Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
Google Glass - If I Had Glass (google.com)
243 points by GvS 425 days ago | comments


jgrahamc 425 days ago | link

Every time I see Google Glass I think "Oh, cool" and then I realize that what I want/need in everyday life is de-augmented reality (i.e. just vanilla reality). I've already got devices buzzing etc. to get my attention for "important thing".

The argument for things like Glass is that they will make the merging of reality and technology seamless which could have great advantages. I fear, however, that it just means I'll have a thing right in front of my face asking for my attention.

The $1B idea with Google Glass is not the technology of putting it in front of your eyes etc., it's figuring out the software that filters down what's shown to the stuff you actually want/need. I don't think we've done that successfully in other domains yet.

-----

jwdunne 425 days ago | link

I see these things as a natural progression. The Internet is so important that we are becoming connected tighter with each revolultion.

When I first started using the Internet, it was using an unreliable 56k on a large desktop. I had to visit one spot in my house to connect.

After this, I got my first laptop. This was great because now I can connect any where in my house. By that time, I had broadband do always on, faster and way more reliable.

Fast forward again and I got my first smart phone. Now I can connect pretty much anywhere (given a decent signal) just by pulling my phone out of my pocket.

Google Glass means I won't have to pull it out of my pocket anymore. Now my life will be constantly enhanced at every moment by great hackers, just like it has been enhanced in increasing amounts since I first touched the Internet.

-----

mattgreenrocks 425 days ago | link

Where "enhanced" == abusive apps that rely on dopamine hits and fear of missing out to spur traction?

-----

jwdunne 425 days ago | link

No, I cannot say my life has been enhanced by those types of applications.

I'm talking stuff we take for granted like email, the web, word processing. These things have enhanced my life. The web alone opens a whole library of information and I am actually thankful because without it I'd know only a fraction of what I currently know.

Similar revolutions will happen and I fully believe something like Google Glass will be the medium.

Just as a thought, look at everything you use computers for now and think what it'd be like if they wasn't there? Even the most basic tasks should be considered.

-----

imcqueen 425 days ago | link

I also think people will be much more strict when it comes to picking "apps" for a device like Glass, or at least more strict with permissions.

Just from personal experience the more capable something is of interrupting me the more selective I am with privileges.

-----

lloeki 425 days ago | link

While I can barely tolerate ads and always go for the ad-free version of an app when possible, I would mandate precisely zero ads for such a device to register as worthwhile on my radar.

-----

OGinparadise 424 days ago | link

Google Glass means I won't have to pull it out of my pocket anymore. Now my life will be constantly enhanced at every moment by great hackers, just like it has been enhanced in increasing amounts since I first touched the Internet.

Try this for enhancement: shut everything off and talk to a human being, be it the local bagel shop owner or a homeless person. If I had to bet your life isn't being enhanced, it's being drained away, app by app. How many coffee cup pics must one post online? It gets boring after a while, and, imo, it's a sign of depression and a feeling of inferiority.

-----

tedks 424 days ago | link

I've lived my entire sentient life with a cable or faster Internet connection. I spend virtually all of my time that is not spent going out with friends, eating lunch with colleagues, or having alone time with my partner on my laptop, Xbox, or Nexus S. I am, seemingly, what you fear.

I cannot think of a single reason why it would be more productive for me to talk to a homeless person instead of doing any of the things I do on computing devices on a daily basis. I don't think you can name any, beyond straw men like "you're wasting your time looking at pictures of coffee cups on the Internet." Because my life is constantly mediated by technology, I can tell you with very good precision that of the 8,760 hours in 2011, I only wasted 939 of them (and most of that was playing video games over the summer -- it's arguable that I'm not wasting time by experiencing the story of Mass Effect the same way I wouldn't be wasting my time experiencing the story of The Hunger Games, but books are more high status, so I'll give myself incentive to prefer them over video games).

If uploading pictures of coffee cups to the Internet is what you do with most of your time on computers, I feel genuinely sorry for you, and I hope that you can find a better hobby. I don't think that talking to random people you run into during your day is that hobby, though. Have you tried this app ShuffleMyLife? It might give you better things to do outdoors than try to start conversations with shopkeepers.

