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!

Why I'm Sending Back Google Glass

Unknown Lamer posted about 5 months ago | from the you're-not-cool-enough dept.

Handhelds 166

Lucas123 (935744) writes "After using Google Glass for several weeks, Computerworld columnist Matt Lake had plenty of reasons to explain why he returned them, not the least of which was that they made him cross-eyed and avoid eye contact. Google Glass batteries also drain like a bath tub when using either audio or video apps and they run warm. And, as cool as being able to take videos and photos with the glasses may be, those shots are always at an angle. Of course, being able to do turn-by-turn directions is cool, but not something you can do without your smart phone's cellular data or a mobile hotspot. The list of reasons goes on... Bottom line, if Google Glass is in the vanguard of a future class of wearable computers, the future isn't the present."

cancel ×

166 comments

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

Pretty obvious (5, Insightful)

Carrot007 (37198) | about 5 months ago | (#47056241)

I do want them but I am holding out until they are a little more powerful.

Anyone who expects them to be anything the than a preview of what is yet to come is an idiot.

But please feel free to clutter up the world with more pointless articles.

Pretty obvious (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056299)

Retinal display will be the key to success.

Right now it's bullshit.

Re: Pretty obvious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056907)

Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo

Re: Pretty obvious (4, Informative)

ranton (36917) | about 5 months ago | (#47056943)

Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo

He said Retinal Display, which means a display that is directly implanted into the eye, or perhaps intercepts the communication from the eye to the brain. That has nothing to do with the Apple retina display.

Re: Pretty obvious (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057589)

It is interesting to see this confusion.
Somehow Apple managed to get Retina trademarked in the context of displays.
Meanwhile we have a typical example here where the trademark got confused with the established term for another type of displays.
That trademark should never have been accepted and will lead to legal disputes when someone tries to bring a retinal display to the market.

Re: Pretty obvious (1)

Agares (1890982) | about 5 months ago | (#47058231)

I will admit that the term confused me too so thanks for clearing it up. As for AC, he needs to quit being a dick. If someone likes Apple who cares? I know I don't like people insulting me for liking Linux so why should I insult people who like something else.

Re: Pretty obvious (1)

Mictester (2920991) | about 5 months ago | (#47058413)

Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo

It's amazing that Apple can make a feature out of displays that failed Samsung quality control! They weren't good enough for Samsung products, so they're downgraded and used for Apple products......

Re: Pretty obvious (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 5 months ago | (#47066433)

Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo It's amazing that Apple can make a feature out of displays that failed Samsung quality control! They weren't good enough for Samsung products, so they're downgraded and used for Apple products......

That's apple, put a fancy name to it and tell people it's good. What does Joe Everyman know about displays? Fuck all is what.

Re: Pretty obvious (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 5 months ago | (#47061067)

I thought that refered to a scanning laser projector that targets your retina.

Re: Pretty obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47061747)

As cool as that is it is a long long way off. Projecting the image directly on to the retinal has been done a couple of times now, and has the advantage of a much larger display than the screen. I've been a big fan since i heard of 'brother' making it work. That said i think having two full size see through screens could also be sufficient (although it would use more power than google's ridiculously bad example of a HUD).

Re: Pretty obvious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057115)

Shut up you apple fanboy. Retina display is marketing speak to fool the sheeple who will buy anything if it has an apple logo

Here we have the rational consumer who always thinks things through and doesn't fall for silly marketing ploys. He is an enlightened, thinking man!

Unless of course he misreads something as pertaining to Apple in some way, in which case he damn near knocks his own eye out with the power of his knee-jerk reaction.

Re: Pretty obvious (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 months ago | (#47057669)

Apple does have a reputation of delivering products of good quality.

Sure they have a few looser, and some problems. But overall Apple is a safe bet.

Re: Pretty obvious (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 months ago | (#47057957)

Sure they have a few looser

Looser what? Assholes, perhaps?

Re: Pretty obvious (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 5 months ago | (#47058163)

If you want to pay nearly double for the same equipment, sure.

Anyone wanna run a price/performance analysis on a Nexus 5, or a Moto G, compared to the latest iPhone?

Re: Pretty obvious (1)

Plammox (717738) | about 5 months ago | (#47058245)

I have a Nexus 5. It really isn't the bee's knees. It has more counterintuitive sub-sub-submenus than an old HP network analyzer and you need to root it to control app privileges. Lame.

Re: Pretty obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47061441)

As if you don't have to root your iphone...

Re: Pretty obvious (1)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about 5 months ago | (#47058733)

I have never, ever bought an Apple product of any kind, but considering build quality the MacBook Air is probably better value for money than the very similar Asus Ultrabook which I do have.

Re:Pretty obvious (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 5 months ago | (#47058091)

Every display is retinal, because it uses your retinas.

Your post is bullshit, whether you're implying apple (as the poster below) implied or not.

When displays aren't retinal, that might actually be the key to success.

Re:Pretty obvious (1)

Hussman32 (751772) | about 5 months ago | (#47059509)

I'd help clarify that comment by recommending Peter F. Hamilton's book Pandora's Star (search Amazon)...he envisioned an implanted HUD display where people could access the Internet analog and do other comp sci stuff. Pretty cool ideas there.

Re:Pretty obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066183)

My problem with this is, you get fucked up your eyes with a 640x480 display. After 2 years there will be 1024x768 displays. 10 years after, you won't have room just to display 1 window and can throw out your eyes lol...

Re:Pretty obvious (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056315)

Re:Pretty obvious (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056355)

This is true, but hopefully, maybe this will get the critics to actually critique the device and surmise how it could be better, instead of just howling about privacy and being recorded all the time.

I mean they can fix all the issues this guy has a problem with except the one that isn't a problem, the belief that its recording everything all the time. It will never be able to do that, whether you want it too or not.

Re:Pretty obvious (2)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 5 months ago | (#47056619)

In TFA, he surprisingly had some good criticisms of the actual device. Unfortunately all that made it to the summary was the bullshit reasons regarding people's misunderstanding and misuse of psychology, and/or his discomfort with not looking people in the eye. I see a future were we just get used to it, the same as we ignore people checking their phone already.

After we get past the nonsense, it seems the device itself has some design issues, though not all are issues i agree are issues (like maps using cellular data...I think that's the right way to do it unless the cell phone has wifi of course).

Re:Pretty obvious (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | about 5 months ago | (#47056675)

I see a future were we just get used to it, the same as we ignore people checking their phone already.

