What an amazing thing. Google is likely to fail in making Glass successful for a variety of reasons, not the least of which it is a new product in a new space with limited customer experience and high creepiness. So these folks decide to "compete" with that concept?
Technologically heads up micro-displays are a disaster. There has been billions of dollars spent in this space and only millions in revenue. Its a space I've been pretty interested in, (even has a couple of pairs of lame versions) but the problem is so large that even the sub-problems are multi-hundred thousand dollar projects.
I completely understand the desire to run at the problem, but use of indiegogo here? My fear is that crowd funding is this generation of entrepreneurs "dot com bubble."
I think you're hitting close to the crux of the problem here. Basically, the early adopters of something like this need to start so far removed from people's normal experience, that only crazy billionaires (and followers willing to sink $1500 into a crazy experiment) are going to be able to start something like this.
I wonder if Sergey now has remote assistants playing Amanda Pays' role in Max Headroom? That would be one (unscalable) way to deliver a truly seamless experience.
You could say this about a lot of tech that just wasn't quite right, failed, and then someone tried something at a later date and it took off. Google wasn't the first search engine, Skype wasn't the first attempt at consumer-level video over the internet, World of Warcraft wasn't the first MMO, the list goes on.
That is exactly true. People come up with ideas and try things all the time. The "new" thing here is the crowd funding aspect. It appears to be much easier to convince 100,000 people to risk $10 than it is to convince 1 person to risk $1M. This fact has been exploited by "religious figures" for centuries, I fear for a world besotted with tech "gurus" who get rich off selling people a technological dream future that somehow never quite comes to pass. But I worry about lots of things so what's one more right?
Recon Jet is a heads-up display for sports [...]. The Jet features a
powerful microcomputer and a full-color widescreen display designed for
active outdoor use, mounted on high-performance polarized sports eyewear.
I’m not sure I buy the rationale. The person in the video says he receives so many text messages (he names emails, tweets, facebook updates) that he decided to build a device to see them right in front of his eye as they come in.
It occurs to me that having emails, tweets or facebook updates alert you is hugely distracting. Personally, I would probably allow SMS on Glass, though, given that they are — in my filter bubble — usually important, used when coordinating and occur rarely enough that it doesn’t distract me. But email? No way!
New rival? I'm not so sure. From the Indiegogo page[1], for $299 you can get the "Pre-release Buggy Version." With that type of wording and the recent track record of crowdfunded hardware projects, yes please take my money!!!
GlassUp lacks a fair amount of fundamentals that are going to hurt.
1) The green text in the middle of the eye is fairly annoying (at least I think it would be)
2) GlassUp seems to not be very well balanced
3) The inability to send data isn't very promising
4) Google has the best maps/navigation thus far, so it seems the GlassUp would be at a disadvantage (then again for the price who knows, it might be worth it).
> Google has the best maps/navigation thus far, so it seems the GlassUp would be at a disadvantage (then again for the price who knows, it might be worth it)
I got the impression that an Android app could use the API to use Google Maps with this device. I could be mistaken though.
This looks too distracting for me. Google Glass in is the corner, so you have to go out of your way to look at it. This takes up the center of your vision, forcing you to see it.
I've had Glass for over three months now. I agree-- I love that Glass's display is out of the way. That being said, if GlassUp gave me on to try out I would happily. I'm excited about the future of wearable computing.
wow. very critical comments here, none of which I see are a challenge in overcoming. For example
1. Text in the middle: They could move this to the side or the bottom or anywhere else since it seems like it is projected. Google Glass cannot do this.
2. Color of text. I'm sure that can be addressed with alternate colors.
3. Cannot take input other than a smartphone: You mean a camera (listed as an option)? Not sure what else would apply
I'm more surprised no one else has positive comments
1. $199 vs $1500
2. Everyone has a phone today. I seriously doubt anyone using glass is giving that up soon. So, why not just tie the device to your phone. Why replace it?
3. Once it is tied to the phone, the app can just communicate with device. If this actually works and gets adoption, app developers will work on integration. The biggest down is that Google will not which means (as someone else pointed out) no maps integration. That would be a shame.
I don't know if this is the product that will make it. But I know they have the right idea over Google in terms of demand. If google made this at $200-$300 instead of glass, I'd have pre-ordered.
I thought the $1,500 price point of Glass only applied to the early testers program and that the retail price has not yet been announced. Is that not true?
Technologically heads up micro-displays are a disaster. There has been billions of dollars spent in this space and only millions in revenue. Its a space I've been pretty interested in, (even has a couple of pairs of lame versions) but the problem is so large that even the sub-problems are multi-hundred thousand dollar projects.
I completely understand the desire to run at the problem, but use of indiegogo here? My fear is that crowd funding is this generation of entrepreneurs "dot com bubble."