-----

OGinparadise 424 days ago | link

I can tell you with very good precision that of the 8,760 hours in 2011, I only wasted 939 of them

That's pretty good for a robot but you can still improve.

As for me, I am a normal person, I don't need to track every freaking minute of my life or be "connected" to a million devices at any moment.

-----

ludston 424 days ago | link

The intuitive response to this is an angry rant about the definition of normality and your mandate to define it. Despite your derogatory, I empathise with your sentiment. I don't believe that recording every aspect of your life, or being integrated with the Internet will make me a happier person.

What I am really looking forwards to, is being able to lean back and read or watch video's without having to hold anything, or sit in a big room designed for the purpose.

Is the sense of superiority you feel towards tedks worth more than that?

-----

tedks 424 days ago | link

If you aren't dead by 30, you're grossly abnormal in comparison to most humans throughout history.

The "abnormal" aspects of modernity are the most valuable parts of it. If you feel dehumanized by technology, maybe you need to reconsider what humanity means to you, and whether it's a worthy goal.

-----

eps 425 days ago | link

> Every time I see Google Glass I think...

... do I really want fragments of my life to be recorded by total strangers and then shared with God knows who? I really don't.

It's a cool tech, but its social implications are far from being trivial and benign.

-----

judofyr 425 days ago | link

> It's a cool tech, but its social implications are far from being trivial and benign.

Is there any cool tech that doesn't have difficult social implications?

-----

aaronbasssett 424 days ago | link

So I take it you never go outside? CCTV is already omnipresent. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that there are larger surveillance battles to be fought.

-----

potatolicious 424 days ago | link

Most CCTV cameras are private and not monitored. You install them and have them record on a loop - old data is automatically erased to make room for new data. When something bad happens (an accident, a robbery, etc) recording is stopped and the existing data is handed over to relevant parties.

This is far less problematic than an omnipresent, monitored, shared, catalogued and indexed in perpetuity, video system.

-----

eps 424 days ago | link

Don't substitute the issue.

There are no CCTVs at workplace, at the parties and in the subway carriages. And no CCTVs are sharing out to the public. And, no, they are not "omnipresent".

-----

yareally 424 days ago | link

Since you live in the UK[1], I would guess CCTV would be everywhere. However, not every country is covered with CCTV (yet). That will probably change in the future though.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television#Uses

-----

JuDue 425 days ago | link

Agreed.

You only need to look at Google Play's lack of privacy to realise they see the user as a consuming resource.

At least Apple treats you more like the owner of your purchase, rather than something to drive ads with data.

-----

homosaur 424 days ago | link

You mean like the government, every single day of your life?

I agree, far from trivial and benign.

-----

dannyr 424 days ago | link

If you talk to the members of the Google Glass Team, they actually tell you that the device is not to augment reality at all.

Google Glass augmenting reality was coined by the press.

That should give you an idea where Google is heading with this product.

-----

minwcnt5 424 days ago | link

> I've already got devices buzzing etc. to get my attention for "important thing".

Isn't that the point though? Glass should require far less of your attention than these devices because it eliminates the need to reach into your pocket, pull it out (your device that is), swiping/unlocking, having to look down, needing a free hand or two, etc. Even something as simple as being able to scroll through my email/G+/twitter/IM hands free would be revolutionary for me and make them well worth wearing, as long as there's a gesture or gyroscope or subvocalization input mode of some sort so I don't need to give it constant voice/touch commands. It'd be well worth looking like an idiot nodding every few seconds or whatever.

-----

snowwrestler 424 days ago | link

Humans can walk and talk at the same time. We cannot walk and read at the same time.

We can drive and talk at the same time. We cannot drive and read at the same time.

To me the conclusion is obvious: pervasive wearable computing must talk to us, not show us things, to be useful. More specifically it must talk with us--understand what we want, when we want it, and give it to us.

I agree with you that the hardware is nothing compared to the complexity of the decision-making software. I think it is probably a multi-trillion-dollar opportunity, but it's so hard that no one company will solve it suddenly enough to corner the market.