It's possible, but at least in my social circles so far people haven't really adapted to carrying on a conversation while checking phone, at least for more than brief glances. When someone looks down at their phone for more than 3-4 seconds, the conversation pauses, and resumes when they look back up again. The explicit looking-at-the-screen aspect essentially communicates out-of-band the "am I paying attention to this conversation or not?" aspect that's used to fairly seamlessly pause and restart the conversation. So far, I've found it hard to do that with people wearing eyepieces (I've had conversations with people [gatech.edu] wearing prototype versions on and off since 2004), since you don't get the explicit notification of now-looking-at-screen, now-looking-back-up attentional state that you get with smartphones.

Re:Pretty obvious (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#47056961)

"... and resumes when they look back up again. "
why? whatever you are talking about is boring.

It's like talking to some one and they go glassy eyed. You might as well just stop talking mid sentence.

" since you don't get the explicit notification of now-looking-at-screen, now-looking-back-up attentional state that you get with smartphones."
so? If they miss something ether they didn't care or they need to pay attention.

Re:Pretty obvious (0)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#47058109)

Some people have interesting personal discussions which must be briefly interrupted from time to time to check whether work needs priority attention.

Re:Pretty obvious (1)

Agares (1890982) | about 5 months ago | (#47058361)

The fact that people are use to phones is why I would be more worried about them than google glass. We are all so use to seeing a phone out that we think nothing of it. Which makes it easy for people to record others as well as take creep shots if the want to.

Re:Pretty obvious (3, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#47057749)

the same as we ignore people checking their phone already.

Speak for yourself. A lot of us find people checking their phone when they are supposed to be engaged in a social context to be very annoying and rude.

But not nearly as annoying and rude as someone wearing Google Glass would be.

The kind of people that want Google Glass are the exact same people that can't work out or don't care about the etiquette of when and how to use their existing phones. The Glassholes nickname is perfect.

Re:Pretty obvious (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 months ago | (#47058001)

A lot of us find people checking their phone when they are supposed to be engaged in a social context to be very annoying and rude.

I believe they refer to us as "old people".

Re:Pretty obvious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47062383)

No grandpa. You find it rude because you're the type of person who has to be the center of attention. You get pissed because we simply don't care as much as you think we should.

Re:Pretty obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056831)

This is true, but hopefully, maybe this will get the critics to actually critique the device and surmise how it could be better, instead of just howling about privacy and being recorded all the time.

"...maybe this will get the critics to actually critique the technique of torture and surmise(?) how it could be better, instead of just howling about human rights and cruel and unusual punishment all the time."

What the fuck is it with technocratic amorality?

"Once the rockets are up,
who cares where they come down?
That's not my department,"
says Wernher von Braun.

Re:Pretty obvious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056499)

Low responsiveness to voice commands, low battery endurance, and high heat generation seem like they could be legitimate problems.

Everything else mentioned in the article is obvious, intentionally idiotic user error.

Hard to have eye contact during a conversation if you're looking at a screen instead of the person you're talking to? No shit. Doesn't have anything to do with Glass.

Other people can tell that you're wearing them? No shit. They aren't fucking Invisible.

Feel inadequate because you lead a boring life? Ok...?

Re: Pretty obvious (0)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 5 months ago | (#47056721)

This clearly shows why this author is a waste of space and making claims for hit counts.

He received a device for a developer/platform development program, and instead of treating it like a platform and developing things for it, he treats it like a product and whines about it.

FFS, please do send it back, or give it to someone who WILL DO SOMETHING USEFUL WITH IT.

Re: Pretty obvious (1, Insightful)

narcc (412956) | about 5 months ago | (#47059987)

FFS, please do send it back, or give it to someone who WILL DO SOMETHING USEFUL WITH IT.

Has this happened yet? Has anyone done something useful with it?

Is such a thing even possible?

Re: Pretty obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47062391)

trollolol o lol, lol lol lol laaaaaawl.

Re: Pretty obvious (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056977)

Personally if I seen one of these glassholes I'll knock them the fuck out or even better shoot them if I have my gun on me. If it's a free society for you to film me, then I'm free to fuck you up for doing it. Stop filming me and my kid without permission you pervert creep.

Re: Pretty obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47058067)

I can't wait to get mine! I can finally FINALY video putting .45 ventilation holes in these stupid nig nogs with full two hand control when they try and "pull der 9"

See how "tough" I can sound when I'm an AC???

Re: Pretty obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47062421)

wow you must REALLY want to be on the receiving end of a prison rape!

Re:Pretty obvious (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057003)

Hard to have eye contact during a conversation if you're looking at a screen instead of the person you're talking to? No shit. Doesn't have anything to do with Glass.

Of course that has something to do with glass... That's the fundamental operating model of Glass. It indicates that the fundamental interaction model for the product is flawed completely and utterly.

Re: Pretty obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47059495)

Don't be so fucking dramatic. The problem right now is when someone is wearing Google Glass it's a "thing", a toy, kind of like someone carrying a tablet around all the time three or four years ago - a curiosity, something that will attract attention. Google Glass's biggest problem is the reverse of most products - it's not going to take off until it's not noticeable physically that someone is using one (as in, I am wearing sunglasses that look like sunglasses but no one but me can tell that they are actually Google Glass enabled). As long as they are mini Geordi Laforge looking things they won't become acceptable, but once no one can tell it's a whole other ball game - at which time, yeah, a lot of people could hold a conversation and be browsing the web at the same time and no one would know it. Most humans are decent at jockeying a screen and a person simultaneously - think of driving, where one can easily hold a conversation with someone in the passenger seat but be mainly paying attention to the view in front of them and operating the vehicle.

Re: Pretty obvious (1)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | about 5 months ago | (#47061303)

"once no one can tell it's a whole other ball game - at which time, yeah, a lot of people could hold a conversation and be browsing the web at the same time and no one would know it. Most humans are decent at jockeying a screen and a person simultaneously - think of driving, where one can easily hold a conversation with someone in the passenger seat but be mainly paying attention to the view in front of them and operating the vehicle."
I don't think this is true. Most people suck at it. Reading directly competes with listening. Most people just can't do both at once, without failing to grasp on one of the two.
There are lots of activities we can do quite well while talking (e.g., dribbling a basketball, or keeping our car between the lines on the road), but reading isn't one of them.
Some people might be quite good at selective listening (semi-consciously giving feedback at what seem like appropriate times, or listening for key inflections or keywords that indicate the conversation requires full attention). They might be good at judging when the coming few seconds of conversation are predictable, so they can glance away for a second to read a text message without interrupting the conversation. Or they might be good at mentally recording the sounds in a sort of audio buffer while they move their attention to something else for a couple seconds before returning to listen to the buffered audio and rejoin the conversation.
But tying to hold a conversation with someone who is trying to read (continuously, like in browsing the web) through the conversation is impossible.

