
My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price - infoman
https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS
======
magic_haze
Interesting he feels so strongly about that... but then again, he always kinda
does. Not sure what to make of it. I used to follow Scoble's blog back when he
was evangelizing for Microsoft, but he's abandoned his mediums so often and so
vociferously that I sort of lost track. Is Google Plus his latest platform
now?

Personally, I'm consciously trying _not_ to get stuck with a single company's
ecosystem, so a lot of the advantages Scoble mentions simply don't relate to
me. But then again, I never really ventured past search and Gmail... is the
rest of Google's services really that good to justify buying into?

~~~
onedev
As far as G+ is concerned, I find Facebook much more useful than G+ for all
intents and purposes (photos, groups, messaging, news, everything I find is
either better or more useful on Facebook; more useful in the sense that my
friends actually use it heh).

YouTube has great content but the design has changed for the worse in my
humble opinion.

Maps is top notch. Really a modern day beauty.

Calendar is pretty useful, but nothing you can't get from some other provider.

I prefer Dropbox to Google Drive. It performs better, has a better UI, is more
intuitive, and I admire the company itself as well as Drew (founder), so I
stick with Dropbox (oh and the 50gb free that I've amassed helps too!).

~~~
andybak
Remember Drive = Docs + Online storage so you're essentially only comparing
Dropbox to the latter. You're probably aware of this but with the rebranding
of Docs to Drive I thought it was worth making this explicit.

~~~
sidi
With Dropbox, you are free to pick the editor. Not so with Drive. The 'Docs +'
in fact adds a constraint.

~~~
andybak
I'm not clear how to get a Google Drive workflow using Dropbox and an app.

i.e:

1\. A single canonical version of each document with a change history. 2\.
Simultaneous real-time editing by multiple users with conflict resolution.

Dropbox has pretty limited locking and conflict resolution even if you don't
factor in live editing.

~~~
PeterisP
Well, you don't get simultaneous real-time editing by multiple users with
conflict resolution - but that's not why I use Dropbox for. In the last year,
I had two documents where I needed to do that, and I used Google docs for
that; but it's a very rare edge case for me. Frankly, in many real cases, I'd
trust Word's track-changes+email workflow better despite its horrible
usability - as when editing an agreement or technical spec, you don't really
want to share everything with the "other side", so you need keep the comments
and not-really-decided edits hidden; and you also want to review all their
recent changes explicitly every time.

Most documents I work with need no conflict resolution as creator and viewer
is strictly separated; but where proper collaboration is required, Google
Drive won't cut it, I would want to have a proper version control system like
git or similar.

There won't be Google Drive support for native-level editing of, say,
Photoshop files, folders of code, audio data, or any data files edited by in-
house built tools; but you can have a decent workflow where Dropbox syncs
these editables between all your computers, and also allows others to read
their latest version from a shared folder.

------
tiziano88
Link to the desktop version of this post:
[https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9Gdmk...](https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS)

~~~
adamors
Thank you.

------
onedev
Some observations:

From what he wrote it seems to me like he only gauged the reactions of
technically-oriented people. Of course tech people are going to be pretty
excited about this, more-so than the average Joe.

He also seems to feel very very strongly about this. I don't think many people
feel the same strength of opinion towards Glass.

He's right about the price. If they could cut it down to subsidized-smartphone
levels, people will be more open to trying it.

It's certainly cool and most people will probably think so (hence everyone
wanting to check it out), but thinking it's cool and actually incorporating it
in daily life is very different. Of course Robert is an early adopter so he
was more open to the notion of having something like that on his face at all
times, but I don't think many people will be as open to it.

He notes that its a more social device because you don't have to look away to
use it. Well, I've also tried Glass and you do have to look up and to the
right to use the device. The actual display is in your peripherals so if
someone is talking to you and you wanted to use Glass, they would most
certainly notice because your eyes would drift to your peripherals. I don't
think it'll be too different from pulling out your phone from a politeness
standpoint.

~~~
threeseed

       I don't think it'll be too different from pulling out your phone from a politeness standpoint.
    

This is the point a lot of Glass proponents don't seem to get. They assume
that not paying attention to you whilst looking at your face is somehow more
polite than looking at your phone. It's not.

I suspect that over time Glass will become like Bluetooth earpieces. Perfect
for use alone but a faux pas around other people.

~~~
saulrh
A couple of differences.

