Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Forbids Advertising On Glass

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the ban-those-stupid-foam-markers dept.

Advertising 274

An anonymous reader writes "Contrary to widespread thought, Google Glass will not be an advertising platform: 'Google Inc has lately told app developers that they are not allowed to present ads to Google Glass users and they are also not permitted to sell users' personal and private information for the fulfillment of advertising needs. The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever, because the technology is designed to facilitate internet browsing and other related activities, therefore, the featured podium cannot be used to advertise products as it will cause the user experience to diminish.' Seems like Google is going for hardware-only revenue on this one." You're not supposed to resell the Glass hardware, either.

cancel ×

274 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I think I'll wait for something Free (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482637)

As in libre Free. You can't prevent ads without either an onerous EULA with over-the-top enforcement or some hardcore DRM.

I'd rather have an open/Free device. It's too bad Google has done away with the "Do no evil" mantra. :(

Re:I think I'll wait for something Free (5, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482833)

As in libre Free. You can't prevent ads without either an onerous EULA with over-the-top enforcement or some hardcore DRM.

The no ads is a provision of the agreement required to use the API that lets web apps connect to glass, its not enforced by EULA or DRM

Re:I think I'll wait for something Free (5, Insightful)

bfandreas (603438) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483007)

This also means that users can simply uninstall the app. Since it isn't Google that's doing the ads it shhould be fairly easy to get rid of the offender.

People will not ever get used to having apps constantly and without provocation pushed into their face. You know what you get when you load a website. You know what you get when your turn on your TV or radio. But walking down the street just to have the latest Amazon sale pushed into your peripheral vision will mean that the app will be deinstalled.

What it won't prevent is showing those email notifications of that shop you once did business with and that has been pestering you ever since. And you will get solicited ads when you ask where to go for lunch. These informations will propably be pulled right off Google Maps and I highly suspect that this is where Google will be making its money.

Also bear in mind that this thing isn't always on. You will either have to wake it up by fondling it or sloooowly lifting your head. So shoving unsolicited ads into your vision wouldn't work most of the time since it most likely will be turned off. Battery life isn't that good on that thing to have it turned on the whole day.

Re:I think I'll wait for something Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483027)

>The no ads is a provision of the agreement required to use the API that lets web apps connect to glass, its not enforced by EULA or DRM

Hmmm, perhaps in your country EULA doesn't stand for End User License Agreement? :)

Re:I think I'll wait for something Free (4, Informative)

Angostura (703910) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483103)

You appear to be confusing the end user with the service/app provider.

Re:I think I'll wait for something Free (2, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483317)

The no ads is a provision of the agreement required to use the API that lets web apps connect to glass, its not enforced by EULA or DRM

Is there also a provision that Google may change the EULA at any time, without prior notice? eg. When sales have taken off and enough people have been suckered in by the promise of no ads.

Re:I think I'll wait for something Free (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482837)

well, I guess you better go back into your cave because that is never going to happen.

Re:I think I'll wait for something Free (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482851)

Sure you can.
Any ad spewing to Glass software gets kicked out of the market. If users still want it they can get it through alternate markets.

Re:I think I'll wait for something Free (4, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482865)

Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"

Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.

Re:I think I'll wait for something Free (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483153)

When did evil suddenly mean anything not perfectly pure and good? Most business isn't actually evil but is far from "good". They never promised to "do only good", they just promised to not do the evil things they could easily do in the business model they have chosen. There's a whole range of things that don't obviously fit into either the good or evil column there. While libre is inherently a good act, non-libre isn't automatically evil.

Just means they will make their money another way (5, Insightful)

ModernGeek (601932) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482645)

I have a hard time believing that they will make all their revenue on hardware alone. They will have access to search and activity data combined with a feed that shows people's whereabouts and habits. This marketing data will be worth way more than any direct advertising.

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482877)

They'll make their revenue with Google Play and Chrome Web Store store revenue, since Glass has functions that require pairing with an Android device, and Glass apps are basically (by device features) limited to being auxiliary interfaces to web services for which the primary interface will almost certainly be either a traditional web or mobile app.