-----

piyush_soni 424 days ago | link

Uh. What about superimposed maps on roads for example? What about product information just being there when you look at that in the super market (and whether it's cheaper somewhere on the internet). Or its nutrition information/health hazards etc. ! There are thousands of applications of pervasive wearable devices which 'shows us things'.

-----

snowwrestler 424 days ago | link

If you superimpose a map on a road, you can't see the road anymore because the map gets in the way.

-----

piyush_soni 423 days ago | link

You really think so? Which class you are studying in?

-----

7952 425 days ago | link

It does seem to rely heavily on picking at low hanging fruit. Flight times are important if you are in an airport, but its hardly life changing. My hunch is that it will be made by a hundred thousand small niche uses rather than a single billion dollar idea. This could be completely transcendent, and maybe needs to be to cut through the sensible aversion to this kind of tech.

-----

leoc 424 days ago | link

I think the biggest application for Glasses is hands-free, head-up, relatively inconspicuous outdoor on-foot turn-by-turn navigation. That is the nearest thing you can get on-foot to the pleasure of in-car turn-by-turn navigation, with no need to walk around holding a mobile phone screen in front of your face. (The same kind of navigation indoors would be almost as wonderfully useful - especially for finding your way to the bloody airport departure gate! - but I assume that neither airport interiors nor v1 Google Glasses are ready to provide that today.) Combine that with the secondary application of convenient, hands-free, heads-up, relatively inconspicuous first-person photo and video recording and I think you have two pretty attractive and non-niche uses for Glasses to add to the long tail of more specialised applications. I'd say that the things most likely to hold back Glasses are price, privacy concerns (the wearer's and others'), possible social stigma, and fear of being mugged.

(You could do a decent poor-man's approximation to Glasses' turn-by-turn navigation if you had a Bluetooth handset that did head tracking and the right software for your smartphone: you'd have the audio navigation directions in your ear, plus a turn-by-turn map display on the phone screen to glance at when you wanted to. I haven't heard of any such system though.)

-----

jgrahamc 424 days ago | link

Flight times at the airport are a great example. I don't need to know the time of my flight, but I do need to know if it's been delayed or if the gate changes. I don't need to know those things I already know them in some other way.

-----

7952 424 days ago | link

But the flight example could work just as well or better with text messages from the airline. Your example is just a more annoying way of displaying notifications.

-----

nthj 424 days ago | link

I was about to disagree with you, but I realized the real problem I wanted to address was the importance of context.

Text messages from an airline aren't great because by default they have the same "ding" as random jokes and "hey what's up." messages.

But Google Glasses could easily start having the exact same problem.

We need software to be trained with more intelligent context awareness — hey, Nathaniel put his phone on silent, but he is at the airport and here is a notification about a delayed flight, so the phone should vibrate a little bit to make sure he sees it.

We're getting better at this, as an industry: I walk into the Apple Store, it asks me to check into my genius appointment. If I walk into the movie theater, my phone pulls up my ticket as a QR code. But we still have a long way to go, and I think it's a far more interesting and important problem than whether the information shows up on my glasses or my phone.

-----

7952 424 days ago | link

Absolutely agree. Perhaps what is lacking is an effective feedback loop. When Google Display an incorrect search listing it is obvious based on user click patterns and can be factored into the algorithm. If Google don't tell you that your train is delayed there is no feedback loop.

-----

mtgx 425 days ago | link

Maybe for you, but the trend is to become increasingly more connected. People can still choose not to use their phone 16 hours a day, and yet they do it anyway.

-----

leoc 424 days ago | link

Two thoughts:

1) Google is obviously terrified that being seen wearing Glasses will brand you as terribly nerdy. (Compare the 'gargoyle' stigma in /Snow Crash/.) So to control the early perceptions they're doing a heavily-publicised early release to some carefully-selected mobile-phone-company-commercial beautiful people. The ideal candidate will be taking photos for /National Geographic/ while cave-diving for her Rhodes Scholarship. She will also be rather attractive, and not a wearer of prescription glasses. (Compare http://www.stevenlevy.com/index.php/05/08/the-sophie-choice . Courting Steven Levy seems to have turned out pretty poorly for Google, eh?)