First, vision is much higher bandwidth. You can glance at a notification and
immediately know that you have a message, who sent the message, and how you
received it. Takes half a second. Bluetooth earpieces are only suitable for
sustained conversation. They are social faux pas because you are having a
_sustained conversation_ with someone else. This is not the case with HMDs -
someone using a tool like Glass is actually _more_ focused on their task and
_less distracted overall_ because they spend less time switching contexts.
Citation: <http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1695.pdf>

Second, glancing at an HMD is fundamentally different from pulling out a cell
phone because you're not looking away from the other person. It is difficult
to emphasize how important this is to people who have not done work in this
field. It is _looking away_ that breaks conversations, not _doing something
else_. Conversation continues to work as long as the other person thinks
you're looking at them. And having an HMD on is close enough that people don't
react to you jumping away into glass-land to look something up or jot down a
note. This one doesn't have a citation, but I _have_ spent several years
taking classes from the guy who now runs the Google Glass project, and I can
tell you this from direct experience.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: please, please try these things
before you dismiss them. Social interaction is sufficiently complicated that
experimentation is the only way to predict how people will react to something.
And the experiments show that Glass works.

~~~
threeseed

       It is looking away that breaks conversations, not doing something else.
    

You ARE looking away. And depending on how many messages you receive it could
be just as irritating to the person(s) you're with as constantly checking your
phone. Least of all the constant doubt about whether your conversation is
being recorded or not.

I am not disputing their unquestionable usefulness I just have doubts they
will be acceptable in most social situations.

~~~
onedev
From having tried Glass, I can affirm that you do indeed look away.

If any of you are wearing glasses, try looking at the top corner of your
frame; that's the same motion needed to engage with Glass.

You'd effectively completely break eye contact with the person you're talking
to and motion as if you're looking at something completely different. It's the
equivalent of getting distracted by a cool car while your friend talks to you
and you have to say "sorry, I saw a cool car, go on".

~~~
bryanl
This interesting. Owning Glass, I can assure you that of is possible to
maintain eye contact while viewing content. Depending on the amount of
cognition needed to process the content, this perceived conversation might be
broken.

------
bane
I appreciate this review, and I agree with him 100% on the price point. Had I
been in the audience I wouldn't raise my hand till $200-300 either ($1500 is
almost comically absurd). But at the same time, I'm gonna wait no matter what
till it does more. A head mounted camera (which seems to make up the bulk of
the advertising use-cases for it) just isn't important to me...at all.

I think the head mounted navigation stuff could be very useful, but I can
barely get my Android phone to understand spoken address searches right now,
and I don't mind having it shout out directions to me. I'm not sure I need to
pay a few hundred bucks to get the directions up on my face.

The one thing that I hope somebody creates an app for is a quick barcode/item
scanner and price lookup app. Just tell me what the best price is for an item
I'm looking at and where I can get it. I've tried a few phone apps for this,
but the experience is atrocious.

But is it worth $200-300 for those limited use cases? I dunno. I really am
going to wait and see.

~~~
ryankshaw
IMO, at that price point, the real question is "is it worth it to wear them
and look like one of _those guys_ that walks around with a Bluetooth earpiece
in at all times"?

~~~
georgemcbay
On the one hand, we're entering a world where Neal Stephenson's "gargoyles"
actually exist. On the other hand, the equipment they'll be carrying around is
way, way, way smaller than he envisioned.

------
robobenjie
How can you possibly say that you aren't willing to spend more than $200
dollars, but would wear it on your face every single day? People pay more than
that for sunglasses which provide no functional utility above the $5
sunglasses.

~~~
WiseWeasel
Sunglasses protect your eyes. This product probably ruins them.

~~~
driverdan
[citation needed]

~~~
WiseWeasel
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079367/>

------
davidw
Hrm. I find that wearing things that aren't strictly necessary irritates me. I
don't even like watches, let alone some thing attached to my face. When I
raced bikes, I ended up dumping the annoying heart rate monitor too as I did
not like having this _thing_ strapped to me. Phones work pretty well as
they're just along for the ride, like a wallet or keys, and don't constrain
me.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I wear glasses and despise contacts. I guess I could get laser surgery, but
I'm used enough to glasses that I would never bother with the cost or risk.

I don't see how this is very different from wearing glasses.

~~~
gingerlime
But when you wear glasses you get to choose the design and look that fits your
personality. It's also a fashion accessory.

I love my glasses, but part of the reason I love them is because I have not
(yet) met a single person with the same glasses as mine, and I've had them for
3 years now.

I wouldn't feel so happy wearing something every other person wears.

