
Google Glass future clouded as some early believers lose faith - adventured
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/14/us-google-glass-insight-idUSKCN0IY18E20141114
======
jimrandomh
Google needed to do either of two things: make the software good enough to be
acceptable, or provide source code so that people could fix the issues
bothering them themselves. They did neither of those things. Instead, they
took the open-source Android operating system, made a closed-source fork, and
proceeded to go around breaking APIs to stop regular Android software from
working.

When I got Glass in November 2013 (XE11), I could run an ssh client on it and
use it with a Bluetooth keyboard, along with lots of other Android software. A
month later (XE12), they somehow managed to break the dialog box API. And XE11
was configured with the most aggressive auto-updater you'll ever see, so you
couldn't stay back. Four months after that, they released the brick-half-the-
fleet update (XE16). (That happened because Glass was configured with no swap,
all their users had 1GB memory devices, but all their internal testers had 2GB
memory devices. The updater would run out of memory mid-update and die,
leaving an unbootable system.) As a side effect, that update also flashes a
hidden firmware so XE11 won't boot anymore. Also, it strips out everything
related to bluetooth keyboard support. Also, it disables touchpad gestures for
Android apps.

Also, the terms of service for the Glass SDK are incompatible with the GPL,
ban charging for Glass sofware, and ban advertising in Glass software, so
there's basically no third-party software and none coming.

Oh, and it sends all your photos to Google (can't disable auto-backup even by
rooting and messing with internals). And if you pair it with a phone, it
copies any text messages stored on that phone, and sends those to Google.

This is very sad, because the hardware itself is excellent, and it (almost)
does something that I really really wanted. XE11 worked well enough that I
invested considerable time and energy into it, and I ended up walking away
feeling like Google was constantly sabotaging my efforts.

Meanwhile the pace of actually-useful updates is utterly glacial; there
clearly aren't enough developers working on it to have any hope of fixing the
outstanding issues. So yeah, I've given up hope on Glass. I'll revisit it if
they open the source code or announce new management with someone who
understands software at the helm.

~~~
freehunter
I hadn't considered that use case. How nice would it be to have a terminal in
one eye where you could sit in any position with a keyboard on your lap and
never need a desk?

Now I want a terminal strapped to my face.

~~~
serf
that's (sadly) what I keep envisioning an occulus for.

not for convenience, simply to shut out the rest of the world. full screen
mode on steroids.

~~~
hrktb
The mention of steroids seems spot on. I'd imagine using the Oculus for long
time spans and/or demanding tasks would have so many side effects, like severe
eye-strain, lack of resolution of the environment, lack of reactivity to
external inputs, and so much more.

~~~
seanp2k2
In the future, we all (developers / engineers) go to work by getting out of
bed and strapping on a helmet to join our team in a virtual office
environment.

------
csallen
I was part of the first batch of Glass Explorers to receive the device in
early 2013. I was extremely optimistic about Glass before getting one of my
own, but it only took a couple of months for that optimism to fade, and I've
only worn them two or three times in the past year.

As others have pointed out, the cost of using Glass is high, and I'm not just
talking about the monetary cost. There's a social cost as well, as lots of
people will stop you in public to have a conversation about Glass. Most of
them are just curious, but I've encountered my fair share of people who are
judgement or even overtly hostile. (I live in SF, which is a fairly forward-
thinking city, so I imagine it was worse for people in other areas.)

Based on my experiences, it seems that when you merely possess technology,
people tend to acknowledge and refer to it distinctly. However, when you
_wear_ technology, people increasingly conflate _you_ and your _character_
with the technology itself. The difference between walking around with a phone
in your hand and walking around wearing Glass is the difference between
carrying a tube of paint and painting your face green.

In my opinion this was predictable and Google should have anticipated it.
(This is why studying psychology is important.) They should've focused on
giving early Explorers an "excuse" to wear Glass, but they did the opposite.
Ideally, we could've presented ourselves by saying, "I'm wearing this because
I'm a tester. Want to try them on?" Instead, more often than not,
conversations would begin with the other party saying, "So you paid $1500 for
these?" That's not a great starting point in any way, shape, or form.