Re:Pretty obvious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056553)

I do want them but I am holding out until they are a little more powerful.

Anyone who expects them to be anything the than a preview of what is yet to come is an idiot.

And I say that anyone who want's them is an idiot. So we have to two (rather snarky) assertions made. Where does that lead us?

But please feel free to clutter up the world with more pointless articles.

Bingo!

The world cluttered up with more useless, unfounded assertions....

Re:Pretty obvious (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#47056707)

I'm waiting for a lot more powerful. A little text at the corner of my eye isn't much help to me. Full augmented reality across the entire lens would be.

Not pointless at all. (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about 5 months ago | (#47056947)

But please feel free to clutter up the world with more pointless articles.

The article sums up two fundamental problems for Google Glass:

It's called glassing out. You look cross-eyed. People can't make eye contact with you, and they read things into your lack of eye contact.

I had surgery to gain control over a "wandering" eye when it became obvious how much my inability to maintain eye contact was costing me both at home and at work.

People fear surveillance. They don't want a recording device waved in front of them. And that's how many people see Google Glass. People avoid talking to you when you wear them.

No amount of frames or shades conceals the glowing prism at the front that brands you a Glass-exploring neo-cyborg.

Loss of eye contact makes it difficult to build trust --- and the ever-present "in-your-face" camera only makes things worse.

Re:Not pointless at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47058021)

We're doomed aren't we?

Re:Not pointless at all. (0)

Drethon (1445051) | about 5 months ago | (#47058347)

And yet here you are discussing it on an internet forum rather that face to face...

Re:Not pointless at all. (1)

bitt3n (941736) | about 5 months ago | (#47058475)

I had surgery to gain control over a "wandering" eye when it became obvious how much my inability to maintain eye contact was costing me

Why didn't you just send an anonymous message to HR requesting they enforce the cleavage policy?

Re:Pretty obvious (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#47057695)

Anyone who wants them is an idiot.

See how that works?

Re:Pretty obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47068275)

I do want them but I am holding out until they are a little more powerful.

Anyone who expects them to be anything the than a preview of what is yet to come is an idiot.

But please feel free to clutter up the world with more pointless articles.

In other words, you agree that Google Glass is not very good, you're just offended everyone else hasn't figured out how obviously terrible they are.

ok dude (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056243)

ok

In other words (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056269)

I will not buy this tobacconist's, it is scratched.

Not the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056271)

The BBC and NPR also talked to tech journalists that after 1-2 weeks stopped wearing them for basically the same reasons. I kind off figured this device would be a flop. I'm sure people will buy for no reason other then to say they have one, and in some instances it may be useful. But I wouldn't want to be wearing a device that is more of an annoyance, then it is useful, especially with smartphones that already do all these tasks

Re:Not the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056313)

Hmm, it's useful after it's an annoyance... Maybe he should stick with it.

Re:Not the only one (2)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 5 months ago | (#47056605)

I'm pretty sure he won't get it.

Re:Not the only one (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057087)

WHOOOOOSH!

Google is trying so hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056289)

And they just don't seem to want to realize that Google Glass is a failure. It's not the next revolution. Move on.

Re:Google is trying so hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056351)

They realise alright... Even the google glass team don't use them any more - it says a lot about your product when the team that developed it don't even think it's worth using it.

As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (5, Interesting)

Schezar (249629) | about 5 months ago | (#47056305)

I can easily see how he could have these problems. His use case is ridiculous.

I can't imagine a sane human being putting on Google Glass and thinking "hey, I'll watch video or read web pages on this thing!" That's almost the opposite of a normal use case. I can't imagine looking at the screen for more than a few seconds at a time.

The value of glass:

1. Non-distracting notifications of emergent information

I don't take my phone out of my pocket every time it buzzes. I don't constantly read twitter every time I happened to pull it out to see what that buzz was. Instead, I just live my life. If I'm walking somewhere, and glass buzzes, I can, at my leisure, cock my head slightly to turn on the display and read the message. If there's a short followup, I speak it into Glass. If there's a long one, I, at my leisure, deal with it later on my phone.

2. Navigation

I'll be honest. For driving, or especially biking/touring, the turn-by-turn is worth the current price of admission even if that is the SOLE use. Trying to mount a phone on a motorcycle/bicycle, let alone pull a phone out of one's pocket while biking, is laughable. The navigation is amazing to behold the first time you use it. For a frequent biker/traveler, it's already indispensable/

3. Candid photos

I have a large collection of interesting shots of my life now. The photos are indeed at an "angle" much of the time. Who cares? If I want to take a picture, I use my phone, or a real camera. I use Glass solely to catch, again, emergent moments. Something interesting happens, and I snap a photo discretely and immediately. For that use case, I defy a regular camera or smartphone to be deployed and used quickly enough without similar "angle" or "shot framing" issues.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/... [flickr.com]

Glass is primarily a notification tool coupled with a navigator and a quick-draw smartphone.

I'm not saying Glass is perfect. Far from it. It has a long way to go. But this guy appears to be trying to use it in the least imaginative and least useful ways possible. He's doing the equivalent of complaining that he cant edit 4k video on his phone, or that he can't easily make toast with his flamethrower.

Re: As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056415)

+1

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056449)

I have a large collection of interesting shots of my life now.

Yeah, I love all the shots of traffic and your rabbit's bedding. Priceless memories there.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056635)

Exactly my thoughts. Now maybe if he cooked the rabbit we would have something, but alas.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (2)

shikaisi (1816846) | about 5 months ago | (#47056711)

I have a large collection of interesting shots of my life now.

Yeah, I love all the shots of traffic and your rabbit's bedding. Priceless memories there.

Now, if the rabbit had a pancake on its head...

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056751)

Don't forget the shots of his (presumed) girlfriend dressed in some sort of telletubby outfit. Very interesting indeed...

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (5, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about 5 months ago | (#47056493)

Okay, so explain to me why Google Glass has to be a stand-alone computing device (requiring wlan connectivity, more powerful CPU, larger batteries, etc) to meet your 3 points, instead of a simple optional display / camera peripheral that is used with an existing cell phone? I don't remember any genius deciding that cell phones should all be crammed into bluetooth headsets because a certain portion of the population likes to wear bluetooth headsets all the time.