~~~
raldi
If Glass is successful, what makes you think the technology won't one day be
available as an add-on to just about any pair of glasses?

~~~
gingerlime
good point, or customizable like mobile phone covers (like the good ol' nokia
days)

~~~
hutniped
Google already promised that Glass will work with your prescription glasses as
a screwable addon: [http://9to5google.com/2013/03/12/google-confirms-
prescriptio...](http://9to5google.com/2013/03/12/google-confirms-prescription-
frames-lenses-in-the-works-for-google-glass-shows-off-prototype/)

------
jleyank
Couple of questions for those with Glass:

Do they work with eyes older than 40 - those that can't focus within 18 inches
without multi-diopter help? These folks still have money to burn.

How about astigmatism? Makes for interesting curves rotating my progressives.
Dptical artifacts on two axes!

Will they be snatched off your face like apple gear has been grabbed at times.
High value, small package. Easy to fence if google doesn't have or use a kill
switch.

Price will be an issue. My glasses already cost 400-700 usd depending on where
I get them. This assumes I can get prescription Glass...

~~~
mikeevans
Yep they do. My dad is 61 and had surgery on his right eye a few years back
(so it's even weaker than normal) and he said he was able to read the screen.
He did say he would have preferred a left eye version however.

Can't say about astigmatism.

I guess they could be, you can remote wipe them though.

Agreed on price, luckily I didn't even have to pay the $1500. And there was a
Googler wearing a prototype prescription version at the pickup.

------
polshaw
I don't see why people think google are going to struggle to get this out for
$200.

It is essentially galaxy nexus hardware without cell phone modem, a much
smaller battery, and a small LCOS display instead of the large 720p AMOLED
one. Yes, there will be higher non-recurring engineering costs with glass-
fitting it into such a small space- but if they plan to go fairly mainstream
these costs shouldn't cause too much of an impact on the unit device cost.
Once you get into mass manufacturing, the marginal cost of making another one
should be quite a bit lower than a current smartphone; as they are eliminating
or massively reducing the cost of many of the major components.

If we look at google's track record, they haven't shown much desire to become
a hardware company (that is, make the bulk of profits from selling hardware).
Taking into account what google have been willing to price the nexus 4 at,
with better hardware all round, I believe google are definitely capable of
doing $200 unsubsidised if they want to. I can see $99 possible in the future.

~~~
bmeckel
I agree, I don't think it's crazy to think of them selling this at a $200
price point. They've shown time and again that hardware is just a way for them
to spread their software, and this is just an extension of that philosophy.

As for the author's point about google moving away from advertising, he's
nuts. I think google realized that advertising in this setting would be way
too intrusive at the get go, but I'm sure they'll work it in over time.

------
personlurking
I just read this and this (1) and together they paint an interesting picture,
though I'm with the TC author on this one. I hope they're very akward to use
and very much like the Segway in popularity. If they're worn in public and are
recording, I want a large, unmistakable red light to come on. Even so, I'm
pretty sure people who record without permission will get roughed up on more
than one occassion, if not just pushed.

On the flip side, recording activity or family-based events (ie, going down a
mountain at Tahoe, or your kid taking his/her first steps) and having hands-
free internet is pretty cool.

1 - [http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/26/eric-schmidt-is-right-
using...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/26/eric-schmidt-is-right-using-google-
glasses-is-weird-heres-my-experience/)

~~~
ewang1
I don't see that being much of an issue. When you're out in public, most
expectations of privacy are gone anyways.

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, but you don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to start photographing you
either do you?

How would you feel if where ever you went someone followed you with a camera
pointed at you?

~~~
RossM
I don't really get this argument. Putting aside that if someone wants to
follow you and take pictures they can do that already, and that glass itself
doesn't cause you to become that person, the worst you can experience will be
in the background of someone's picture or video.

Miniature cameras have been available for years, strapping one to your head
doesn't make you a stalker.

~~~
pekk
If someone wants to follow me and take pictures they have to pay the price of
making it obvious that they are doing so.

Using little spy cameras is already thoroughly antisocial, glass seeks to
change that and normalize public recording

------
hkmurakami
_The success of this totally depends on price. Each audience I asked at the
end of my presentations "who would buy this?" As the price got down to $200
literally every hand went up. At $500 a few hands went up. This was
consistent, whether talking with students, or more mainstream, older
audiences._

$500 standalone and $200 with some kind of carrier contract? (or is glass
meant to be an accessory to a phone? maybe the battery would be inadequate to
take on many of the phone features?)