I've heard that things were similar when headphones first started catching on
for mainstream use. The difference is that headphones were worth the cost. By
contrast, the incremental improvements that Glass makes over a smartphone
aren't worth the social/physical costs of wearing something on your face.

~~~
smacktoward
_> it seems that when you merely possess technology, people tend to
acknowledge and refer to it distinctly. However, when you wear technology,
people increasingly conflate you and your character with the technology
itself._

This is because things you choose to wear are fashion choices, and the whole
reason people choose one fashion over another is to make a statement about who
they are.

In this respect, Glass is no different than regular glasses; all regular
glasses serve the same functional purpose of correcting impaired vision, but a
pair of (say) Warby Parkers also make a particular statement about the
personality of the person wearing them.

The chasm Glass has fallen into is that the fashion meaning of a particular
thing is decided collectively by the culture, not by the people who created
it. And the culture has collectively decided that the fashion statement Glass
makes is "I am a turbo nerd."

~~~
bri3d
I think the friction is because the statement is much worse than "I am a turbo
nerd."

Glass (rightfully or not) has come to stand for both useless trinkets for the
tech-wealthy _and_ pervasive surveillance of the masses by a large
corporation, so wearing it really comes off as saying "I have more money than
you _and_ I'm going to use it to let Google record videos of you too!"

A camera-less Google Glass at a lower pricepoint would simply say "I am a
turbo nerd" and would probably be much more acceptable.

~~~
geofft
I tried taping over the camera in my Glass, because I don't use that feature
at all, and I don't want anyone to think I'm using it. It turns out that
there's also an ambient light sensor in there that adjusts the brightness, so
you can't see anything if you do that.

So my Glass goes unused, because I don't feel comfortable wearing it anywhere.

~~~
natch
>I don't want anyone to think I'm using it.

Moot now if you're not using it, but you know, even if your tape was as big as
a golf ball, as a passerby I'm not going to know or think that your camera is
covered, because I avoid looking anywhere near the things. And for all I know
it could be a hardware hacked version with the camera hole elsewhere. So your
goal was not being achieved. And it still might be recording audio. If you're
wearing it, I have to take your word for it. If you're not, I don't.

------
bphogan
I have low vision. The Glass is a wonderful tool for me. The heads-up
navigation that helps me walk around in areas I don't know well is great. I
can't read the street signs very well and having the audio tell me and help me
"see" them better is great.

I think this tool has a lot of potential to make people's lives better.

But instead, people crap all over it and stigmatize it. And that's why I can't
really wear it much anymore. I find it useful, but people call me a
"glasshole" \- especially other developers.

Fact: If you look different, people will make fun of you. Apparently that
isn't something you outgrow as an adult.

~~~
wilhelm
It's not because you “look different”.

You're pointing a video camera in people's faces without asking. That's very
rude.

~~~
bphogan
I'm pointing a camera at you when I read the messages on my phone too. After
all, the camera on the back is facing you. Doesn't mean I'm using the camera.

The "camera in my face" is just an excuse. You're _actually_ being recorded by
other things. Anyone who takes the time to learn about Glass would know that
the battery would last about 10 seconds if I had the damn camera on :)

------
IgorPartola
The problem with Glass is first and foremost the price. All else would be
forgiven if they priced it at $100. Think about this: the problem is that only
a few people have it and they were "lucky" to pay $1,500 for it. Do you
remember the kind of hate the original iPhone got when it cost $600 and up?
Glass is almost 3x more expensive, pricing it right where most people cannot
have it, yet don't like for others to have it either.

Now, I am not saying that this comes down to the sandbox "that's my toy"
mentality. No, I am saying that the majority of people who are perpetuating
the bad stigma associated with Glass have never used it themselves because
it's simply inaccessible to them. Problems like "I can take a picture of you
without knowing it" would be addressed much quicker if a larger slice of the
population was using/misusing the device.