2) Glasses looks very promising, but isn't it a bit of a stretch to call what it does Augmented Reality? AR more or less implies a HUD, or some other means of superimposing CGI on what you see of the real world. But the http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-it-feels/ video seems to suggest that instead Glasses takes a "picture-in-picture" approach, and the screen's transparency seems to serve mainly to make it feel less oppressive, and to minimise the amount it obstructs your vision when the whole screen is not in use. Goggles http://www.google.ie/mobile/goggles/ is more of a true AR system. (I'm not suggesting this is a bad decision: in light of the current problems with head-tracking http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/raster-scan-displays-m... and precise geolocation it seems like a good one.)

-----

jgh 424 days ago | link

I disagree that people will be branded as 'nerdy' or like 'gargoyle's in snow-crash. I think they'll be seen more like the people who always have a bluetooth headset on their ear (i.e. douchey).

-----

leoc 424 days ago | link

I'm convinced that perceived nerdiness is a hazard for Google. I will accept that perceived douchiness is another one. I'm sure that the marketers are standing by to reject any application that even faintly suggests that you might use the Glasses to photoblog your dinner.

-----

acoyfellow 424 days ago | link

I think I disagree.. The rise of the "brogrammer" is proof that nerd culture is not only on the rise, but actually revered as the new "cool".

Look at television for example.. Asthon Kutcher is the highest paid actor on TV, and he basically stars as himself on Two and a Half men. Ashton is a product evangelist + angel investor. He makes nerds look awesome

Another example from (popular culture/TV) is Big Bang Theory. "Toward the end of its run, Friends was topping out around 20 million viewers, meaning Big Bang is now standing shoulder-to-shoulder with one of network TV's biggest and longest comedy successes."[1]

Movies like The Social Network + jOBS will further push the perceived nerdiness for Google into a good thing, not a negative thing. Our culture is shifting.

[1]- http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/01/big-ban...

-----

__--__ 424 days ago | link

It hasn't shifted that far. Geek culture itself is still considered "uncool", even in silicon valley. When popular culture uses the term "Geek" they really mean "Hipster." It's the aesthetics that are considered cool, not the substance.

The shift you're perceiving is this: people with geeky hobbies and professions are now allowed the opportunity to be cool. That wasn't an option before the dot com boom. Thanks to the mass amounts of wealth and resources geeks have generated, we've been allowed a seat at the table, provided we behave ourselves. IE: no segways, no VR goggles, no LARP.

That distinction is exactly why Google is taking the tactic they are - they want the glass associated more with Apple and less with Segway.

-----

zwily 424 days ago | link

Ashton may have some nerd cred, but I promise you that your girlfriend/wife/whatever does not see him as a nerd.

-----

leoc 424 days ago | link

The new "nerd chic" is real enough, but there's still a line most people are not comfortable crossing, and not respectful of others crossing, and I think Google is in danger of finding Glasses to be on the other side of that line. Even if that isn't actually the case, I think it's fairly clear that Google fears it could be, and the company is trying its best to prevent that.

-----

DigitalJack 424 days ago | link

This guy qualifies for gargoyle in my book. http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdon...

-----

product50 424 days ago | link

So the first thought which came to your mind after going through the Glass site is how Google is terrified about the appearance of people in those glasses!

You said nothing about the tremendous opportunity this brings in terms of making your lives easier by providing you with the right information at the right time, by recording the key moments of your life easily, by augmenting your vision/view of the world with tons of fact based data etc.

And what you saw was how bad this looks. Some people are hard to satisfy..

-----

mcrittenden 424 days ago | link

The benefits aren't worth it if I can't wear it without feeling like a tool.

-----

product50 424 days ago | link

This is the first iteration for god's sake. I am sure there will be multiple models of this and you can choose which one to pick and use.

edit: grammar

-----

rimantas 424 days ago | link

thera are multiple models of bluetooth headests. Doesn't help the slighttest. For Google glasses it will be 1000x so.