Google Glass is in the form factor of a display device that has been overextended into the all-in-one device. That makes more sense for a less obtrusive form factor like a wristwatch, but not for something that you have to wear like a cyborg. It will never, ever gain traction as the core mobile computing device, because people that don't want to wear it on their head all the time won't tolerate having to switch back and forth between it and their cell phone. I think the adoption rate will be no better than bluetooth headsets at best.

How much less would Google Glass cost (and weigh) if it was just a low-power bluetooth peripheral with a display and camera? 1/5th the price?

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 5 months ago | (#47056659)

+100.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

sadboyzz (1190877) | about 5 months ago | (#47056755)

I don't think bluetooth has enough bandwidth for smooth video streaming.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#47057029)

I think BT 3 and 4. can do 25MBits.
Granted, 4 wasn't out during Glass development.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056781)

Wow, until now I had assumed that's what it was, I hadn't even conceived that someone would idiotically try to build the computing engine into the glasses too. That's just mental, but I suppose does explain the pricetag.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

Altus (1034) | about 5 months ago | (#47066079)

Not really, apparently they cost about $100 to produce as is. I suppose they would get cheeper if you took out some of the computing based functionality.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (4, Informative)

internerdj (1319281) | about 5 months ago | (#47056985)

From the Head mounted displays that I've worked with, the optics portion tends to be the limiting factor for dimensionality and weight. It isn't like going with just a GPU on the thing is going to make it into a set of eyeglasses. You've also got a lot of overlap in passing/processing video and general information passing/processing. You probably aren't going to save a lot by making it just a phone accessory. You definitely aren't going to see a lot of difference from an aesthetic perspective.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 5 months ago | (#47057569)

I think a lot of people fail to realize that it's not just a display an inch away from their eye. You really have to use a reflex display at least once to grasp their purpose.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 5 months ago | (#47057011)

I think your example extends to smart watches as well- what other use would you have for them then to see an incoming text or who is calling you so you don't have to pull your phone out?

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 months ago | (#47057539)

explain to me why Google Glass has to be a stand-alone computing device (requiring wlan connectivity, more powerful CPU, larger batteries, etc) to meet your 3 points, instead of a simple optional display / camera peripheral that is used with an existing cell phone?

Because that would make sense[1] and this is Google we're talking about.

[1] Assuming you think the concept itself is any good, which I don't particularly.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

Drethon (1445051) | about 5 months ago | (#47058365)

Yep, I think its time to disconnect the I/O of a computer from its processor. Seems like we only need a mobile (low power) and non mobile (high performance) processor that talks to a bunch of I/O devices.

Re: As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47059567)

All of it boils down to they look stupid when you wear them, automatically make people suspicious, and cause more issues simply by having one on than anything else. That said, once they are able to be installed in normal looking glasses/sunglasses, which indeed is coming according to Google, they are already working with eye wear manufacturers, the whole ball game changes. Once it's not the digital equivalent of wearing a motorized pocket protector, it's going to be very different indeed. I mean, it's awesome tech if you didn't have to look like a dork wearing it - once I can throw on a pair of sunglasses and get the same features, heck yeah I'd pay that price for one.

Re: As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about 5 months ago | (#47062499)

Dude! Do you know where I can get a motorized pocket protector????? That would be rad!

Re: As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 5 months ago | (#47061193)

I'm sure it was considered (it's a fairly obvious approach after all), but I really doubt that streaming live video to a radio receiver+H.264 decoder for a few seconds uses much less power than popping up a card with an SoC and keeping it there. Then there's the issues of bandwidth, range, responsiveness, reliability, battery drain on your phone as well, and your phone having to be in range to do *anything* as opposed to just transferring the occasional notification or GPS co-ord.

Re: As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47062393)

Well I saw yesterday that the components in Glass cost only about $79 USD so it could be much cheaper as a smartphone peripheral.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (4, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 5 months ago | (#47056503)

You can get turn by turn navigation in a bike specific GPS for way less than the price of Google Glass. And you load the maps right on the device so you don't have to worry about data plans or losing cell reception. Personally, I would love it if my cell phone could do everything, but GPS seems to be one of those things where a dedicated device just works so much better. The GPS on my phone will work ok in a pinch, but for things like cycling and hiking, there's no comparison to using a real GPS.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#47056697)

Yea and No...

dedicated GPS devices fail on "fuzzy" information.

ME: Take me to the nearest Library
Phone: give me choices, I click and off I go.
Dedicated GPS : ........ DOES NOT COMPUTE! ERROR! ERROR! EXTERMINATE!

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057697)

Yea and No...

dedicated GPS devices fail on "fuzzy" information.

ME: Take me to the nearest Library
Phone: give me choices, I click and off I go.
Dedicated GPS : ........ DOES NOT COMPUTE! ERROR! ERROR! EXTERMINATE!

My GPS handles this fine. If I ask for gas stations for example it lists them out by distance and direction.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 5 months ago | (#47057815)

Do you understand your command is INCREDIBLY context based where standalone GPS works best on empirical data. Also in your GPS scenario, internet connectivity is required. Thats not navigation, thats touring.

nerds gonna nerd (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about 5 months ago | (#47062539)

You're 100% correct in only the way us nerds can be. You're arguing a technicality when the general population doesn't give a shit. The muggles want to just tell the "thingy" to take them to the damned library. They don't care if it has a map onboard or if there is an atomic sized dinosaur inside drawing it directly on the screen. They just want to go to the library. The company that takes them to the library with the fewest annoyances and questions will get rich. Citation? Apple. Remember? "It just works" It isn't touring or navigation from their pov. It's just going to the damned library!

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#47065033)

99.9765% of people that use GPS's dont care about that, they just want it to work.

and you are incorrect, because libraries are not roving beasts that require constant location database updates, standalone GPS devices can easily hold a POI database with this information.

Now if Standalone GPS makers would hire competent programmers, we could have this.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056535)

I make giant toasts with four-square-foot slabs of bread and a flamethrower, you insensitive clod!

"Primarily a notification tool..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056551)

Glass is primarily a notification tool coupled with a navigator and a quick-draw smartphone.

How did you EVER survive without such help?

SMH

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056577)

I don't take my phone out of my pocket every time it buzzes. I don't constantly read twitter every time I happened to pull it out to see what that buzz was. Instead, I just live my life.

So do I, but guess what: you don't need Glass to do that!

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (2)

SenatorPerry (46227) | about 5 months ago | (#47056595)

+1 to this comment.