~~~
buro9
It's an accessory to a phone.

It uses bluetooth primarily, but additionally can use WiFi for network
communication.

It does not have 3g/4g nor require a SIM or contract.

Think of it is a bluetooth headset that happens to have a camera and display,
and additionally WiFi (for helping to upload those larger files).

~~~
stesch
Nobody in their right mind would hold a cell phone for most of the waking
hours continously at their head.

I wonder how problematic Bluetooth and WiFi are for your health.

~~~
JelteF
Without discussing if Bluetooth and WiFi are bad for your health, it would be
way better to keep those transmitters and receivers close to your head than
for instance your upper body. Your skull is quite dense and blocks radiation
way more than the soft material that protects your heart and lungs.

~~~
rcxdude
Rather irrelevant in the GHz range, where density is much less significant
than the chemical bonds and conductivity of the material. In fact the soft
tissue would likely be a better absorber due to a higher concentration of
water.

~~~
bnegreve
Isn't the fact that water absorbs waves and heats the main hypothetical danger
for the brain?

------
atirip
Wasn't Robert Scoble The Great Antihyper? Everything he hypes will eventually
fail?

~~~
TillE
I don't follow him too closely, but it seems that Scoble likes everything new.
Some will be flops, others (eg, Instagram) will be hits.

------
blablabla123
It's funny, the whole post is about how nice those glasses are and how
amazing. But I cannot really see _why_ they are useful. If I understand the OP
correctly, it features the same functions as a cell phone but without ads and
being more social. I think he misses the point, staring at a cell-phone every
10 seconds is not non-social because of the looking away but because of the
permanent distraction. It's a sign of politeness to be 100% focussed when
talking to someone else.

I think I'll buy them if they are below $200 but I won't use them much.
Watching Terminator is much cooler anyway ;)

------
steeve
I've had the chance to try them a few months ago, and my only concern with
them (while cool), was that they would suffer the same fate as either:
bluetooth hands-free kits (aka douchebagy), or segway (aka dorky).

The only killer app I think is driving directions, that was nice.

------
stevewillows
I find it interesting that social cues like flipping the glasses up while in
the bathroom are becoming normal.

~~~
raldi
It seems like the perfect opportunity for theft.

~~~
bergie
People already keep their smartphones on table in busy bars, and maybe their
wallet in a back pocket. This isn't any easier to steal than that, and has way
less impact than having to freeze your credit cards for instance.

Much will depend on the price of the final Glass, but if it is down to around
the price of designer sunglasses, I don't see a big threat.

~~~
stevewillows
My thoughts exactly. Theft is bound to happen, but I don't think it will be
any different than any other gadget.

Maybe we will see some sort of remove viewing apps that will allow us to view
what the thief is looking at.

------
joelrunyon
> 1\. I will never live a day of my life from now on without it (or a
> competitor).

This seems like a massive statement.

~~~
MortenK
Well it is Robert Scoble. The guy is more easily excited than a puppy on
adderall.

------
coob
> I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a
> commerce based company.

What planet is this guy on? Google's product has always been eyeballs. This is
just the most direct manifestation of it.

~~~
arrrg
So you think Google’s ultimate goal here is shoving ads in front of people’s
eyes? I somehow doubt that.

Why wouldn’t they just want another leg to stand on, besides ads? Doesn’t that
make sense? You can make tons of money selling hardware. Apple demonstrated
that.

~~~
coob
No, I think Google's ultimate goal is making money. They only know how to make
money by selling ads. They have made squat by selling hardware.

------
mtgx
I hope Google improves the camera by the time they release the consumer
version. I saw the demo from Engadget editor, and the video seemed a little
too shaky for my taste. It needs OIS, or something to make the video recording
much more stable. This is even more important than in a smartphone, because
you're moving your head a lot more. So Google should really prioritize this. I
would also make it a lot better in low-light, and maybe even give it a flash
for night shots and so on.

Voice will need to be flawless, so if voice recognition depends on how fast
the processor is, then they need to put the fastest one in there (maybe a quad
core Cortex A57 at 20nm, for efficiency, too).

They also need to keep working on the design, and make future generations as
minimal as possible, and as "cool" looking as possible. They need to keep
improving on this.

