here's a thought for you. I wear glasses, I have for every day of my life for
more than two decades. If Google offered me almost indistinguishable glasses
that work just fine but also have a HUD that shows me things I care about
(Google Now is the first step towards that) then how could I say no?

------
apostolee
Although I would not wear google glasses, i believe that they are "preparing
the ground" for upcoming, better products (that won't be necessarily only
glasses). Additionally, there are some niche markets that will adopt feats of
the glass quite soon.

So no, Google Glasses are not that good , but yes there is potential that may
lead to different trends.