-----

leoc 424 days ago | link

UPDATE: Actually, I've just come across this Steven Levy article in Wired that illustrates the perception challenge nicely. http://www.wired.com/business/2012/04/epicenter-google-glass... On the LEFT: how Google wants you to think of Glasses. On the RIGHT: how you think of Glasses. And again: this was a Wired article, by Steven Levy.

-----

Kylekramer 424 days ago | link

If the market is only people who think it'd be cool to look like a Star Trek character, that is still a pretty big market.

-----

primitur 424 days ago | link

So, the AR happens in the picture-in-picture instead of the main screen. I think that still counts as AR?

-----

teejae 424 days ago | link

In Korea and Japan, people wear glasses to look cool, and they are cheap. People who don't need glasses either just wear glasses with either no-prescription or no lenses. It's not nerdy. It's cool. Think jewelry. Not utility.

-----

zephjc 424 days ago | link

Add a chat/texting app and give it to teenagers and it will be instantly considered "cool".

-----

saraid216 424 days ago | link

> AR more or less implies a HUD, or some other means of superimposing CGI on what you see of the real world.

I realize that not having grown up on Snow Crash makes me a bit of an outsider to this, but... yeah, I have no idea what makes you think this is a requirement. My conception of AR actually looks more like Tony Stark's holographic interactable blueprints in Avengers, rather than his inside-the-suit HUD which I just consider... a HUD, and not very interesting.

-----

ry0ohki 425 days ago | link

Just to clarify you are not winning anything free here (still an amazing opportunity though):

"Explorers will each need to pre-order a Glass Explorer Edition for $1500 plus tax and attend a special pick-up experience, in person"

-----

pvarangot 424 days ago | link

They need people with cash, otherwise their users won't be able to afford all the horses, planes and balloons necessary to enjoy the full Google Glass experience.

-----

homosaur 424 days ago | link

You may be right, no one wants their tech demo to be someone standing in line to cash checks.

-----

yk 424 days ago | link

On the other hand, a shoulder surfing app is a concept unique to Google glasses. ( Since taking out an iPhone is too obvious).

-----

rquantz 424 days ago | link

Apparently they're seeking explorers financed by king Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

-----

madsushi 424 days ago | link

Compete for the amazing opportunity to give us $1,500 of your money!

-----

eqreqeq 424 days ago | link

Is the same thing as people trying to buy a Ferrari. Demand vastly exceeds supply so they will have no problem finding people that will think nothing of spending that amount of money. And frankly speaking $1,500 is not a lot of money. If you are poor or stingy I guess it is but at this point in time they are not targeting cheapskates.

-----

r00fus 424 days ago | link

I was with you until you mentioned poor/cheapskate. How's life in that bubble of yours?

-----

eqreqeq 424 days ago | link

Broke and programming everyday on a project I'm working on. And with no income for quite some time. I'm down to two sets of pants and some of my clothes have holes. My sneakers certainly have plenty of holes. My office is the local library. Life is great!

-----

Kluny 424 days ago | link

Let us know how it turns out!

-----

codex_irl 424 days ago | link

speak for yourself buddy....$1500 is still a big slice of pie to some of us

-----

fusiongyro 424 days ago | link

> …Is the same thing as people trying to buy a Ferrari. Demand vastly exceeds supply

I think the normal idea under these circumstances is to increase the price until the demand meets the supply.

-----

saraid216 424 days ago | link

So they increased it from $0 to $1500. Sounds reasonable.

-----

fusiongyro 424 days ago | link

So, comrade, it costs $0 to produce a Google Glass?

-----

nuttendorfer 424 days ago | link

Probably not but developing it wasn't free.

-----

fusiongyro 424 days ago | link

I'm starting to think what we really need around here is an English proficiency test.

-----

nuttendorfer 424 days ago | link

My bad, only skimmed the comment.

-----

saraid216 424 days ago | link

Are you implying that they should have priced it higher? I mean, if we're going to go by "what we paid to produce it" rather than "what people previously paid for it", it should probably start at $10k.

-----

fusiongyro 424 days ago | link

I'm not sure what conversation you're having with yourself. I'm just pointing out that the time-honored capitalist response to demand outstripping supply is raising prices rather than having contests.

-----

WayneDB 424 days ago | link

Many people who make millions or billions still pause at paying more than $1 for a cup of coffee.