~~~
tiziano88
My guess is that voice recognition happens mostly server-side, similarly to
voice search and voice typing in Android.

~~~
parfe
Jelly bean with google now added offline voice recognition. My downloaded
English dictionary is 22mb.

[http://m.androidcentral.com/google-search-update-allows-
thir...](http://m.androidcentral.com/google-search-update-allows-third-party-
developers-use-offline-speech-recognition)

------
stesch
This is hard to read. And when I switch to the desktop version, Google wants
me to log in. WTF?

------
uptown
"Also, Google is forbidding advertising in apps. This is a HUGE shift for
Google's business model. I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an
advertising-based company to a commerce based company."

Does anybody think this is their permanent stance? I certainly don't.

~~~
drcube
I will _not_ buy Glass if there are ads. Period. I think most people are with
me and Google knows this.

This probably won't extend to Android or any other Google service, but I can
see why they would choose to forgo ads in Glass.

------
rmp2150
Why is the picture quality so bad?

~~~
netrus
Guess it's because the camera has to be super-tiny.

~~~
rmp2150
Wasn't the camera one of the biggest selling points Google tried to make?
Looking at picture quality in the blog post and the Glass demo at Google I/O
2012, there is a clear disconnect, in my opinion.

~~~
dombili
Yes, but I don't think they've ever claimed that the picture quality of the
camera was great. They emphasized on the camera a lot because taking pictures
with the Glass is way more personal than taking a picture with a traditional
camera. After some time, when you go back to look at the pictures you'd taken,
you live those moments again the same way you remember them, from your point
of view. This was my take anyway.

~~~
rmp2150
Yeah I understand that but whats the point if the quality is not good. Good
Idea. Poor execution.

~~~
michaelt
The images on the article, like [1] have been downscaled to 480×354 px for the
mobile site, then upscaled by your browser.

The original can be accessed via the regular google plus interface [2] and
downloaded as 2560x1888 px [3]

The quality is in line with a phone camera.

[1]
[https://plus.google.com/app/basic/photos/+Scobleizer/album/5...](https://plus.google.com/app/basic/photos/+Scobleizer/album/5871408320945406321/5871408318710743810?cbp=19od81n563a9o&sview=20)
[2]
[https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9Gdmk...](https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS)
[3] <http://imgur.com/RHmdbi7>

~~~
rmp2150
Thank you for clearing that up.

------
jdotjdot
I'm actually pretty curious how this will fit for people who already wear
glasses or some kind of eyewear. Will there be prescription Google Glass(es)?
That could shoot the price way up, especially if Google is the only merchant
for them. Who will make the lenses for me? Could I get my favorite glasses
merchant to make my glasses, or will I be forced to get a $700 special
prescription pair from Google? Maybe people with poor eyesight could never
wear them at all?

I am completely on board with the product and hope for its success--but I am
convinced that the entire product is merely the first iteration that will
eventually make way for contact lenses, which will be the true long-term
viable version of this product. Right now, Google Glass will be good for
gathering information not only about the world around us as we already do with
smartphones, but for understanding how customers and developers would begin to
use such a product--and then applying that information towards improvement in
what will ultimately be lenses.

~~~
Heliosmaster
Eventually, if the market will be very wide, I guess there will be Google
Prescription Glasses (you decide the name). For the moment Glass can be
detached and put on top of the frame of your current glasses (bonus: hipsters
with big frames, won't even notice it!).

I Totally agree with the first iteration concept.

~~~
PeterisP
Not 'eventually', it's already confirmed, manufactured and used - some of the
demoed Glass units have a slightly different front frame where prescription
lenses can be attached in the same way as for "normal" glass frames.

------
b1daly
I think part of Scoble's enthusiasm must derive from the fact that he is an
always connected person who travels, networks,communicates as his job. Nothing
he describes sounded that great, but if you are online all the time while
moving then I can see it. I'd like to be online less, and try to experience
the world unmediated.

------
rayj
I would be hesitant to talk to anyone wearing the google glass about any
controversial subject matter. Big brother really is watching you... As for
price, if google thinks it can make money off of it, the price will indeed be
$200 or so.

~~~
xtracto
This is important and greatly overlooked IMO.

By Law, Google (along with other Internet companies) have been required to be
'tap friendly', so that the government can read everyone's data (like email).

So when more and more people starts using Glass, the government _will_ also
want to tap into that. I am sure some will say that such ability will only be
used to prevent crime, but we already know how well the government abuses
power to their own enjoyment like it happened with the porn-scanners which
pictures could never-never-never be saved...

------
colept
I wonder what will happen when Google Glass goes consumer for Explorer
upgrades. When Google released the Nexus One, I hopped on board and was
satisfied until I went through two recovery requests on the power button.
Google Glass is quite a chunk of change. I understand the value in their
utility and scarcity, but come time when Google releases the Glasses at a
consumer prices, I hope not to be disappointed by the same feeling of getting
left behind.

Does anybody know if and what upgrade options will be available for Google
Explorers when they release the consumer version?

~~~
bryanl
There isn't an option. We will just purchase the new device. I have a hunch
that if you do cool stuff with Glass using the explorer edition, Google will
have problem shipping you the final release gratis.

------
emehrkay
I don't think that Google has done a good job of explaining what it does. As
of right now, it just seems like a second screen for my phone. My reaction to
it reminds me of the reaction to the iPad, but in reverse -- the tech-minded
folk were confused while the average joe was excited.

I do think it is cool tech and probably the next logical step in personal
computing, I'm just at the wait-and-see stage. Mainly waiting to see if there
will be competition and what everyone will do with it.

------
brohoolio
What review? I read this and other than saying he won't live without it he
doesn't say what makes it amazing. The price point discussion is nice but I
don't understand why I would want one. I can see for vacation to take videos
to share with my family bu I don't get why it's amazing. Am I going to read my
Facebook feed on it? What am I going to do with it other than pictures? Give
me details!!

------
PanMan
Isn't it clear that, as with any electronics product, price will go down over
time? So even if they launch at $500, in a few years there will be a version
for $200. So the question might be more how strongly they want to boost
adoption at launch. And this could be a product that actually needs a slower
adoption, to get people used to it.

~~~
enginous
Yes, and even if they had resources and interest to distribute it rapidly, I'd
venture to guess that $200 would be underpricing it.

People might say they're prepared to pay less for it now than when it's
reached some adoption and they start feeling the social pressure of "everybody
has it; I must get one." For now it's probably more of a futuristic toy to
them.

------
kingkawn
I was surprised at how low quality the photos taken by Glass are. Is that the
planned camera for rollout?

~~~
antihero
It's for some reason the poster linked to the G+ mobile version.

------
throwaway1979
Are there any Glass users around here? I have a basic question. Can the wearer
see a video? I ask because I've seen captured video, still images of ... still
images, etc. ;-) Conceptually, video is similar but I want to verify that
video playback is in there.

~~~
bryanl
You can review the video you've taken. I'm not sure if the timeline cards
support the video HTML tag. The hardware can handle it, so this is just a
software limitation,

------
antihero
I just hope the voice commands are going to be _significantly_ better than on
Android now. Whilst they are much better than anything else, I still don't
find them actually usable, and I'm a Brit with an average voice.

------
ilaksh
<http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/>

The next step is a brain computer interface so you don't even have to say
commands out loud.

------
skc
Dying to read a whole bunch of reviews from non-techie people. For the time
being I can't help but feel like this thing demos well to many geeks.

------
senthilnayagam
I love apple products but at 200$ willing to buy one for my whole family.

I would like map app prebuilt on it

------
kayoone
Unrelated sidenote: Posted the exact same thing about half an hour earlier
(<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617110>) but didnt get an upvote. Not
that i care since i rarely submit new stuff, but HN is strange sometimes ;)

------
dombili
"I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a
commerce based company."

Maybe I'm not reading this sentence right, but isn't it quite obvious that
Page is doing the quite opposite?

------
kingjames24
interested in working on a Google Glass product/app....ping me if anyone's
working on anything or has any ideas?

james@livcard.com

------
fakeer
To be honest his first observation felt absurd, so much that I dared not read
further of the post.

Sometime ago I chanced upon one of his posts and it had the same mood - an
attempt be voracious and fanatic about sth even though he would be actually
sounding extortionately absurd.

------
thoughtcriminal
I have no doubt Microsoft are working on their own glasses, so maybe I'll hold
out for that.

I jumped from Google's ecosystem to Microsoft and I'm totally happy with the
Outlook.com/Skydrive/Office trifecta. The Windows Phone 8 is awesome and
integrates nicely with Windows 8 OS. Even Bing has strengths that Google
search can't touch.

Internet Explorer 10 is almost tolerable.

So yeah, lets see what Microsoft brings to the party.