I have a 1 year old that loves reacting to a camera. Hold out a cellphone and she smiles. Hold out a lense and she stops doing whatever and watches the camera. With Glass I have captured tons of videos with her in unique and interesting ways that tell a better story of her. Try recording this with a regular camera:
http://youtu.be/scEJJK7cxGg [youtu.be]
or here:
http://youtu.be/jDLCQJluNAQ [youtu.be]

The problem is that it took me nearly two weeks to get adjusted to Google Glass. My battery regularly lasts all day without charging after the XE17 upgrade. I live in South Carolina and have NEVER run into anyone wearing them in the wild. Still, nobody ever seems uncomfortable around them and there has only been a handful of people actually ask me about them.

Now if they would get the video calls back into them....

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056603)

The thing is, none of those things you just said, minus possibly the navigation, is anything a tablet can't already do. I mean, I've just got a relatively cheap Nexus 7, but I can get all of the same things.

1. Non-distracting notification of emergent information

When I'm near open wifi (home, work) my tablet automatically checks for new email. If I had a Twitter, it would probably check that too, except I don't because I don't agree with social media. It shows me the new email without buzzing or ringing or anything - I could make it do that, but why would I? I can then respond either with the tablet, or wait until I get to my desktop PC.

2. Navigation

There are actually a multitude of offline GPS applications for Android, which use the device's built-in GPS to navigate. Most of them can even talk, which is where the real value of a GPS is. In a car, I don't want to be looking at a GPS, I want to be looking at the road.

3. Candid Photos

Admittedly, my tablet can't do "candid" photos, but I usually have it within reach and can get the camera going fast enough to capture most things I would want to (such as a small horde of wild rabbits descending upon my front lawn to eat the dandelions).

The difference is, my tablet cost me something like $230, whereas Glass is $1500. I'm sure Glass has its uses in situations that don't apply to me, but they don't apply to me.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

Altus (1034) | about 5 months ago | (#47056637)

People who have not used glass usually have expectations of ti that are not realistic... like they believe its a HUD that will overlay useful information over your field of vision, put peoples names above their heads and other magical things when the reality is it is a small, low res screen hovering at the edge of your vision that doesn't do a particularly good job of much of anything while not being very reactive to user input.

Part of those expectations are thanks to hollywood but you see the same thing in articles about the tech like the ones recently about doctors using them. People expect more than a few lines of text hovering off to their right because hell... these things are going to be used by doctors performing surgery, they must do something magic!

Oh yea, also they are insanely expensive, which also adds to the belief that they will be mind blowing and adds to the disappointment when they are not.

Generally speaking, given those expectations, it is not surprising that the reality is disappointing.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about 5 months ago | (#47062583)

You've hit the nail on the head. The problem is, what you think we think we want, is exactly what we want!!!! So Goog needs to make a real HUD with peoples names and big ol tom tom arrows to herd us around. Give me a pop up saying I'm about to get rained on. Tell me when I am approaching the store that I am supposed to buy something for dinner. Ya know, all the stuff my cellphone can already do- just do it on a HUD.

I have to lay the blame squarely on Google. Their marketing people are the ones who've drawn this grand picture of a device that knows and sees everything. If I am underwhelmed once I see a real one, it'll be their fault. Especially for the price. I'm not paying $2k for something I can buy off of Alibaba for $40 (Bluetooth watches that just show incoming calls and little else). They're gonna have to build that stairway that reaches the insanely high pedestal they've put Glass on!

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056663)

Darn. Why put this on flickr. There's nothing at interest for the rest of the world. It *might* be useful for a burglar learning your patterns so he can raid your house, but probably not even that.

But then I never have felt the need to use twitter ( I'm on the #toilet!) either, so maybe I'm just to old(fashioned) to understand social media.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47063929)

> I'm on the #toilet!

Twitter requires a proactive follow. I.e. follow interesting people, get interesting content. Follow people who post rubbish, get rubbish.

Now it is not for everyone. I personally find it a little overwhelming (too many interesting people) but please stop imagining what it is like then bitching about this magical imagined version.

As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056667)

#1: is the same with a cellphone. You can, at your leisure, read the notification or deal with it later. I usually deal with it later, but YMMV.

#2: the cellphone can speak navigation instructions to you. You can also use a wireless headset or wired, or attach the phone to your bicycle and so on.

#3: that's nice but it is a bit creepy. Why not just enjoy the moment? You're missing your life when you're busy filming it and uploading to Flickr for strangers and the NSA to see.

Also, what the heck is an "emergent moment"? You're using the word "emergent" a lot but I don't think it means what you think it does.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (4, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | about 5 months ago | (#47056887)

Take all those useful features, put them somewhere other than my face. Problem solved.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057001)

But this guy appears to be trying to use it in the least imaginative and least useful ways possible.

What is imaginative about the ways you are using it?

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057205)

I don't take my phone out of my pocket every time it buzzes. I don't constantly read twitter every time I happened to pull it out to see what that buzz was. Instead, I just live my life. If I'm walking somewhere, and glass buzzes, I can, at my leisure, cock my head slightly to turn on the display and read the message.

You are aware though, that the buzz is already a distraction of course? If you're not doing anything cognitively valuable, this might not be a problem. It is if it you do though.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 5 months ago | (#47057779)

"2. Navigation I'll be honest. For driving, or especially biking/touring, the turn-by-turn is worth the current price of admission even if that is the SOLE use. Trying to mount a phone on a motorcycle/bicycle, let alone pull a phone out of one's pocket while biking, is laughable. The navigation is amazing to behold the first time you use it. For a frequent biker/traveler, it's already indispensable"

The big differentiator here is that you are using dedicated hardware. You could easily mount a cheap dedicated nav package to your car, boat, snowmobile and jetski for less than the cost of one Glass.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057961)

Not surprising that your wife is ugly I guess.

Then why did Google set it up to fail? (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 5 months ago | (#47058073)

Glass is primarily a notification tool coupled with a navigator and a quick-draw smartphone.

If the battery was known to be inadequate for video recording and playback, why did Google tack that bullshit onto the beta product when simple performance testing could have shown them a useless (i.e., 3-4 hr) battery life when used to it's full capabilities - that's no-go levels of charge for a "wearable". I had a Palm/Fossil watch a while back - was sweet except that it kept needing a charge every 4 hrs.

I would be 10x more interested in Glass if it had no video recording capabilities (hell, I don't even think a camera is needed).

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 5 months ago | (#47058119)

I like your assessment of the article. I believe you are correct in saying the writer's use was wrong. It's like using a hammer to put in a screw.

On the flip side, the glasses DO NOT solve the enormous amount of data coming to us daily through our smart phone. Instead I believe those who manage to pay attention to the device based on priorities will be more efficient. I use a Windows phone and at a glance I know if I have facebook notifications, emails in 3 different accounts, twitter and items due today. I only get sound notifications for inbound calls, missed calls and meeting notifications. I have developed the habit of looking at my phone every 30 - 60 minutes. While I'm at work I'll only look at critical items which include todo list and emails. After hours I may have a minute to kill so I'll look at facebook or other lesser important notifications I have.

When you do intellectual work having a notifications popup randomly takes you out of "the zone". I'd rather be disciplined into check regularly when I'm not "in the zone".

I think the glasses are very nice for taking pictures, providing directions while driving and providing the WHO IS CALLING notification. My arguments above don't contradict the usefulness of glasses but instead shows the need to decide what information gets to invade your eyes. Currently none of the eye wear devices offer in depth configuration either due to lagging software or lack of integration with smart phones.

My 2 cents.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (1)

praxis (19962) | about 5 months ago | (#47061453)

The value of glass:

1. Non-distracting notifications of emergent information

I don't take my phone out of my pocket every time it buzzes. I don't constantly read twitter every time I happened to pull it out to see what that buzz was. Instead, I just live my life. If I'm walking somewhere, and glass buzzes, I can, at my leisure, cock my head slightly to turn on the display and read the message. If there's a short followup (sic), I speak it into Glass. If there's a long one, I, at my leisure, deal with it later on my phone.

I too just live my life. If I'm walking somewhere, and a message arrives in one of my inboxes, I can, at my leisure process my inboxes and respond to those messages as appropriate in long- or short- form. I configured my notifications on my phone such that important and urgent notifications vibrate my phone and everything else makes no notification at all. I prefer to focus on what I am doing and who I am doing it with rather than extraneous information without fearing I'll miss something important and urgent (of which few things are).

The other two use cases are enabled by glass but the first use-case is already possible today in a superior way.

THIS. IS. SLASHDOT! (0)

Zynder (2773551) | about 5 months ago | (#47062485)

I can't imagine a sane human being putting on Google Glass and thinking "hey, I'll watch video or read web pages on this thing!"

You come to THIS SITE and make a statement like that? You can actually say that with out falling out of your chair? Preposterous! Most of us (probably you too) were reading all of this while we're supposed to be "working". Watching porn and reading forums whenever/wherever I want was the first thing I thought would be cool about Glass. Now did you make that statement because you actually don't think people would want to do that activity or are you saying it sarcastically because you know the hardware limitations and just how difficult that would be? Because if it's the latter, don't bet on it. I know nothing about a real Glass. I've only seen the videos and the articles about it. Never touched a real one. As an uniformed consumer (which most all of us actually are) I would think that it could do both of those things well. And if you're a salesman trying to get me to buy it, you'll tell me it will. Thanks for the info. I want a device similar to Glass but it has to be able to watch a movie, play a game, or browse a webpage. If it can't it just won't sell imho.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47063103)

The life of a yuppie faggot.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47067531)

If you can't get from your home to your work on your bicycle without a nav aid on your phone or your glasses, I think I see the real problem. We are already turning into a world where no-one can remember a phone number, but when you can't figure out which direction to go, or read a street sign and figure it out, someone whould really be concerned.. the advent of the 'hive' mind might be what we are destined for, but when you get unplugged.. look out.

Re:As a long-time Glass user, he's a bit off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47071365)

Trying to mount a phone on a motorcycle/bicycle, let alone pull a phone out of one's pocket while biking, is laughable.

I don't know about for a motorbike, but I have a phone mount on my bicycle and it works great for navigation. Not sure why you think it is laughable.

Solution without a problem, for now... (4, Insightful)

milgram (104453) | about 5 months ago | (#47056365)

While I still consider Glass to be a solution without of problem, unless people use and find problems with them, innovation will not occur. There is a process of failing that precedes success. I understood when I bought Glass there would be issues. I wear them to find these issues and attempt to improve them. That is why I love to program. I like to make things better.

I read the complaints on the Explorer board, and I am shocked that people expected a perfect product. This is meant to be beta testing. Google has been very clear about this.

If you don’t wish to seek innovation, and you are afraid of things not going perfectly, send them back. You are probably not the type of person who seeks to improve the world around them.

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about 5 months ago | (#47056613)

a solution without of problem

I wonder if the purpose of being there first with a product like this is to register some patents & copyrights. Microsoft seems to introduce plenty of lame products...but I wonder if the patent royalty stream is the most profitable of a new product line. Much like their P.O. Box approach to DOS licensees -- just send me the money.

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47071459)

It doesn't seem like Google to do it for that reason (although it seems a little bit more evil every day, I don't think they are quite there yet). I think Google just wants to be there first, which will enable them to capture more of the users for this type of product, which they will then find a way to generate money from. If they wait, they'll be playing catch up to whoever does get a successful product out first which makes it harder to get the users they want.

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#47056743)

I have Glass and I rarely use it anymore... I replaced it with a product that I dont worry about losing or damaging and provides what I need in the same really easy to get format.

I replaced my Glass with a Pebble watch. Quick glance at any of the info I need, plus I can easily interact. And It's $129 (whine at Best Buy and they will discount it) so if I smash it or get robbed, I dont care.

I still wear Glass for special occasions or if we dress up to go out, Nothing screams rich like wearing a $1500 toy on your head, It's the same as wearing a Rolex only you get more nods from the other rich guys.

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47058107)

I still wear Glass for special occasions or if we dress up to go out, Nothing screams rich like wearing a $1500 toy on your head, It's the same as wearing a Rolex only you get more nods from the other rich guys.

And this is the reason the term "glasshole" was coined.

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47058763)

Pretty sure that nod indicates you are a giant douche.

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47063123)

Nothing screams rich like wearing a $1500 toy on your head

This screams tacky nouveau riche. In reality everyone thinks you're a huge fucking plebeian faggot.

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... (5, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#47057005)

While I still consider Glass to be a solution without of problem

A local school is testing them in flipped classrooms [wikipedia.org] . The teacher wears GG as the students attempt to solve problems and type the solutions into a computer. GG displays a grid of the classroom that indicates which students are struggling. The teacher moves around the classroom, quickly going to where help is needed most. It seems to work well with most of the teachers, although some don't like it. This is still a research project (no education money is being spent), and the cost of the device will have to come way down before classroom use becomes widespread.

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47063421)

In what way is that better than handing a tablet to the teacher to provide the same information?

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 5 months ago | (#47057329)

Glass is a pioneer product, and the guys with the arrows in the back are always the pioneers (Compaq with their HDD based MP3 player, Diamond with their serial based player, Creative with their Nomad Jukebox, and so on.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the "settlers" (the guys that come on the trails blazed by the pioneers) come along with a decent product eventually. Maybe the next iteration of Glass will use arrays of cameras to make a composite view, or one camera for depth of field, one for the image (like the HTC One M8.) An array of smaller cameras and some software might be better than a larger, bulkier one.

Then there is the uphill battle for acceptance, and already there are people highly turned off on the concept of having yet another camera shoved in their face.

Pioneer devices are never perfect. My HTC Wizard smartphone did everything the first gen iPhone could, but it required a stylus, or very precise finger pressing (good luck.) It takes several generations of research/design/feedback from consumers to get a product suitable for mass consumption.

Re:Solution without a problem, for now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47058463)

I read the complaints on the Explorer board, and I am shocked that people expected a perfect product. This is meant to be beta testing. Google has been very clear about this.

Maybe they've tried to be clear, but Google has devalued the meaning of the word 'beta' so much that you can't really blame users for ignoring it.

Cross eyed (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056367)

Opti-Grab, anyone? (see The Jerk)

Re:Cross eyed (1)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | about 5 months ago | (#47056651)

"Pay to the order of 'Iron Balls' McGinty... One dollar and NINE CENTS!"

Development Prototype (1)

Drethon (1445051) | about 5 months ago | (#47056375)

I never got the impression these were supposed to be mature release devices. You buy one to experiment with developing new software for them. While an end user can still provide valuable feedback it doesn't seem like they are the target audience.

My bent $0.02...

What a Luddite... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056393)

When the last vestiges of privacy are finally destroyed, we will all live in harmony and love under the rule of Google. This guy is an idiot.

Re:What a Luddite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056481)

When the last vestiges of privacy are finally destroyed, we will all live in harmony and love under the rule of Google. This guy is an idiot.

Not sure if being sarcastic...

Frustrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056417)

Totally unrelated, but I have to vent. I love how Slashdot now causes my browser to hang due to all the ads. Even better is when I'm logged in with no ads check, seeing ads slide in from the bottom of the screen. What the fuck has this site become?

Re:Frustrating (1)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about 5 months ago | (#47056485)

Log in and moderate and you can block them or get a hosts file or browser that runs AdBlock. There is no reason you need to see ads on any site since damned near the invention of online advertisement.

Re:Frustrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056773)

Dont say adblock, the nutjob that calls himself APK will digitally haunt you like a lost and hungry puppy. Trying to claim he actually knows anything about computers...

Re:Frustrating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47072737)

NoScript works for me. Just allow slashdot.org and fsdn.org so the AJAXy bits work, but it stops the code responsible for the ads so I don't see them. I don't really have a problem with ads, just so long as they don't require Javascript, which they really don't need anyway.

Be honest, perv. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056427)

You're sending them back because the moms at the playground could see you coming a mile away and pointed immediately the fingers at you. Can't get pretty pictures of kids from afar, can you. And that was the only reason you bought those pedo glasses. Pervert. Die in a fire.

Re:Be honest, perv. (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 5 months ago | (#47056769)

That's a pretty lame attempt at a troll, considering that you can buy video cameras about the size of your thumb on Amazon.

Re:Be honest, perv. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47063983)

You can buy glasses with cameras that look like glasses not computers. If you are using Google Glasses to build up a video recording of everyone and everything then you can do so cheaper and with less looking-like-a-twat-ness.

Re:Be honest, perv. (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 5 months ago | (#47064433)

It's not a field in which I've conducted extensive research but that doesn't surprise me.

Google will abandon glass itself (1)

hsmith (818216) | about 5 months ago | (#47056451)

But, the SDK and UX they are developing they will license.

I've had a set since december and worn them maybe 2 hours total. The video is cool, but in reality it is nothing more than a toy.

Has FDA considered the health implications? (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 5 months ago | (#47056465)

there is a possibility of neurological and eye problems from putting something like this into the field of vision. I wonder if the FDA has looked into these issues and might consider regulations, perhaps a warning label.

Thje google glass concept is creepy in my opinion, as if people walking around with eyes glued to little smartphones wasnt creepy enogh (tracking and monitoring devices in reality). People need to get out, live more, and get untangled from the grid for more of their lives. I am a computer programmer, mind you, but I dont think this idea of always being in some virtual reality, with eyes glued to a screen, is healthy. I leave behind my computer work when I leave the office and go hiking or something, not paying attention to a smartphone.

Re:Has FDA considered the health implications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056549)

People need to get out, live more, and get untangled from the grid for more of their lives. I am a computer programmer, mind you, but I dont think this idea of always being in some virtual reality, with eyes glued to a screen, is healthy.

The probable future of the human race is merging with machines. We have to start sometime.

Re:Has FDA considered the health implications? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 5 months ago | (#47056669)

He said: "that they made him cross-eyed and avoid eye contact"

Which is the way most geeks naturally are anyway. So maybe wearing Goggle Glasses will correct those problem on geeks:

"By wearing Google Glasses, I can see straight! And I try to get eye contact!"

FDA studies with geeks are needed. And maybe normal folks don't want eye contact with us anyway . . . ?

Re:Has FDA considered the health implications? (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#47056817)

>He said: "that they made him cross-eyed and avoid eye contact"
>Which is the way most geeks naturally are anyway. So maybe wearing Goggle Glasses will correct those problem on geeks:

Anyone here who fits this description, talk to your doctor. 60mg citalopram daily completely fixed my aspergers-like social dysfunction. Not only did eye-contact suddenly become natural and automatic, it made me extremely outgoing and friendly. There have been no negative side-effect, other than light-sensitivity in the 1st few months, or loss of effect over the 7ish years I've been medicated. My life is far better than it would have been if I had done nothing about my social problems.

Re:Has FDA considered the health implications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056715)

And the core statement of this assessment is probable too? Wouldn't a glimpse into the future be such a treat? ;}

Re:Has FDA considered the health implications? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 5 months ago | (#47056787)

The probable future of the human race is merging with machines. We have to start sometime.

Sez you.

Re:Has FDA considered the health implications? (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 5 months ago | (#47058241)

there is a possibility of neurological and eye problems from putting something like this into the field of vision. I wonder if the FDA has looked into these issues and might consider regulations, perhaps a warning label

Reminds me of The Jerk [imdb.com] .

Real reason he's returning it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056487)

The biggest reason he's returning it is because he got punched in the face too many times by Slashdot-reading privacy tough-guys.