You don't become a billionaire by wasting your money.

-----

Falling3 424 days ago | link

While there's some truth to that, you also don't achieve success by being penny wise and pound foolish, which that kind of thinking often leads to.

-----

cantankerous 424 days ago | link

Couple that with the cost of getting yourself to one of the required meeting locations...which can easily run somebody as much as the cost of the device. Some of us do live in flyover country. Though that's probably our fault and not Google's ;-).

-----

hughlomas 424 days ago | link

That cuts out a sizable demographic from "exploring" it.

-----

danellis 424 days ago | link

This is open to everyone, right? So what was the point of signing up for Glass at last year's I/O? The only thing that came out of that were:

1) A hangout that confused everyone involved because nobody was leading it

2) An API training event that had extremely limited places

My block of etched glass appears to stand for very little.

-----

jwdunne 425 days ago | link

Oh man, I wish I was in the US, I've been raving about glass for a while. I really think it opens up new doors.

One way is combing augmented reality and social networking with Glass. There are a number of cool things that come of this.

One is being able to look at someone also using the Glass app and being presented with their profile, plus options to send messages or view more information. It may even be possible even if they don't have Glass using a combo of geolocation and facial recognition. The most exciting bit is sending a message between two glass users because it'd be pretty much like telepathy.

When the 'internet of thing' comes about, it may even be posdible to control all your various devices without lifting a finger. I could look at my kettle from across the room and flick it on!

There are tonnes of possibilities and I think, especially when it's on a contact lens, it will make what's currently considered magical (telepathy, psychokinesis, etc) a reality, just like the plane removed the magic from human flight.

I think wearable computing opens up many exciting doors and the two thoughts above only scratch the surface of the possibilities I imagine.

In fact, I feel so strongly about ot I'd emigrate to the US just to get my hands on this awesome tech. I need to get onto it ASAP.

-----

PanMan 424 days ago | link

You want to send messages to people you see? There is this other cool tech for that, it's called voice.

-----

batiste 424 days ago | link

For a moment I missed the irony and thought this was a real name for a product. I almost got excited.

-----

jwdunne 424 days ago | link

What about the situations where it's not possible, appropriate or otherwise best kept private?

There's another way to get to Australia other than plane too: walk and swim.

-----

don_draper 425 days ago | link

What you see as awesome I see as scaring the @!#@$ out of me. I enjoy being anonymous in crowds. No thanks.

-----

snowwrestler 424 days ago | link

You're not actually anonymous in crowds, because everyone can see your face. It's just that social conventions lead us to not bother one another. They work because we're not anonymous...if I bother you, you can immediately bother me to the same degree.

The ickiness with Google Glass is the asymmetry of information--one person basically stalking another, aided by a networked computer.

At least you'd know they were doing it by the ridiculous electronic glasses they're wearing.

-----

analyst74 424 days ago | link

Being anonymous in crowds is going to go, with or without Google Glass.

-----

jkaunisv1 424 days ago | link

Finally, my dream of wearing masks in public has a chance of becoming more acceptable!

As stuff like Google Glass becomes more common, I could see there being a reactionary movement of people who want to stay anonymous. The easy solution is to wear masks like in Venice.

-----

cpressey 424 days ago | link

Why do your find the idea of turning on your kettle from across the room by looking at it, exciting? It is because it makes you feel like you've gained a new, awesome, magical power? But all you did was turn a kettle on. I wouldn't exactly consider that a "new door".

This device has zero appeal to me. Actually, probably less than zero.

If Google could develop a technology that would clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch -- _that_ would impress me. I wouldn't even mind so much that it was covered in targeted ads.

EDIT: rephrased first sentence for clarity

-----

scrumper 424 days ago | link

> Why do your find the idea of turning on your kettle from across the room by looking at it, exciting?

That use case is exciting because it'd be a phenomenally useful device for the elderly or bedridden. Being able to see who is at the door without having to get up and look through the peephole, then letting them in if you know them; answering the phone without getting up; generally just operating your house's devices without undue movement really would be quite something.

