
I just wore Google's glasses for 2 weeks and I'm never taking them off - tellarin
http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-scoble-i-just-wore-googles-glasses-for-2-weeks-2013-4
======
supercoder
Think he might live to regret the claim he'll never live a day without a pair
of smart glasses (is that the right term for the general device space?), but
even if he does it's possible he might be the odd one out.

To me it's like someone getting the first Segway and saying they'll never live
a day without it. It might be great to them as a nerd, but doesnt do anything
to validate how everyone else is going to view it.

~~~
patrickaljord
Google Glass is no Segway though, he explains why Segway is not practical most
of the time while Glass is
[https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZGFr8eMF...](https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZGFr8eMFAfH)

------
shawabawa3
I still don't really get what google glass is for.

The only things he mentions using it for is directions and taking pictures, my
phone works perfectly for both those things (I can't remember any time where
I've missed a good picture because I couldn't get my phone in time)

Maybe its something you need to try to really understand, but I'm not excited
by it.

~~~
dm2
The current version of Google Glass is a stepping stone. It's just to see what
features people might unexpectedly use or find out they really want or do not
want.

The future versions have unlimited possibilities such as automatically
recording live events then replaying them, playing games, taking inventory, or
even overlaying TV shows on top of screens at a bar so that you can
effectively watch whatever you want. Infrared, night-vision, and auto-tracking
of objects are also possibilities.

The military has had such a system for many years, it's called Land Warrior.
It can map waypoints in a 3d environment, give directions, display messages,
and display any information that the user needs. I imagine that in the near
future the system will be able to identify hostiles or friendlies, detect
mortars instantly and tell the user where to move, and will be integrated with
the boomerang shooter detection system.

The possibilities are endless, we have to start somewhere though.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Just like Google Wave. "Unlimited possibilities (no *current applications)."

I buy a device for what it can actually do, not for the potential of what it
could do in 3-100 years time.

The ironic part about you bringing up Land Warrior program is that Land
Warrior was cancelled in 2007. It still lives on but has never been expanded
and or been adopted by other units or branches of the US military.

~~~
lorenzfx
The German army has received the first units of a similar system ("Gladius")
and will be testing it in Afghanistan soon [0].

[0] [http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrheinmetall-
starts-g...](http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrheinmetall-starts-
gladius-soldier-system-deliveries-german-army)

------
pinaceae
1., This is Scoble. He hypes professionally, literally anything. Try following
him on Twitter or G+ and say goodbye to your newsfeed.

2., Valid critique - wearing Google Glass is like wearing Bluetooth headset
all the time. Which guys like Scoble probably did, way before anyone else.
Anyone being pretentious assholes.

~~~
illuminate
The very definition of persons who wear novelty devices just to have something
to talk about. I wonder how quickly people move away from him at a cocktail
party?

------
Cthulhu_
I wonder if he's so excited about the device because it's awesome in itself,
or because of all the attention and interest he gets showered with wearing it
and using it to publish things online. It's a novelty; I'm sure the first
people with mobile phones and later on smartphones experienced something
similar, before they became a common sight. Even now, people with the newest,
shiniest new phone will get some measure of attention, a confirmation for
their expense.

~~~
Kurtz79
No doubt, but that is already saying a lot about the device in itself.

If it generates such interest and attention the way the first mobile phones or
the first iPhone did, then it might really be something that in a few years
will be a "common sight".

I think it's really something that excites the imagination, and rightly so, it
remains to be be seen if it will be a substantial improvement in terms of
functionality compared to current mobile devices.

------
danpalmer
I can't justify buying a Google Glass. I doubt they will be $200, I think $800
is more likely at launch.

But then I couldn't justify my iPad when I bought it. $600 for something I can
check email on and browse the web? I already have a laptop for that right?
Well I ended up using my iPad loads for far more than I could have imagined.

I really shouldn't have bought my MacBook Pro. It was twice the price of a
Windows laptop that would have suited me fine, and I could have even installed
Linux and had a great development setup right? Well yes, but I'm so much more
productive on a Mac now than I ever was on Windows, and I have to fix the
software a lot less than I do on my Linux computers.

Just because I can't justify buying a Google Glass doesn't mean it's not worth
buying. I've got that feeling of excitement about a technology that I haven't
had since I bought my first smartphone. Is it worth it right now? Maybe not.
But if no one bets on it, it's not going to happen, so I'll give it a shot.

------
jdrobins2000
I just wore Google's glasses for 2 weeks and I'm never taking them off*

*until they stop getting me attention

------
uptown
I haven't used Glass yet, but I do know I don't want drivers of cars or
motorcycles using them on the road while they're supposed to be driving:

[http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/28/living-with-glass-day-
fou...](http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/28/living-with-glass-day-four)

This has the potential to be a huge safety problem.

------
nikolakirev
I am really interested in the whole "smart glasses" idea and Google's
implementation. What I am concerned about are all those cellular/radio
antennas strapped to your head and how do they affect a person's health. I
have not found any discussions about this topic yet.

~~~
Luyt
Radio waves are non-ionizing.

------
codva
He also proclaimed RSS and Podcasts as world changing technologies back in the
day. And he proclaimed Netflix dead in 2007. That's 3 huge misses right there.
There are probably more, and he may have got a couple right along the way too.

~~~
danpalmer
RSS might not be _world-changing_ , but it is absolutely crucial to the web.

------
nicholassmith
Interesting how many people have admitted to letting others use them when
Google has expressly forbidden that. I think at this stage they'll be shutting
the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I'm not surprised Robert Scoble loves them, he's a hardware lover and an early
adopter. I'm not surprised audiences at places Scoble has been too love it.
I'm not sure my parents would love it. I think they'd actively avoid it for
the most part, and whilst there's lots of geeks like me who'll get them to at
least experiment I'm still unsure of whether it's got significant mass market
appeal. Maybe v2 or v3, but it'll take time.

~~~
illuminate
"I think at this stage they'll be shutting the stable door after the horse has
bolted."

Naw, they love it. You have to keep a false sense of exclusivity to make a
product look sexy before it becomes a commodity device.

------
julianpye
I love technology and my gadgets as much as the next one, but I would never
want to get that dependent on one type of technology. Scientists have long
warned us about solar storms and there is a chance that one day all your
technology could go out. I was recently asked if I was a luddite, because I
didn't want to get rid of my box of printed maps, but hey, maybe one day I
need them. So every once in a while, take a weekend and switch off your
gadgets and see if you can cope.

------
uptown
Previous discussion of same article:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617165>

~~~
tellarin
Hadn't seen that one. :-/

------
buro9
I wish I had Glass yesterday when I was stuck in traffic.

OK Glass, show me traffic to Home.

I wanted a sixth sense, to be able to see a map of London with all traffic
marked out so that I could pick my rat race run through the back streets and
at least be moving.

And whilst I got out of the traffic fine, I wish I had Glass and it knew to
tell me before I got into it.

~~~
threeseed
Do you not have a sat nav ?

~~~
buro9
Seems a bit much for London.

I have a TomTom but the map & traffic subscriptions equate to over £100 per
year. And I can't even update the maps using Linux, so I basically let it
expire and have abandoned it.

I do occasionally use Google Navigation on my Android for sat nav purposes,
but for driving around a city that I know really well it is redundant except
for traffic info (but even then I can usually work out my own route with
better local knowledge of where traffic goes).

So yes, I could've fumbled around and got my phone from my bag (behind the
seat), and wired it up, and viewed the traffic. But I was driving, even when I
was mostly stationary I wouldn't take my attention away from the road like
that.

Hence, if I had Glass, then I wouldn't need to prep in advance, nor fumble
around... the tools would just be with me for when I needed to activate them.

Yesterday seemed exceptional though, something fouled up the whole of Fulham
and Chelsea and the domino effect knocked out all major routes around too.
That's an exception, not the rule... even if my TomTom subscription was active
and up to date I wouldn't have wired it up just for a cross-town drive.

~~~
StavrosK
You may want to check out Sygic. I use it and it's fantastic, and it's around
30 pounds for all Europe maps and unlimited upgrades of both app and maps.

------
nutanc
Point 2:As the price got down to $200 literally every hand went up. At $500 a
few hands went up.

Point 3: Nearly everyone had an emotional outburst of "wow" or "amazing" or
"that's crazy" or "stunning."

Takeaway: $200 is the going rate for people willing to be "wow"ed or amazed

~~~
danpalmer
I think that $200 depends on the crowd, and on the device or software. I
wouldn't pay $100 for a game that wow'ed me with it's graphics for example,
but (if I had the money) I might pay $50,000 for a car that wow'ed me.

------
hexasquid
> "OK Glass, Take a Picture" works. "OK Glass, Take a Photo" doesn't. The
> Glass is forcing your voice commands to be a certain set of commands and no
> others will be considered.

This is quite a forgiving attitude; I'd expect both to work.

~~~
thomholwerda
No, you shouldn't. Ever wonder why Palm succeeded where Newton and other
failed?

It's because Palm used a standardised, single-stroke learned script, whereas
its competitors used full natural handwriting recognition that sucked balls.
Glass is clearly going for the same thing.

~~~
cremnob
The difference is that it's 2013.

------
ivanb
Wearing even 0-dioptries glasses for long periods can be detrimental to eye
health. Glasses limit peripheral vision and restrict eye movement. This can
lead to weakened muscles, worse blood flow and worse eyesight.

~~~
Adirael
Citation needed.

What happens to the muscles, blood flow and eyesight of people that need to
wear glasses every minute they're not asleep? Why their eyesight and general
eye health doesn't deteriorate over time if it "can lead to weakened muscles,
worse blood flow and worse eyesight"?

~~~
ivanb
Unfortunately I have no citation to prove my statement. It is just my concern
and opinion. I remember that I read something about this in books on eye
exercises and health. It may or may not be true.

~~~
jbri
Anecdotally, as someone who wears (prescription) glasses 24/7 already, I
haven't noticed anything like this.

It might be worth mentioning that the authors of "health books" generally tend
to be more concerned with selling more books than they do about actually
improving your health. I would be very skeptical about claims made in a self-
help health book that weren't backed up by actual studies.

------
rikacomet
You take them off every night, I mean seriously!