The secondary problem, the one that's much harder to fix, is that Glass
provides no practical benefits. It's not giving you much extra information,
it's not enhancing your life. If it showed me part numbers as I look under the
hood of my car, or alerted me to lower prices at a different store as I look
at a price tag, that'd be one thing. But its current tech is too limited. The
"magic" is just not there. I don't care that I can capture an image of what
I'm looking at currently, I can already do that. What I cannot do is quickly
identify the type of timing belt in front of me, etc.

~~~
georgemcbay
The worst part of the price is how incredibly unjustifiable it is relative to
the hardware.

$100 is probably lower than they can go without using an Amazon Kindle style
ad subsidy program but with relatively standard electronics margins they
should be able to sell this for about $200.

Even with Appleesque margins they could sell it for less than $400. $1500 is
just redonkulous.

~~~
IgorPartola
It occurs to me that if a company like Amazon could sell a competing device
for like $300, they would. My guess is that nobody but Google currently sees a
market for this type of product.

~~~
Ih8SF
Google probably data mines all of the pictures and video from all users for
commercially relevant information. Probably why they make users sign that
horrible EULA -- to try to separate themselves from potential thorny legal
challenges of users illegally gathering said commercial information (mostly
unwittingly).

------
tlrobinson
I always thought "face Segway" was the perfect name for Glass.

As soon as it looks like normal glasses I'll consider trying it. Or even
better, contact lenses.

~~~
shanev
Funny, I told my friends who got into Glass early on that it will go way of
the Segway, to be used for things like museum tours and not much else.

Always be weary of things that are hyped to be the next big thing. The real
next big thing won't need any hype. I can't trust the judgement of someone who
got into Glass early anymore.

~~~
pfortuny
Like the iPad: "oh, look, an iPod resized, worthless..."

------
fleshyblob
I was really excited about Glass back when it came out. I bought one as a
college student to develop on, and it helped me make connections that got me
to where I am today, however I was a little disappointed with all the stigma
that grew around it. It makes me feel like the true intentions of the Glass
project was a social experiment by Google to introduce something quite
controversial and see how it fared in the current social/technology climate in
America. I could never bring myself to wear it in public due to the animosity
and perpetuating "Glasshole" mentality. I recently sold it on eBay after
living in its box for a few months.

~~~
rmchugh
> the true intentions of the Glass project was a social experiment by Google
> to introduce something quite controversial and see how it fared in the
> current social/technology climate in America.

Honestly I think the true intentions of Google Glass were exactly what they
claimed to be. It's really a testament to the problems of letting engineers
make decisions on consumer technology. The social problems of Glass were
obvious as soon as they were exposed to real users, so the question is, how on
earth did they manage to spend so much money and time developing the product
without doing the slightest bit of user research beforehand? I mean really. I
know Google has money to burn, but this is just ridiculous.

~~~
Pxtl
If the social problem of Glass were its only challenge, the product still
could have launched properly. But that's only the beginning of the Glass
troubles. I mean, they were demoing prototypes over two years ago and they
still don't have a real product?

------
shrig94
From what I've heard through the bushes, Glass is going under a major redesign
(hardware/software) from the ground up.

~~~
miguelrochefort
I'd like to know more, if you know more. Especially about software. Is Google
Wear going to change a lot?

~~~
flycaliguy
I heard through the trees that they are going full suppository.

------
defen
Paul Graham already explained why Glass won't be successful:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/segway.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/segway.html)

The answer: you look and sound like an insufferable tool when you wear one.

------
Pxtl
You know what's a great idea? A wearable bluetooth screen attached to glasses
that lets you have always-visible time and GPS information and notifications
fed from your phone.

You know what's a bad idea? Everything else they did with Glass.

Seriously, just kill the Glass project and hand the brand over to their
wearables division to figure out how to get something actually to market.

------
vectorpush
I've always thought that glass didn't stand a chance in the consumer market;
battery technology just isn't anywhere close to where it needs to be in order
to make Glass a practical personal accessory. The last thing the consumer
wants is _another_ battery meter to manage, especially one that is
inconvenient to charge because it's supposed to sit on your face all day.