-----

cpressey 424 days ago | link

That's true, there are good use cases for it, and similar technologies, in this domain. If the commenter to whom I was replying prefaced their excitement by explaining they were elderly or bedridden, I likely wouldn't have asked that (not-entirely-rhetorical) question -- it would have seemed reasonable to me. From the context I got the impression (possibly mistaken) that they were able-bodied, though.

-----

scrumper 424 days ago | link

That's fair enough. Let me put it another way: the thought of turning my kettle on by looking at it isn't that exciting to me. The extended idea of someone turning a kettle or other connected device on, is.

-----

andypants 424 days ago | link

You're missing the fact that the only way to interface with it is by voice. If you want to send a message to another person, you need to speak it out loud. If that person is nearby, it's not really telepathy, it's just talking.

Google glass isn't going to get a bunch of apps or options, because nobody is going to go around saying things like 'ok glass scroll left', 'ok glass install/open instagram', 'ok glass show me his profile'.

-----

jwdunne 424 days ago | link

Yes, the interface needs to be improved/replaced before what I'm talking about is practical, even if it's so you can whisper rather than speak at normal volume. Personally, I do not think using voice as an interface is the correct way forward with these devices at all.

I haven't many ideas for this, my best guess would be using the eye to control it but then that has many challenges - how would we click?

-----

bitcartel 424 days ago | link

I wonder how Glass will handle other people randomly shouting out instructions.

-----

re_todd 424 days ago | link

I guess what people in the top rungs in society will have in common with those at the bottom is the tendency to randomly shout things.

-----

Swizec 425 days ago | link

Wonder if "US only" means you just have to be there for the in-person pickup. Because I am totally willing to do that ...

That said, I wonder how difficult it would be to modify Glass so it mounts on my regular glasses.

Either way, I applied. I won't be picked, but at least I tried :)

-----

mmahemoff 424 days ago | link

No chance unfortunately. Even the IO 2012 signup was only available to US based attendees.

There's regulatory hurdles for them to cover.

-----

Swizec 424 days ago | link

Regulatory hurdles schmurdles. If we could get the iPad and iPhone years before they were officially available here, we'll find a way to get Glass too :P

-----

cyphersanctus 425 days ago | link

"Explorers will each need to pre-order a Glass Explorer Edition for $1500 plus tax and attend a special pick-up experience, in person, in New York, San Francisco or Los Angeles." Interesting. Now we gladly apply for the chance to pay a company $1500 plus tax for a product.

-----

kaolinite 425 days ago | link

It's not a product yet. It's a development device and it has a lot of interest. Having to pay $1500 for it will mean that the people who apply will be serious about building things for it.

It's like applying and paying for a development kit to a games console, etc.

-----

ErikAugust 424 days ago | link

If it came with a Glass development kit, I would gladly pay a lot more.

-----

cyphersanctus 425 days ago | link

Fair enough. Nevertheless, a company like Google could certainly afford to be gracious with developers and let them contribute to the future product's success without making them pay a hefty amount.

-----

ImprovedSilence 424 days ago | link

There still has to be a barrier to entry, or everybody and their mother would apply, and just leave the glasses sitting around on the table when they got bored with them. The price tag will weed out all but those serious about developing for glass and few peeps with disposable incomes.

-----

dferlemann 425 days ago | link

Think this in Google's perspective. If developers are begging to take their money, why would they refuse?

-----

ZeroGravitas 425 days ago | link

I think it's more likely they want to filter for people that are serious about it.

-----

swalsh 425 days ago | link

Its a gamble, but if glass actually becomes a thing its the opportunity to be one of the first developers in the market. That's worth $1500

-----

Nikkau 424 days ago | link

It's not a gamble a sec.

You can flip them at least 10 times the price day one for sure. A lot more if you wait.

People love making collections of expensives things.

-----

dorkrawk 424 days ago | link

I'm guessing that they made a finite number of this version because they'll be making a lot of improvements and new versions in the future. In order to make those improvements they need lots of data about how people use the product. People are more likely to use a product a lot if they paid $1500 for it than if they got it for free.

-----

ngokevin 425 days ago | link

I'm sure you could eBay it off for a lot more.

-----

More



Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: