The world is heading towards wearable computing, and honestly, Google has done a fantastic job hyping up Glass. When I first heard about Glass a while back, I told all my friends, thinking it was the coolest thing in the world. The majority of the girls (and about half the boys) who saw the concept told me something along the lines of, "Ewww, why would anyone wear that?" Now here, at the college level, a good majority think it's really awesome. The attitude is changing, and watching the younger generation for innovative product adoption is going to be key in determining success.
Think about initial smartphone adoption. You could've argued that they provided little benefit over a laptop for many features. The displays were small with low resolution, web connectivity was slow, websites weren't optimized for mobile, and the cameras were pieces of rubber duckies. But they were cool, and people found a use for them as technology improved. As techies, we should absolutely not be dismissing first-generation tech.
Yes, voice control is freaking awkward, but there are solutions to that. Thalmic Labs, for example, is coming out with the MYO (go watch the video) which would be perfect for interacting with Google Glass. Make a hand gesture to take a picture, instead of taking out your phone and positioning it? Seems like a natural fit to me.
I'm guessing Google Glass will converge around the $400-$700 price range, possibly with more than one model. Youth adoption will probably drive overall consumer adoption. As with a lot of new stuff like this, it's easy to say you don't need it. It's harder to say you don't want it after you have it.
I bought my first iPhone in 2008 primarily because it gave me access to live bus arrival times and an interactive map. Other reasons that were far less important were the ability to look up random stuff on the internet, the fact that I hated the UI on my dumb phone, and the fact that I was carrying an iPod anyway so one device was more convenient than two. The main drivers addressed a real problem -- finding my way around when I don't have a computer nearby.
I have a feeling you may be right in the long term that Glass may prove successful, but I just don't see anything like the same benefits. My smart phone gave me fundamentally new capabilities. Glass seems to just make them more convenient.
I wish there were more options at the low end of this poll, even if those options don't represent economically viable options. I want to know how people value the product given what they know today.
I know it's still early, but it's hard to imagine Glass being more significant to me than my first smart phone, which gave me an incredible amount of information in very convenient form. So it's hard for me to imagine paying even near the same price for it.
Both of your polls need a "it's far too soon to tell" option.
None of us know how use of a Glass-like product will impact our behavior over the long term, so we've got no way of objectively evaluating its pros and cons.
Buying and using Glass now is like taking an unregulated pill based solely on the claims of its manufacturer and a few enthusiastic users. You can see the good easily, the bad not as easily, and the unintended consequences that take time to emerge not at all.
When more information is available about the true pros and cons of Glass, then I'll be able to answer your poll. It could be a steal at almost any price, or it could be the sort of thing I'd never want anything to do with. At this point, who knows?
I keep thinking of how my smartphone unexpectedly weakened my ability to simply observe and be in my surroundings, and how, because I was an enthusiastic early adopter, I only found out about this after my behavior had already changed, when it was harder to fix. If I had been a bit more patient, I could've seen these effects in others and made a more informed decision. I won't make this mistake again.
I can see Glass being interesting in some situations, but mostly I don't feel like it's a vital product for me. And I certainly don't feel the attraction in the way I did with a smartphone.
I would feel very differently if this were an implant and not something I wear. I do not want to have something on my face and the advantages I see from Glass don't outweigh that desire.
For example, I don't see the advantage in being able to photograph things from my head. Sure, you can imagine a situation where having a camera attached to your head is really useful and being able to take an instant photograph would be fantastic, but I'm not ready to pay the price of a thing on my face all the time for that benefit.
I can imagine having Glass as a display for a GPS as very helpful. I wouldn't mind driving with something like that especially if it could be part of sunglasses. There I am concentrating on a task which Glass will enhance. So, I view Glass as task-enhancing not life-enhancing. A lot of recent news has been of the gee-whiz it'll change your life variety which is off-putting. It's more likely to be incredibly useful in some situations.
Lastly, I do not trust Google and so the idea of a device that uploads stuff in any automatic fashion is not something I want. (It's not just Google, I don't trust Apple's iCloud etc.). I may be unusual in that. I would actually prefer that there be a 'home cloud server' which would be where my photos, emails etc. were stored and processed and that I had total control over.
I would never use it. They are devices that are designed to be rude. By wearing Glass you are nonverbally asserting "I am going to record you whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, you probably will want to just avoid conflict and therefore will be more likely to avoid me."
I am going to record you whether you like it or not
My impression is that, while Glass has the capability to record video, it is not like a GoPro cam that is always on.
The social issue is definitely an interesting one, though. I have a cell phone that can record anything anyone says around me without their knowledge. Though, no one really cares about that. Could the sensitivity of potentially being video recorded go the same way as audio?
I voted free, but I might consider the "toy" for around $50 or something. As others have mentioned, the battery life should be improved. Also, at the moment the device pretty much needs a bluetooth connection with an Android or iOS phone in order to be useful. I'd think a higher price would be justified if the device would not have to rely on a phone.
People interested in Google Glass might want to look at this video-preview posted by the Dutch website Tweakers.net (first 4 mins is an English spoken interview with Robert Scoble who talks about his Google Glass device): http://tweakers.net/video/7621/google-glass.html
Many of the negative comments here remind me of the general discussions about tablets before the iPad was released. I'm not saying Glass will reach a similar level of success, but it is clear that a lot of people won't understand the benefits of a device like this until they actually use it.
$250 seems like a reasonable price to pay for a device that has the potential to provide a significant amount of utility over time. It's also in a nice in between area that allows for experimentation without breaking the budget (splurgtastic birthday gift range) and wouldn't make me cry at the sunk cost if I had to put them on a shelf after wearing them for a month and not liking them.
No desire to have anything so exposed, let would be a distraction from driving/riding/etc. I know, you take them off when doing activities such as those, well then they aren't for me then. Tech should not intrude into my life, my smart phone doesn't. It is out of the way until I need it.
Sorry if I come off like a Luddite. Make it a watch.
I bought the first Android phone as soon as it came out, because it solved real problems in my life, so I definitely can be an early adopter if the product is compelling. That said, technology is already intrusive in my life and I'm having to take very conscious, deliberate steps to disconnect. The idea of always having it in my field of vision, or of competing for someone else's attention, or of having them looking up information on me while they're staring at my face is frankly horrifying.
I can definitely see how it could be extremely useful for specialized applications like surgery or any other activity where you need both information and the use of both hands.
Anything that is not a fancy dress for attending a Borg themed party.. but rather is actually pointed toward Borg.. is a no go for me personally. This is one tech where I'd request someone wearing them to take it off while near me.
I am a person that likes to get all this new geeky stuff even if I then don't use it... I would pay anything up to $600/$700. There isn't a particular reason, I just enjoy trying new gadgets and feel them mine.
With a few more small features/improvements/tweaks (better call quality, more apps, longer battery, maybe fold-able, that type of thing)I would want it to the point I could afford. I think that puts me at the $500ish.
And i have to consider, do I prioritize buying a tablet (or camera/netbook) first? A tablet may or may not be more functional... These are pretty sci-fi/magic though...
I need to see it put through the wringer. Let people spend their hundreds on the (simplistic) hardware, write software for it, obsess over it. I'll buy it later after it has become socially accepted, slimmer, less of an eyesore, has a few killer features, and costs a lot less than $250.
I assume this is for the eventual productised version and not for the current public beta / "explorer" version. I'd need at least a solid 24 hours of battery life with typical use, and some degree of weather resistance before I'd buy.
Once economies of scale on the display kick in, the hardware can be fundamentally made significantly cheaper than a smartphone, everything and slower (vastly less CPU and GPU requirements as the software exists today, compared to a modern smartphone, although that could change if they start doing augmented reality stuff), it has fewer radios, less patent and compliance tax, and similar size/thickness/density/complexity. I think a $100 cost price should be easily achievable once the volume gets up. (I design hardware professionally.)
I imagine most of the hardware is reasonably cheap, and at scale the price is probably quite low on a per unit cost but if they do come in a spectacularly low margin it'll make it tricky for others to catch up.
The hands free display is the only advantage and it's not worth it. If there were a market for hands free displays, there's nothing stopping us from having one for our smartphones just like Bluetooth earpieces.
The reality is that holding your smartphone in order to access the display is not a problem most of the time. In the cases where it is a problem (because your hands are otherwise occupied or you don't want to direct all of your attention to the display) you shouldn't be using a smartphone or smartphone-like device (i.e. Glass) anyway.
> The same thing was said with smartphones and laptops you know.
Yes, by a small fringe element of idiots.
The difference is those of us saying Glass makes you look stupid are not idiots and we're not a fringe. Pretty much any normal person you show a picture of Sergey wearing Glass will go "What is that on his face?" and not in a nice way.
One last thing.
Why do you think all of the Google hype videos for Glass show the same exact thing over and over again; somebody doing something exciting and videoing it with Glass? Because that's the ONLY use case for it. I would assert that it's a terrible use case too, but even if I don't argue that point, that single use case is not enough for Glass to see widespread adoption.
It's a stupid device and it's a waste of money, time and effort that should be spent on actually improving smartphones.
> The hands free display is the only advantage and it's not worth it. If there were a market for hands free displays, there's nothing stopping us from having one for our smartphones just like Bluetooth earpieces.
Right, because the only reason things don't exist is because there's no market for it. Google spent several years iterating and trying to get the Glass into a workable size (it was originally basically a smartphone strapped to a pair of glasses), and there was no way it could be in a small enough package until very recently.
> Yes, by a small fringe element of idiots.
Most people seem to either want one, or are relatively apathetic, so either most people don't think it looks stupid or they think the penalty of looking stupid is worth it for the benefits.
> Why do you think all of the Google hype videos for Glass show the same exact thing over and over again; somebody doing something exciting and videoing it with Glass? Because that's the ONLY use case for it. I would assert that it's a terrible use case too, but even if I don't argue that point, that single use case is not enough for Glass to see widespread adoption.
Except for the videos with people doing mundane things like biking, playing in the park, or trying to catch a train? If you ignore 1 or 2 sky diving videos, almost all of the videos with Glass I've seen were situations I'm in daily or frequently enough that they aren't exceptional situations.
I'm surprised people here know whether they want to buy something they don't even understand how it works.
I mean, I really need to know what exactly I see with Google glass, the features it provides, maybe what its like using one since I have to wear it, etc. I would not feel comfortable purchasing one on the information I have now.