~~~
dnautics
I'm a little bit disappointed that it isn't going to make the enterprise. I
work in a science lab, and it would be awesome to have it racked by the door
so that I put it on as soon as I get in and I can verbally take notes, video,
and photographs, seamlessly throughout the day, and then re-rack it at the end
of the day.

Because it's all a matter of work, this also avoids most of the sticky issues
of privacy, etc.

~~~
merrua
Hmm. Not really. But privacy still comes into data management and storage.
Where you back up to and when and what protocal it uses, when you are
recording/taking pictures of whose work in what room. I might be allowed to
take all the pictures I like of my work, but I might not have permission to do
the same of my co-workers. Or a picture of my coworker eating a sandwich in
the wrong place in a lab, might open up a univeristy/lab to a lawsuit.

For example I think not everyone would like anyone in their lab (including
vistors) being able to record their work without permission.

Not being able to adapt the code to ensure that these will be followed without
people needing to think about it, is a weakness.

------
Igglyboo
It's obviously not consumer ready but Google has been saying that all along, I
don't know why everyone acts like it's already failed when they clearly state
this isn't ready for primetime yet.

~~~
jacquesm
You get exactly one chance at making a first impression. Google botched this.

------
walterbell
Remember the Segway?

[http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/11.03/segway.html](http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/11.03/segway.html)

~~~
waterlesscloud
Like Glass, Segway is likely just too early a generation of its technology.

In a decade or two, Segways will probably form an important link of the
autonomous transportation system.

~~~
applecore
Driverless Segways?

~~~
waterlesscloud
Seems like an obvious step to me, particularly given that they are otherwise
suited for limited, controlled areas and operational speeds.

~~~
aetherson
I don't think that "driverless" segways have much of a niche in most versions
of a driverless future.

The potential for segways or at least segway-like-transportation-vehicles are,
it seems to me, in a rail-dominated world. The fundamental problem with rail
infrastructure is that rail only takes you to stations, and that stations are
expensive (along several axes) but since you can't take your car on the train,
you're limited to a very small radius around the station. Segways would extend
that radius dramatically, making a functional rail infrastructure de facto
cheaper.

Most versions of "driverless cars" futures destroy rail-based infrastructure.
They take all the advantages of rail and give them to the (already more
popular) cars. At that point, your car can drop you off right next to your
destination (and then go park itself elsewhere if necessary), so why do you
need a segway?

The versions of "driverless cars" that don't destroy rail-based
infrastructure, I think, make "driverless segways" unlikely as well.

~~~
waterlesscloud
See my comment above, but the idea would be that you build your architecture,
from the building to the town/city level, around the more efficient segway-
sized form factor as opposed to the bulkier car-sized form factor that's
better suited for distance travel.

~~~
aetherson
Predictions based on, "First, we'll completely redo our architecture from the
ground up" are likely false.

It seems like you have a (pleasant!) vision in mind, but not like you've taken
a lot of time with the practicalities of it or how we get from here to there.

So, first: the size of cars isn't principally about distance travel. Cars are
built for speed (as soon as you're doing about 20mph, wind in your face
becomes annoying for most people most of the time, and noise becomes high, and
safety becomes an issue), for protection from the weather, and for cargo
storage. Driverless cars may well become a little smaller, but there are
plenty of reasons they'll stay fundamentally cars, not segways.

Second: you can't build your architecture from the building to the city around
segways. We already have cities. We can change them incrementally, but redoing
them from scratch is just too expensive (again, on a number of axes) to
contemplate. And incremental changes aren't going to go your way. People will
get the driverless cars that work with how the cities work TODAY, and then
those people will become a constituency for incremental changes to the city
that will make the city MORE car-oriented, not less.

Seriously, the full-featured, relatively cheap driverless car future is one in
which public transit declines drastically in importance. It is absolutely not
one in which people restructure their cities around transit.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Speed, weather, and cargo storage are mostly about transportation
over...distances. For most shorter hops you need none of those things. Hence
my statement.

Of course existing cities wouldn't be rebuilt from scratch. But cities change
_all the time_.

Driverless cars certainly are better suited for the way cities are today. But
as it becomes obvious that there are alternatives that don't require as much
wasted real estate as cars use, and that crucially don't give up the personal
freedom that cars provide, cities can and will adapt to that.

The city of 2035 will likely be moving down that kind of path, whatever the
exact details look like. New development will be designed for it from the
ground up.

This is just how transformation happens.

~~~
aetherson
Speed (at the ranges that we are talking about) is important at the distances
that we are talking about. Weather and cargo storage are totally distance-
independent.

But let's take a step back. We're imagining the sort of default rosy
driverless-vehicle future, right? Driverless cars can be made that are fully
autonomous, at least as safe as human drivers in essentially all conditions,
and not terrifyingly expensive.

We agree that in that case the driverless car is strictly more attractive to
riders than the drivered-cars of today are, right? So if the value that a
person today puts on having a car is A, and the value that future person puts
on having a future car is B, then B > A? Indeed, B is much greater than A?

And we also agree that today, cities are pretty car-oriented? So A is large
ENOUGH that cities pander to it to a large degree? And there's a positive
feedback cycle here where when cities pander to cars, that makes cars actually
more valuable compared to the competition.

Now what you're saying is that when we replace A with B, where B >>> A, cities
will (eventually) pander to cars less. Why?

The thing that you suggest is that cars waste real estate. Which, certainly,
they do. I do note in passing that driverless cars might waste less real
estate (for example, they could be sent to more distant and more inconvenient
parking structures, or the utilization of people / car could go up with a
rides-for-hire model). But whatever, at the very least the real estate
efficiency of driverless cars is no worse than the real estate efficiency of
regular cars.

So meanwhile, today, the rail + maybe something like segway model has value X.
We agree that X < A, right? That in America at least cars provide more value
than transit, and so people get cars, and so cities pander to cars. Now you
seem to be envisioning that in the driverless future, rail + segways have
value Y, and Y is not only > X, it's also > A, and in fact > B. Why? What is
it about driverless segways that is so great? Unlike driverless cars, they
don't seem like they provide much value for their users (you aren't going to
read a book while your driverless segway takes you to your destination, and
though maybe they'd be a little better when drunk).

And, further, we're saying that driverless segways are that awesome even if
they have to reverse some inertia of cities currently being designed kind of
"against" them, and indeed, even if they have to reverse yet more inertia
because the FIRST thing that happens in our driverless future is people buy
driverless cars and become a constituency for even more city-pandering-to-
cars.

I don't see it. Maybe if it takes a long time to get to driverless cars,
because right now I think that the car domination of the world is getting a
bit milder. Maybe if the current trend continues for a few decades, and then
cities have become more hostile to cars, driverless or otherwise, the
increased value of cars won't be enough that it will get over the inertia.

But if we get good driverless cars in the next decade or fifteen years? In-
city rail is just going to die in almost all cities. And once it's dead, it
will be dead for a long, long time.

~~~
waterlesscloud
You're kinda taking the "faster horses" side of things, if you know what I
mean.

You're comparing the real estate efficiency of cars to driverless cars, which
is not what I'm doing. I'm comparing the RE efficiency of cars to segways, and
segways win that hands-down, no comparison.

The other benefit is psychological. You transform a development from being
centered around cars to being centered around people. Even a person on a
segway is a person. A person in a car is a car. This, I would maintain, is the
larger benefit to average citizen. It's a more desirable experience.

Developers win with more usable real estate, citizens win with a much more
pleasant scale and experience.

The segways would be for intra-area transportation, the driverless cars for
inter-area.

The bigger assumption you're making is that people will "have" cars, and I'm
not sure that will be the case. For me, that's the biggest unknown about
transportation in the next couple of decades. Will people own cars, or will
they merely use cars from a large pool of cars (either civic or corporately
owned)?

Uber, for example, is starting to promote the idea of not owning a car at all
to young people. They've been doing a good job of hyping the convenience of
that lifestyle, and a limited set of people have bought into it already. I
also recently noticed they're starting to play a prestige angle with black
SUVs and so on. They're actively playing that up, which fills the other need
personal cars currently serve.

Uber's endgame is very clearly a fleet of autonomous cars, and some cities are
making very early sounds about building their own fleets.

I don't know how that's going to shake out. There are powerful forces pushing
both ways.

But, if personal car ownership does become a thing of the past, a lot of the
pressure you imagine for city development to have an even greater universal
(as opposed to limited areas) accommodation for cars goes away.

The other major unknown is if cities simply become less desirable in 20-30
years. Given increasing automation, the nature of work may change to a degree
that some of the economic incentives for city living decrease. That trend, if
it even builds at all, will be slower to develop, but potentially even more
powerful.

~~~
aetherson
You're misunderstanding my comparison.

I'm saying, "real segways are more space efficient than real cars. Despite
that, people prefer cars to segways (by a gigantic margin)." So from there, I
get to, "future segways will be more space efficient than future cars, but I
don't see that turning people towards future segways -- because we can already
tell that people don't value space highly enough to make them want segways,
and it's going to be pretty much the same comparison in the future."

Here's another bit of pseudo math: real cars >>> real segways. Driverless cars
>>> real cars. Driverless segways ~= real segways. Thus driverless cars >>>>>
driverless segways.

I'm not taking a stance on the ownership model of cars, either. I don't know
if in a driverless car world people would own them or rent them for hours or
days at a time or rent them for the duration of a single ride. I'm just saying
that people will USE them a lot. And regardless of who owns the car, if
everyone USES the driverless cars a lot, then cities will be built around
cars.

And cities that are built around cars are hostile to segways, driverless or
otherwise.

You say this intriguing thing: "The segways would be for intra-area
transportation, the driverless cars for inter-area."

I think that my fundamental point is that that doesn't seem true. If
driverless cars are highly available to people, I think they'll just use the
driverless cars end-to-end. Your driverless car trip will put you at the
doorstep of wherever you're going. At that point you don't need a segway.

Segways are for when your inter-area transportation CAN'T get you the last
mile of where you're going -- that is, they're for rail. And rail, I think, is
dead if we get driverless cars soon.

~~~
waterlesscloud
> You say this intriguing thing: "The segways would be for intra-area
> transportation, the driverless cars for inter-area."

Yeah, this is the root of our disagreement. As I see it, the reason this
doesn't happen now is a matter of convenience. As things stand now, there's
the friction of transitioning from car to segway. In a fully automated world,
I see that friction largely disappearing. You get out of the car, it goes
away. The segway is waiting for you. It delivers you and goes away itself.
There's very little friction.

It's true this only makes sense in certain kinds of living situations. Suburbs
seem unlikely to go this way (though there was a brief trend last decade to
more pedestrian-y suburban town center development). But for urban areas, this
kind of development increases what people like about urban living, and
decreases what they don't like. I don't think people know they want it, but I
also don't think it's something they've been given much to consider. When they
have, like 3rd St. Promenade in Santa Monica, it's been hugely popular.
Segways would allow you to scale that up considerably, and expand it beyond
retail and entertainment, possibly to an entire city center.

We're in agreement about the future of passenger rail. It looks bleak decades
down the line. Interestingly, Mayor Garcetti of Los Angeles said much the same
just a few months ago. He wondered in public if it made much sense to keep
building massive rail projects given that automated cars were coming.

[http://laist.com/2014/09/30/mayor_garcetti_wants_to_turn_wes...](http://laist.com/2014/09/30/mayor_garcetti_wants_to_turn_westwo.php)
"How do you spend billions of dollars on fixed rail when we might not own cars
in this city in a decade or a decade and a half?"

------
AndrewKemendo
As someone in the AR space, even I wouldn't use glass, BUT it has been amazing
for getting the word out about what AR is and that has been invaluable.
Instead of having to explain to people what AR is, all I have to say is "You
know google glass?" and they immediately get it.

I think there are a couple of big problems with glass:

1\. It doesn't do AR substantively, which is the breakthrough feature, instead
its basically just a semi-transparent floating screen

2\. Its got a photo taking camera on it*

3\. Interacting with it is cumbersome/clunky

To do 1 effectively, it needs to be full field of view or at least the bulk of
the FOV, which is a major issue with lenses that close to the eye and why I
think they acquired Magic Leap.

2 is a fairly simple fix but would need a whole new re-branding and google may
have burned this bridge already.

3 is really a tough thing to figure out but I think could be done with CV
gestures that aren't physical touch based, but rather view orientation based.
So for example if you look down, you immediately get your apps displayed and
you can use your hand to select/type in a similar form function as people do
now with phones.

*I make the distinction about photo taking because if the camera was only used for CV/tracking on device and had no "photo taking" feature, people would be less worried about it. And yes I am aware that images are still taken, its the distinction in what is happening by default that the public in general cares about.

~~~
waterlesscloud
To me the fact that it doesn't really do AR is the major problem. It only does
what my phone does, with a slightly more convenient interface. It really
needed a whole new set of features and benefits, not just somewhat improved
versions of the existing mobile ones.

~~~
noamyoungerm
It's very much a prototype project. The primary benefit is not so much in the
product itself but rather that it makes the new concept viable and ready to
exploit.

It's not that different from the first iPhone, which was really just a touch
screen media player with a phone antenna.

~~~
waterlesscloud
True enough. And I realize we're a ways off from full AR, just for hardware
reasons. But some token gestures in that direction would have helped.
Something to show the promise.

------
datashovel
I have a pair, and while I haven't had much time to experiment with it yet,
the little bit I have done, I think they got several things right.

1) The 'viewport' is out of sight if you're not looking up and to the right.
This gives it the non-intrusive aspect that allows someone to wear it while
engaging in everyday activities.

2) The 'pairing' with another Android device I think allows the developer to
leave heavy computation / work off of the small Glass device to conserve
battery.

3) The form-factor. I think it's very lightweight, and again non-intrusive
aspect that doesn't make it a burden to those who don't already wear glasses.

I haven't dug in deeply recently, but originally I had the sense that there's
not enough integration with popular 3rd party apps. Engagement from Facebook,
Twitter, Snapchat, etc. would probably help with adoption, though the
pricepoint is definitely something I see most people struggling with. Perhaps
tight integration with things like Google Apps might make it appealing to
small or larger but agile businesses.

I think this could be both a consumer and business play in terms of adoption,
though I think the path to business adoption may be more straightforward in
terms of the kinds of apps that would need to be developed.

I can imagine alot of really interesting things might start happening once
Google has made Tango available for mass adoption.

    
    
      https://www.google.com/atap/projecttango/#project
    

Let's hope they don't shut the door on this too quickly. The idea is so new
and different that it could take some time before folks really sink their
teeth into how it can be used where there's real value to the consumer /
business who is going to make the investment.

------
merrua
They could have fixed the privacy issues by simply making a loud noise and
flash if you took a picture. That would bring it in line with
european/japanese/chinese laws against creepers. The fact they never fixed
that, made it seem like a "creeper product". Who wants to be seen like that?
Who would buy ? Very limited number.

~~~
chippy
I wonder if the camera is actually needed. They made it the key feature in the
advertisements, but anecdotally it appears people are not using it. So why not
remove it?

------
wnevets
I'm a bit of a google fan boy and even I have no interest in buying one. I
think glass is a bit ahead of its time and something (if not a new version of
glass) will eventually take its place. The chances of people becoming less
connected in the future than we are today are very low in my opinion.

------
JoseVigil
Most Advanced Yet Acceptable. When I saw first glass I thought using a
prostheses as a dream object was not such a good idea.

Glass jumped stations to reach the head, a point still in premature
interaction with a long distance of motion travel of the hands to control it.
The head is like in another planet to be reached compared to a watch even a
cellphone.

Google went all-in directly to the head when the way to go was wrist, arm,
shoulder, neck and then head. In any of the cases the glass experience
provided Google with rich information about wearable and its adoption.

I am not sure if Brin will compromise his figure that much in the future with
early developed technologies. Even should have been discouraging as leader,
but was not his fault since he believed.

Glass was and is a great lesson for the industry.

------
joesmo
So Glass has been available to developers for close to two years, there's
still no release date, and it's a surprise that no one wants to develop for
it? At this rate, it's unlikely it will ever be released to consumers and even
if it is, that's the assumption anyone investing time and money into
developing apps for it should be thinking about. All other issues aside--and
from the comments here there are quite a few--investing in Glass is
essentially a horrific idea outside of possible niche commercial markets. By
extension at this point, so would releasing Glass to consumers without
software. Yet another bungled google product poised to join the deadpool
before release.

------
Tangokat
For consumers the device is not ready but I would wager that a fair amount of
value could be gained from using it in an enterprise context. All sorts of
jobs get easier if you have access to data hands free - surgeons being the
most obvious case.

------
sabalaba
I got Glass in April 2013. I realized that I used Google Glass to solve two
problems:

1) Taking pictures and video of my day. 2) Telling the time.

The notifications features were not useful to me and being seen in public with
the device on was embarrassing. I ended up deciding to make my own version of
Glass (called Lambda Hat) that was more discrete and solved the first problem
above and left the second to my cellphone.

------
Thisisnotadrill
I recently ran into Ivy Ross. I asked her why she was not wearing glass. She
said that she's prepping for a shift. I don't know what exactly she was
eluding to; but I feel optimistic abut the future of glass.

------
pinaceae
a lot of people get contact lenses and lasik to get rid of glasses.

the only really accepted form of glasses is sunglasses, because hiding your
eyes is a nice feeling. people can't read you. our brain aims for the eyes to
read emotion.

genius idea to pick that spot of the body to interfere with tech.

~~~
jacquesm
That's exactly why I really dislike sunglasses and am not usually impressed
with people wearing them where none are needed (as in, when the sun is shining
directly into your eyes). Sunglasses are creepy.

------
dsr12
I think Google is betting more on "Magic Leap" than Glass. If "Magic Leap" is
successful then I don't think Google will continue investing in Glass.

------
mkhpalm
Google Glass is a lot like Apple Watch. The cost is too steep to risk becoming
the next bluetooth earpiece d-bag. Plus, glass gets pretty boring after 20-30
minutes of use.

------
swalsh
Perhaps it will be the Netwon to Google's iPad?

------
Ih8registering
The fact is, users can engage in activity with Google spyglass which puts them
at a legal liability. They can unwittingly engage in commerce, violating rules
of commerce of parties they record. This makes spyglass userbase a ripe new
target for lawsuits.

Record traffic in an out of a retail business? Congratulations, your analyzing
commercial activity. Better watch what you do with that footage, there are
rules for that.

Record something that ends up being controversial and potentially costs
someone business? Congratulations, you can count on being taken to court over
that.

Record something innocent and then accuse or hint that someone is doing
something criminal and posted it online? Well if you didn't specifically hand
over the footage of the deed in question to the authorities, then you could
very likely be hit with a defamation suit.

You're just one big market for bored lawyers as a spyglass luser.

~~~
Ih8SF
I KNOW! Federal criminal law basically applies commercial rules to an
individual natural person's behavior. Google glass users are blissfully
unaware of how many opportunities they have to unwittingly fall afoul of that
and become another notch in a bored, shysty federal prosecutor's belt. Hell,
look what happened to Swartz. Great example of how AUSAs go after low hanging
fruit.

------
Ih8registering
NOBODY wants Google SPYGlass!

------
Ih8registering
The plain fact is, you can get glasses with cameras built in as COTS hardware.
They don't have the garish google spyglass design, they don't cost a fortune,
and they don't compromise the USERS privacy.

------
hosh
Then again, Google also recently invested in Magic Leap.

~~~
hosh
Oh, downvotes. That's interesting :-)

The Magic Leap technology uses lightfields as the starting point to seamlessly
blend virtual and augmented reality together. Those guys have a significantly
larger scope of vision than the Google Glasses. Not surprised folks within
Google are getting bored of it. The pivots from Glasses by third party
developers are a red herring. Why keep developing Glasses when there is
someone who is way further along?