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (5, Insightful)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483039)

It's important to note that only third-party developers are prohibited from placing ads; Google isn't bound by the same rules. My tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory says they want to get people used to Glass first, and then start slowly implementing ads until they feel commonplace and accepted. If Glass is plastered with ads from the beginning, no one will use it, and Google knows this.

That said, it would be great if it never has ads. I would be willing to pay more (were I in the market for Glass) for no ads on a device such as this.

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (1)

bfandreas (603438) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483049)

They will also make money by having shops listed on Google Maps.

Rumor has it that they want to sell the consumer version at 750 bucks. If they sell enough of them then they won't be selling at a loss, I guess. If they somewhat make that price point I will get one. After I have sorted out how to deal with my prescription glasses, that is.

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483275)

> They'll make their revenue with Google Play and Chrome Web Store store
> revenue

They can't sell apps, either.

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482915)

They will have access to search and activity data combined with a feed that shows people's whereabouts and habits. This marketing data will be worth way more than any direct advertising.

So you're saying they'll just sell the data to 3rd party group that will spam you instead?

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (0)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482925)

That's almost certainly why they don't want you reselling it.

They can stick their glass up their ass.

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (3, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483127)

They don't want you selling it because it's a development device that is only being sent to a select group of people. Your reason doesn't even make sense, if it was sold the new owner would obviously use it with their own account.

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482953)

I'd wager that hardware revenue alone would make it worth it if glass is "the next big thing." I'd also wager that cutting out the middleman between google and consumers, and potentially being squeezed out such as happened with apple, makes it even more worth it. Say MS starts going around to android hardware manufacturers and saying "Okay, you won't have to pay us to license those patents you infringed on (translation: used android) if you start shipping firmware that routes every search through Bing instead of google." Apple and Facebook team up too maybe. And google starts losing users.

Or has that already happened? I don't know, I find legal insanity either boring or infuriating, so I try to ignore it usually.

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (1, Informative)

EdZ (755139) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482957)

It's $1500 for a SoC phone of fairly basic specifications (mainly due to desired low power consumption), and an off-the-shelf display module. As long as they managed to buy the module in bulk from the OEM rather than buying a packaged end-user product from a reseller, then the majority of cost for development would be in creating the interface, not in developing the hardware. Google's voice search and Now already existed from their Android work, so it's specifically the UI they had to adapt for HUD usage. I can imagine they at least broke even selling just a few thousand.

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (3, Insightful)

prelelat (201821) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482989)

I think you're totally correct,

While apple has been about the walled garden, google has been about the green valley with large high hills surrounding that discourage you to leave(but you can). Google is into building devices and products that make you use their other services that generate more value through advertisement and data collection. Google doesn't need to get your money from google glass after you buy it, because chances are you are going to use google.com, gmail and probably other services as well from them. These as we all know already track the information they are banning on glass anyways. The device is made to drive users to the other advertisement revenue streams and the larger the adoption of it(like the android phones) the larger their market share is for other services.

Most of the people I know that use an android phone use gmail and google search built in as well as their play store and some of the other apps. This is the driving force behind android and glass.

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (1, Troll)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483099)

"They will have access to search and activity data combined with a feed that shows people's whereabouts and habits. This marketing data will be worth way more than any direct advertising."

Bingo. Hence the "no resale, renting, lending, letting other people touch, etc." provisions in their "agreement" - this device appears to be intended to "train" users to be happy sending all of their information to Google, but this requires Google to be able to always "know" who is using which device at all times in order for the data to be fully useful to them (for "personalization", of course.)

In other words, this is like Facebook(tm), but even more so (and you have to pay $1500 for the honor of feeding Google's files on your behavior, which helps the illusion that THEY are giving YOU something, and not vice-versa.)

Re:Just means they will make their money another w (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483143)

I have a hard time believing that they will make all their revenue on hardware alone.

That was an unsupported assumption being made by the submitter.

Google isn't allowing third-party app developers to display ads. That's completely different from stating that THEY won't display ads or incorporate paid partners into whatever "services" they offer on the devices. Heck, for all we know they'll require a Google+ membership before a company will be included in their listing of nearby entities.

Avoiding Conflict of Interests (1)

foobsr (693224) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482649)

Would be bad if the ad experience would double: glass and browsing.

CC.

Re:Avoiding Conflict of Interests (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482923)

Number one google glass app: Adblock

Re:Avoiding Conflict of Interests (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483161)

Does Google say anyting about "Product Placement?"

No ads? Only until it's built up in market share. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482663)

Then the spying and advertising will even be worst that it already is and there will be no way to install blockers.

Re:No ads? Only until it's built up in market shar (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482885)

It is just a display for an android device.
Ad blocking on and android device is pretty simple.

You can even just install Firefox and the adblock plus extension if you only want to block web browser ads and are not rooted.

Re:No ads? Only until it's built up in market shar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482935)

Because Glass won't be jailbroken/rooted/unlocked... Just like you can't install host adblockers on iPhone/Android *rolls eyes*

Re:No ads? Only until it's built up in market shar (3, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483285)

The relevant quote in the article is "At the moment, there are no plans..."..

You should probably clarify (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482673)

Is that no ads or no third-party ads? Because I can totally see Google pulling an Apple with this one.

Can't resell it... what?! I hope CM is okay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482683)

Umm, isn't there a first sale law [wikipedia.org] that says if this is truly a sale and not some kind of extended rental that the seller can't put limits on resales and such? I'm not a huge fan of Google Surveillan-- I mean Glass to begin with, and I'm sure I'd run some sort of ad blocker on it, but isn't Google positioning itself as an open company? If I buy this spy hardware, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including replacing all the software, resell it, or whatever.

Re:Can't resell it... what?! I hope CM is okay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482843)

Umm, isn't there a first sale law that says if this is truly a sale and not some kind of extended rental that the seller can't put limits on resales and such?

No, and there never has been anything quite as broad as "can't put limits" on resales.

You're probably thinking of their inability to use the court system to prevent resales. Doctrine of First Sale is what makes it so that if you buy something, resell it, and then the original seller sues you, and then you fight back in court instead of folding, then you eventually win.

But that's the only limit on resales that the DoFS applies. It doesn't prevent technical limits.

Furthermore, people buying this should be very careful about whatever agreements they sign. You might not even be BUYING any of these Glass things from Google at all, and if you're not, then DoFS wouldn't apply anyway, and you actually could be sued (successfully) for reselling something you never owned in the first place.

Some precedents for that include iTunes music "sales" (which are not actually sales at all, according to the fine print). Or the Blizzard case, where -- without even signing a purchase agreemnt -- people walked into a brick'n'mortar store, grabbed a copy off a game off a shelf, anonymously paid cash for it at a register without being required to sign anything, took it home, and yet somehow magically didn't have "title" to it, according to a judge. This really happened, and nobody has amended to the law to overturn it, and it's been several years now. Thus, we all support it.

If I buy this spy hardware, I should be able to do whatever I want with it,

Many people say they agree, but when people vote for Congress, 99% of them appear to disagree with that idea. Thus we have DMCA, etc. Congress is definitely not on your side, on the issue of being allowed to do whatever you want with things you own.

Re:Can't resell it... what?! I hope CM is okay... (5, Informative)

drakaan (688386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482929)

The no resale limitation appears to be on the developer version that is out now. If they did that with the commercial one, they would have a giant shitstorm on their hands, both PR and legal.

Re:Can't resell it... what?! I hope CM is okay... (2)

Senior Frac (110715) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483063)

Well... of course you can sell it if you want. It would not be against the law to do so. You did buy the hardware. It will, however, stop working for the new owner at some point in the future.

Let's be clear. "You're not allowed" does not mean men from black helicopters coming through your skylight denying you your resale rights.

Hardware revenue? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482687)

> Seems like Google is going for hardware-only revenue on this one

Or, you know, collecting user data such as location, what the user is looking at and browsing, and so on. Which then in turn can be used to target advertising.

Awesome (0)

Paperweight (865007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482693)

Not that I'll be using it, but let me go out on a limb and say Google Glass is AWESOME. Alright you cynics, who shall cast the first stone?

Re:Awesome (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482807)

Not only are developers not allowed to advertise, they aren't allowed to charge for the software either. So how are they going to be paid for their work? How are they going to be paid for the content; the servers?
If the answer is that they're not, then that's going to limit the applications to amateur hour stuff.

And is it really no advertising, or is it no third party advertising. Hard to imagine Google not using their usual revenue stream.

Re:Awesome (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483085)

Who says they can't charge for software?
I have plenty of pay for software on my phone, right next to the FREE software. So far the phone has not exploded.

Re:Awesome (4, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482849)

It's distracting, causes ADD, causes eye strain, will get you mugged, people will use it while driving, induces battery phobia to the max, looks idiotic, causes memory degradation in your brain, and the controls are significantly less fast than a PC, laptop, tablet, or cell phone. Is that a good start?

Re:Awesome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483033)

for a list of bullshit, sure, it's fabulous start, but be careful, that shit can be explosive in large quantities, ask Texas.

Re:Awesome (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483115)

So you have one?
If not, how is your list anything other than total nonsense?

Re:Awesome (1)

TrollstonButtersbean (2890693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482853)

Epic fail of trying to be funny. Hint: I groaned at the unfunny.

Weird (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482703)

"may not "serve or include any advertisements" and they "may not charge" users to download apps for the device."

"not permitted to sell users' personal and private information for the fulfillment of advertising needs. "

I'm confused. So its a hobbyist only device?

Re:Weird (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482733)

Wait, you can still charge subscription fees for your app's service.

"not supposed to" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482705)

The big story has nothing to do with people "not supposed to" resell or lend, it's that Google will attack people who do it, and have put some kind of kill switch the in device.

I do not ever knowingly buy things with kill switches. In fact, I normally never (knowingly) do any sort of business with any company that has been detected doing that sort of thing, as it immediately proves lack of good faith on the part of the seller. (e.g. I won't ever buy anything with a Sony logo on it, regardless of whether that particular product is yet known to be defecting or user-hostile.)

This is very serious; it's not a matter of Google flirting with a poorly-defined thin-yet-blurry line; with this one single policy, Google has adopted a "Be Evil" strategy. Now I've got to figure out whether or not (and how) to stop using their search capabilities. That is the one (and only) Google service not easily given up.

Re:"not supposed to" (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482943)

The big story has nothing to do with people "not supposed to" resell or lend, it's that Google will attack people who do it, and have put some kind of kill switch the in device.

Its dependent for on external resources. There doesn't need to be a kill switch on the device to disable it, all Google has to do is pull it from the authorized list on the servers it relies on.

what's the difference? and who does this benefit? (4, Interesting)

F9rDT3ZE (2860845) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482709)

what is the difference between "presenting ads to Google glass users" and "internet browsing"? Is Glass going to come with built-in ad-blockers for all web pages? Are they going to build special software to prohibit Glass-specific advertising on web pages that are not in any kind of partnership with Glass? This seems to me like a way of controlling the advertising revenue streams for Google more than anything else, since Google's pages are larded with ads and Glass will inherently drive traffic to those pages, both inside and outside of the Glass environment. I wonder if it even raises antitrust implications, as it tremendously biases the products toward Google's advertising & commerce platforms while pushing others out.

Whatever (4, Insightful)

afxgrin (208686) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482719)

They say this now but after Microsoft or Apple sell an ad supported product for cheaper they'll change their minds quickly.

Re:Whatever (2, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482835)

That is the opposite to Apple's way, so they won't do it. And Microsoft launching new hardware isn't much of a threat to anyone.

Google Glass will fail on it's own (lack of) merits.

Re:Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483135)

Really? Because the App Store is littered with ad-supported "free" apps.

Re:Whatever (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483255)

Yeah, but Apple doesn't sell hardware that throws up ads by default. They like their stuff pristine and ad-free when it comes out of the box--just look at how they banned cellular carriers from loading crapware on iPhones in exchange for subsidies. Heck, they won't even put stickers on their gear or the boxes it comes in. So you might end up with ads popping up on some future Apple eyeglasses, but it won't be because Apple put them there.

Re:Whatever (3, Interesting)

afxgrin (208686) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483309)

My point is that if it is successful as a product competitors will attempt to recreate a similar experience and may not see any issue with having ads. If ads become 'workable' into the product it will likely be used to subsidize the cost of the competing product hence making a lower priced product with similar or the same functionality. For Google to stay competitive in the long road they would likely need to implement ads. Turning on intrusive ads now would be awful if they want consumer adoption of the product.

Keep it for themselves (0, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482735)

Of course they don't want YOU putting random ads in stuff. THEY are going to put the ads in stuff. If you do it, they don't get any money.

Are you guys seriously stupid enough to think they WOULDN'T do the one thing they exist to do?

Re:Keep it for themselves (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483107)

Don't you get it? They said it would only be a platform to browse the web. We all know there are no adds on the web.

uh.. so what happens (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482737)

when I go to google.com with those?

and surely they would be taking a cut of the app sales, so no hw only vector there.
moreover.. they don't yet have a profit vector for it.

but don't worry, there's a very thin line between "information" and "advert" when your app exists solely for the purpose of finding nearest mcdonalds.

Yeah, riiiiiiiight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482739)

It'll happen. I do worry that the version Tim Maughan writes about in the short story "Havana Augmented" will become true, as well as the other stories in his Paintwork collection. Dynamic billboards activated by sensing a QR code, virtual advertising mapped to real-life surfaces, *shudder*

Not everything needs to look like Times Square.

Re:Yeah, riiiiiiiight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483053)

Truth, man.

Great! (2)

kamapuaa (555446) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482749)

The next step is to pull all slashvertisements for Google Glass.

That seems daft (1, Interesting)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482755)

If you're walking around you'd want to see what shops have to offer. Often I'll type in a very wide search in to Google maps and see whats about. If you like comedy and some cafe has a comedy place in the back which runs every other second month on a tuesday, which you'd never know about. It would be good to see that information augmented in. Set some very tight preferences so you're not being blasted with everything and you're good to go.

Also, If the gps picks up that you are doing over 8mph it should turn off everything. Does it do that? It you're on a bus or train tough. If you go over 200mph you get a speed ticket. I'm not accepting you're on a plane.

Re:That seems daft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482889)

I don't think information relative to your search would be considered an ad in this case.

OMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482927)

We actually found one, the person advertisers dream about, a mindless sheep (and my apologies to all real sheep). If you pass a comedy club and you don't know what is playing... because an ad to enlarge your penis is blocking your view of the billboard TELLING you who is playing when?

If I want to know something, I look for it, I don't need it shoved in my face because you are to dumb to look for yourself. What is it, 1995 again when people made products that would do nothing but serve users ads because everyone wants to see more ads!

No I fucking don't. If google really manages to keep it ad free (see how long "ad free" subscriber cable lasted), I will love it just for that.

dear google: (-1, Troll)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482757)

the world is not willing to accept your 'always capturing video and audio' concept. we are rightfully annoyed at your persistence and insistence that it won't be used for Bad Things(tm).

you are clearly trying to defuse fears before they get too far advanced but let me state again, clearly and unambiguously:

DO. NOT. WANT.

it was an interesting idea for 'labs' but just not really fitting into what we, as a society, want.

please just stop trying to force the issue. you come off as jerks when you do that.

Re:dear google: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482871)

You speak for society? Who elected you? I think Google Glass is awesome and I can't wait till everyone has one.

Re:dear google: (1)

czernabog (2799797) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483093)

Dear TheGratefulNet:

You may not be willing to accept the 'always capturing video and audio' concept (and neither am I); but the world, as in the vast majority of people, will most definitely welcome it.

You can count on it.

Re:dear google: (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483131)

dear TheGratefulNet:
the world is not willing to acceept your 'always wanting privacy' concept. we are rightfully annoyed at your persistence and insistence that the majority of people Care(tm).

you are clearly trying to incite fears in a populace that is too uncaring to give a shit but let me state again, clearly and unambiguously:

MOST. PEOPLE. WANT.

it was an interesting idea for 'self-aware people' but just not really fitting into what we, as a society, so clearly want.

please just stop trying to force the issue. you come off as jerks when you do that.

Re:dear google: (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483237)

I'm a geek. I'm too excited about the technology and what I can do with it to give a flying fuck about the "societal and cultural implications".

No one's forcing you to buy Google Glass. Don't worry - no one will come and shove them down your throat. So I don't get what exactly your problem is.

Re:dear google: (1)

czernabog (2799797) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483279)

Don't worry - no one will come and shove them down your throat

Not literally, anyway... Figuratively, yes they will.

Re:dear google: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483281)

WHERE DO COME UP WITH THIS SHIT!!!

seriously! its not always on, constantly recording, the battery would last a couple hours tops. for it to last all day, you'll be able to record a little video, take some pictures, use navigation a little and receive notification in the upper corner of your FOV thats it.

Sex with Tapeworms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482759)

oh yeah

User Agent (1)

cosm (1072588) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482761)

What about web sites that pick up on the user agent string?

Why would I want the Google Glass? (0)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482763)

I have no idea why I should pay a lot for something I strap on my head to do what exactly? It's not making stuff around me levitate or otherwise make my life any more spectacular than I make it myself. It also cannot replace a strong drug effect if you are into that.

Remember the Virtua Boy? That's what I am thinking of when I think of Google Glass. If I want a novelty item to strap to my head my money is on the Oculus Rift.

Re:Why would I want the Google Glass? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482983)

Presumably, from your comments, you don't want it. That's fine, you aren't the whole market.

Re:Why would I want the Google Glass? (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483091)

Why do you want it?

Re:Why would I want the Google Glass? (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483253)

I'm a geek. I want something new because I'm excited by the technology. It's enough of a reason to start out with.

It will have ads alright (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482775)

Google adds. No one else may compete and you only buy a right to use them as they are a copy of the pair of glasses at Google. Not an actual pair etc.

Re:It will have ads alright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482825)

I'm sure this will be the case. The summary fails to mention that Google never said that they won't be allowed to show ads.

Contrary to widespread thought... (4, Insightful)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482795)

Contrary to widespread thought, Google Glass will not be an advertising platform... yet!

Lol (4, Insightful)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482823)

But "sponsored notices" I am sure will be fully supported.

Riding the Wave To The MOTB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43482873)

technology will become more and more wearable to the point where you will be an outcast (mark of the beast coming soon - humor to dissolve concern by way of the Idiocracy movie - low brows will point to it as a laugh and ridicule your faith) or deemed crazy, maybe even thrown into a puzzle factory or PMITA hotel if you're not a part of the global 'experience'.

Cable TV (5, Insightful)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482897)

Remember how Cable TV started out with no advertisements, to give people a good reason to plunk down big wads of cash every month for stuff like what they got free over the airwaves? Remember how short that lasted, once cable acceptance picked up? This no-ads/tracking thing is just a phase to get Google Glasses in front of everyone's eyeballs; then we'll get ads full blast.

Re:Cable TV (1)

danhuby (759002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483089)

I think I agree with that. Google are probably worried that initial sales would be hampered by the preconceived notion that it would be used for major eyespam.

Re:Cable TV (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483257)

Remember how I canceled cable and switched to netflix? If you were not aware that stopped the advertising right quick. It's cheaper too.
I suggest you do the same.
Glass is just a front end for the smartphone, you can block the adds there.

Ads in glass apps different from ads in browser (4, Informative)

rs1n (1867908) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482937)

Google doesn't want developers to incorporate ads into their apps for glass. Lots of app developers create a "free" version of their app that is supported through advertising. It's this particular aspect of advertising that Google is trying to prevent from happening.

No Taunting! (1)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482951)

DO NOT TAUNT GOOGLE GLASS!

This is the company that reads our email, right? (1, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482959)

If they're not going to blast these glasses with ads then it's because they've found a better way to exploit you. Probably selling your movements, then letting local merchants spam you.

Re:This is the company that reads our email, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483225)

If they're not going to blast these glasses with ads then it's because they've found a better way to exploit you. Probably selling your movements, then letting local merchants spam you.

Eh. If automatically scanning your e-mail to post ads on the side bothers you, use an IMAP client so you don't see the ads, and encrypt your mail so nobody but the recipient can read it.

There are so many things to bitch about regarding google, I really don't understand why people care about the one innocuous thing they do.

Re:This is the company that reads our email, right (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483269)

Lol. It's hilarious to see people's paranoid rantings.

FYI - Google would be utterly stupid to allow merchants to spam users. Or even sell their data to them.

Wait, wait, wait. LEND? (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about a year and a half ago | (#43482979)

You can't LEND it to anyone? How strict is that? Do they mean you can't let someone try it out for a few minutes? And is that just for this first round of people, and they'll loosen the terms once it really goes public?

Re:Wait, wait, wait. LEND? (1)

admdrew (782761) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483163)

In the context of the terms they've written out, I assume "lend" means for a longer period of time than simply letting someone try them on. It's usually understood that lending an item to someone is letting them use it for its intended purpose, like lending a spare cell phone to someone to use until they get a new one, instead of just handing someone your shiny new cell phone to show it off.

Re:Wait, wait, wait. LEND? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483181)

Yes. It's early hardware being given out to developers, it's normal that people aren't allowed to (say) loan their company's PS4 out to their mate's stag do. At least not if they like having kneecaps.

Hardware Only? False Conclusion (3, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483013)

Seems like Google is going for hardware-only revenue on this one.

That conclusion is not supported by the fact that Google does not allow advertising on Google Glass. Google Glass is not exclusively an output device, it is also a sensor array. The data collected by the sensor array would be very valuable to Google's surveillance and analytics programs. Whether Google will store, use, or distribute any of the data collected by the Google Glass sensors has not, as far as I know, been addressed.

Generally speaking, Google seems to have a very solid understanding that it is inexpensive to store data and a significant opportunity cost to discard it.

Anonymous BS? (2)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483015)

The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever...

Really? When? Where? I cannot find any reference whatsoever to Google making that statement, only references, like this one, to an anonymous source claiming it. I feel confident that if Google had "explicitly and openly" said any such thing that I would have been able to well, you know, google it ;-)

Unmentioned here is the fact that Google is also forbidding developers to charge for their software, leaving developers with no revenue model at all. I imagine this is intended as an exploratory phase, and there is intent to in the future allow some revenue model for developers, but not giving any clue as to how developers might be allowed to make some money seems like a really good way to stifle development right from the outset.

Re:Anonymous BS? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483193)

It's in the developer guidelines if you'd take five minutes to look at them.

Oh, I see... (2)

gottabeme (590848) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483101)

The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever, because the technology is designed to facilitate internet browsing and other related activities, therefore, the featured podium cannot be used to advertise products as it will cause the user experience to diminish

So it's designed for internet browsing and stuff...like smartphones???

I'm so sick of ads taking up my tiny screen space, my pathetic battery life, and my worthless monthly bandwidth. This is the worst in apps made by every random developer who thinks he's entitled to make a constant revenue stream from throwing together a piddly app to do something basic like a kitchen timer. I even had an app that was supposed to be an app-store release of the ICS camera app...and it had an ad on the screen when you were using the camera! All he did was release the ICS camera app!

How about standing up to these developers, Google? Huh?

Illegal. Plainly so. At least here. (1, Informative)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483109)

In the EU it is not legal to try and forbid anyone to resell items acquired by any means whatsoever. You buy it, you become the owner, you can do with it what you want: resell it, destroy it, lend it, rent it out, give it away. Google's gonna have a hard time with Euro Commissary iron Nellie ( Neelie Smit-Kroes, who already severely flogged them ).

The no-reselling is FUD (1)

geraud (932452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483139)

Keep in mind the glasses are currently only distributed as a developer device, much like an SDK. Not a consumer device. The no reselling restriction present in the EULA is very similar to those applicable to SDK in other markets.

Google can still run ads (1)

Animats (122034) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483179)

Google isn't forbidding advertising on Glass. They're forbidding non-Google advertising.

You had one job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43483211)

"Seems like Google is going for hardware-only revenue on this one."
Right.

Prevent a Siri (3, Interesting)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43483283)

http://www.inquisitr.com/256025/steve-wozniak-says-apple-ruined-siri-technology-after-acquisition/ [inquisitr.com] Here is Steve Wozniak showing how siri was destroyed by Apple advertising “What are the five largest lakes in California?” and “What are the prime numbers greater than 87?” (91). To which Wozniak replied, “It’s incredible. It’s like it understands ‘greater than.’”

Wozniak also notes that his former question about California Lakes now brings up lakefront properties while his question about prime numbers now displays information about prime ribs

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?