Luke 15:7 (1)

Kerstyun (832278) | about 5 months ago | (#47056615)

Luke 15:7

Re:Luke 15:7 (1)

koan (80826) | about 5 months ago | (#47057097)

Ecclesiastes 10:19

One guy now speaks for the entire world? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#47056639)

So because some unknown guy does not like them, it's solid proof that it's a failure? Honestly he is someone that has a sensitivity to them and is having issues, I know a lot of people with Glass that do not suffer from the eye strain or the inability to not look at it when talking to others. And I am sure there are others that have the same eye strain and sensitivity problems. I know as a glasses wearer I do find shifting focus to be difficult for Glass

Lastly, the things are in OPEN BETA, If anyone expects it ti be perfect and ready for prime time, then they are being mential. He is damn lucky they will give him a full refund. I cant get HTC to give me a full refund on my HTC ONE M8 after a few weeks when I discover it's a big steaming pile of crap. (and it is, I do have one. The nexus 5 is twice the phone and overall better in every way)

This just in (1)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about 5 months ago | (#47056749)

Prototype not behaving like a finished product, story at 11.

Prototype? (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 5 months ago | (#47056909)

You don't sell prototypes to the public. That's called a production model.

Re:Prototype? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#47057063)

Where have you been in the last 20 years?
People pay to beta test now.

Re:Prototype? (1)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about 5 months ago | (#47057069)

s/prototype/beta/g

Glass is a preview, not a real product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056815)

I'm amazed you tried to think of it as a real product, rather than as an inspirational toy. Google Glass is what I think of as a "somewhat neat idea" and using it might give you a few clues about what people will be doing in a decade or two. But if you bought it thinking, "This is going to be good," then you're every bit as dumb as people who bought an iPhone 1. It's a preview. A prototype. A showcase for trying things out. It's guaranteed to suck, without the slightest possibility of not horribly sucking, and you shouldn't CARE about the suck, because not-sucking isn't among its goals. It's an iPhone 1, except on your face. It's "neat" and also impractical. It's restrictive and primitive compared to what would happen in a normal world, while also letting you see some hopefully-cool things that normal people don't get to see. It's for researchers and the people who want a head start on the 2022 market.

Skyzone goggles are cool (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 5 months ago | (#47056851)

I like my new Skyzone goggles. They're cool!

Recommendations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056903)

The biggest complaint seems to be the camera. It would be nice to have a version that did NOT have a camera. I would prefer this as the world is not ready for ubiquitous spying yet (but the NSA is working on that).

Yes, I've tried these and even though I did get an invite, did not purchase a pair. It seems like they want to make it a monitor when it is really a heads-up display (HUD). It needs to be unobtrusive. And not even close to being worth $1500.

Plus (no pun intended) (1)

koan (80826) | about 5 months ago | (#47056995)

You confirm you're a douche when you're wearing them.

Reasosn for wearable computer (3, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 5 months ago | (#47057059)

1) Free up hands

2) Provide 3d visual effects by granting different views to different eyes. (not relevant to google glass - yet)

3) Discrete use of the device.

While the complaints mentioned are insightful, they do not bear on the benefits of wearable computers.

Wearable computing is coming. People don't want to use hands and we want to be able to check our messages, email, txts, discretely.

The only real thing holding us back is a good discrete input device. Possibly something blue toothed to the google glass, so we will be truly discrete instead of having to whisper commands to the google glass.

Reasosn for wearable computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47061859)

wearable computing is coming and its going to be so awesome. However google's version is such an abomination, it threatens to give the concept of a HUD a bad name. $1500 for a piece of crap you could of bought 5 years ago for $200. Any one that has bought one has been scammed with the old eric cartman owning a theme park tactic; make it seem exclusive and special, tell a bunch of people they cant have one yet, then watch as the geek sheep throw their money at you.

The discreet grammar nazi. (1)

westlake (615356) | about 5 months ago | (#47065199)

Wordnik's recent collection of commonly confused words reminded me that it's been a while since I wrote a post of this sort. Time for another.

Discreet and discrete are often mixed up. It's easily done: not only are they homophones with near-identical spelling, they're also doublets, meaning they diverged from the same original word. In modern English, their spellings and meanings are distinct.

Discreet is probably the more familiar word, and is usually used to refer to people, especially their speech, appearance, or behavior. It means unobtrusive, circumspect and prudent, careful not to attract attention or cause embarrassment, able to keep a secret. Discretion is the noun form.

Discrete generally means separate, non-continuous, individually distinct; it also has technical usages relating to possible parts or values. Discreteness is the related noun.

Keeping 'discreet' and 'discrete' discreetly discrete [wordpress.com]

In other news... (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 5 months ago | (#47057099)

I am returning my Apple Newton, as tablet computers with touch screens will never work.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057989)

I'm sorry you can't return this sir. We have a 90 day return policy and it says here you bought this from us 20 years ago.

Project Ginger (1)

Primate Pete (2773471) | about 5 months ago | (#47057201)

It seems like the main issue is that there is no good use case.

Google glass = Project Ginger.

There is little reason to get those (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057259)

"Of course, being able to do turn-by-turn directions is cool, but not something you can do without your smart phone's cellular data or a mobile hotspot."

And one is exactly that why to get them.

Smartphone or navigator can't do it what Google Glass does. And that is give navigation turn-by-turn guidance visually without requiring to take eye off the road or keeping both hands on the wheel and continue giving those when you leave the car/bicycle/motorcycle and move on.

Sorry but Google Glass, like any VR glass, potential is very limited but very useful, like exactly navigation, incoming call notification, time for bus/tram etc.

But for photos and video they are useless. Sure it sounds fancy you could take shots and record video. But they really are useless for it. Google should go and remove the camera from them. Just give the glass the eye piece and headphones with microphone for calls.

And if that "made me cross-sighted" is one of the stupidest reason I have read against it. When the Google Glass is set correctly, you need to look to infinity and you do it by just looking little up. Not to try to focus something close just centimeters away from your eye.

But this is what I want: http://i.imgur.com/9YONA3J.jpg

Because you are a cheap attention whore. /thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057655)

Because you are a cheap attention whore. /thread

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47058175)

" made him ... avoid eye contact."

I guess he sent back his MP3 player because it made him not hear his fellow people.

Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47058609)

High price, low resolution, short battery life, lack of augmented reality 3D girlfriend.

the jerk (1)

MossStan (2635555) | about 5 months ago | (#47059135)

that is exactly what happened to steve martin.

Only one valid reason. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47059325)

You're not a fucking dipshit.

Great (1)

cyberthanasis12 (926691) | about 5 months ago | (#47059825)

Now, may I have the returned glasses (for free)?

What I really want... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065827)

... is a Google Glass monocle. It would have a cord (replacing the traditional chain) that powers the device off of a battery back or something in my vest pocket.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?