or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › First look: Google Glass unboxing, setup, and first impressions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First look: Google Glass unboxing, setup, and first impressions - Page 2

post #41 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

First, I will do everything I can to make sure it's banned in any workplace in which I have any control. Second, I will enforce a single rule - if you want to interact with me, you have to take them off.

This all has nothing specific to do with Google Glass and much more to do with the fact that if we accept this, then it's only going to get worse.

What makes Glass any more invasive than the modern cell phone?

I can just as easily record video of someone discretely with my iPhone as someone wearing a head mounted camera. From the video that Google posted, Glass turns on a red LED light when it's recording. No cell phone does such a thing.

It's also extremely easy to record conversations without the other party being aware with an iPhone. Just start recording in the Voice Recorder app and set the phone down. Extremely discrete.

Honestly, I'm missing the paranoia surrounding Glass (and similar products). Is the general public just unaware how invasive cell phones can be?
post #42 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

it will not be successful, at least with the current price. This is just to be a talking point for shameless fandroids to boast, another "We first!" like Google 3D Map, like Microsoft tablets etc. But I think sooner or later this kind of devices will be a mainstream. 

It's interesting that in the end, will Apple do this?

 

I think Apple has shown that it has a pretty good track record of figuring out what will become mainstream. The answer to your question is probably guided by that insight. If Apple agreed with your opinion that this will become mainstream, then yes. If Apple thinks something else will become the mainstream wearable technology, then no.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #43 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

If Google doesn't allow its own product at meetings then why should anyone else?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-bans-glass-at-shareholder-meeting-8650084.html

They banned ALL recording devices at the meeting not just Glass. The headline only mentioning Google's latest product is just cheap link bait.
post #44 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


What makes Glass any more invasive than the modern cell phone?

I can just as easily record video of someone discretely with my iPhone as someone wearing a head mounted camera. From the video that Google posted, Glass turns on a red LED light when it's recording. No cell phone does such a thing.

It's also extremely easy to record conversations without the other party being aware with an iPhone. Just start recording in the Voice Recorder app and set the phone down. Extremely discrete.

Honestly, I'm missing the paranoia surrounding Glass (and similar products). Is the general public just unaware how invasive cell phones can be?

This is straw-ctuching. How can you easily record me taking the piss in the toilet with your phone? The moment you take out your phone is when you'll be met with my fist. 

And to have to notice that little red light all the time? You may not have better things in life to do but I do. That's why the Glass will be banned on my office also.


Edited by matrix07 - 7/6/13 at 10:21pm
post #45 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

It didn't take me long to see the potential problems.  I couldn't stop laughing uncontrollably, and to me that's a RED FLAG of a dumb idea.  Every time I had that initial reaction,the product was a dud. The other aspect was that i wear prescription glasses and having read about one of the early Glass developers that wears prescription glasses and he was unable to wear them for long periods of time just reinforces to me that it's not that great of a product coupled together with a eye doctor's comments on how they might create some potentially serious eye problems from long term use.  Not to mention them already being banned from certain places of business before they are actually sold on the market, and I don't like being always connected.  I don't use my cell phone like some overly excited teenager that can't seem to get off Twitter or Facebook on their smartphone.   Sometimes, I actually will purposely go out of the house without my smartphone just to get away from technology for a few hours as I don't want it running my life to wear I need in in my eyes everywhere I go.

 

I think it's one of those products that gets a certain amount of initial hype but over time, it will go by the wayside as nothing that relevant to the majority of people. I still don't have any friends that are eager to buy one, even those that use Android products.

 

Maybe the actual people that will buy them are mostly the same people that register with XDA and flash their ROMs.   Just a hunch.

 

None of that has anything to do with what I said, which was that this is a demonstration of creativity.  Of course I said it with a sarcastic tone, so maybe you didn't understand me.

 

That aside, it's clear that you have no vision (predictive sense, not sensory sense).  This is the first product of its type to ever be commercialized and you've already written off the entire idea.  Google Glass relative to what will come is like a horse-drawn cart compared to fuel-cell vehicles.  Technology like this will evolve to do things we haven't yet imagined.  It will change in form to be comfortable and stylish.  As for the acceptability of its use in public, a combination of two things will happen.  First, we will develop better ways to store them so that, like your cell phone, you can "pocket" it when its use in inappropriate.  Second, social norms will change so that wearing a computer on your head will become regular and expected.

 

For the first few years, this will be a niche product, but other companies will try their hand at computerized glasses and before long a market will develop.  I'd say that in 15 to 20 years, products like this will be commonplace.

post #46 of 100
I feel google glass is more of a 'wannabe product of the future' than an actual useable product used by the public. It seems like something that's cool in a scifi movie, but in real life, it isn't really benefiting anything. Google is looking into the future to see what they thought was next, and it won't work, either because it's not practical and comes with too many downsides (what general public will all of a sudden start buying clunky-ass ugly glasses that you talk to to send a text instead of using their current day phone), or maybe it's just too soon for the tech.

The mobile phone market is not finished, the next revolution that replaces it will still be years away. Something like an iwatch could succeed because it's not trying to replace a phone, it's trying to enhance the experience and work with it. And it is not as 'in your face' as glasses for wearable computing.

I could talk about this for hours. But long story short.. It's too soon.. It's too big a change.. Perhaps even a step in the wrong direction.

Although interesting, it will fail. I have my hopes on an iwatch, it has true potential.
post #47 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post


If Google doesn't allow its own product at meetings then why should anyone else?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-bans-glass-at-shareholder-meeting-8650084.html

Classic.  Google bans Google Glass.  Imagine that....... Priceless.

post #48 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by potatoman View Post

I feel google glass is more of a 'wannabe product of the future' than an actual useable product used by the public. It seems like something that's cool in a scifi movie, but in real life, it isn't really benefiting anything. Google is looking into the future to see what they thought was next, and it won't work, either because it's not practical and comes with too many downsides (what general public will all of a sudden start buying clunky-ass ugly glasses that you talk to to send a text instead of using their current day phone), or maybe it's just too soon for the tech.

The mobile phone market is not finished, the next revolution that replaces it will still be years away. Something like an iwatch could succeed because it's not trying to replace a phone, it's trying to enhance the experience and work with it. And it is not as 'in your face' as glasses for wearable computing.

I could talk about this for hours. But long story short.. It's too soon.. It's too big a change.. Perhaps even a step in the wrong direction.

Although interesting, it will fail. I have my hopes on an iwatch, it has true potential.

Google's looking into the future?  These types of devices have been done before.  There was another company that worked on the same thing only it used two video displays instead of one, the other features it had I don't know since it was just some R&D project someone worked on and it was done years ago.  They are just trying to figure out how to make money and get attention at the same time.  They are getting a lot of mileage in the media. I'll give them that.  Controversy does help promote a company.

 

Google Glass isn't trying to replace a phone either. Think of it as a BlueTooth earpiece and video screen you wear.

 

Yeah, there are a lot of cool demo things coming out, but putting out something that's practical, usable and actually something that makes things easier is what may become successful.  As much as I like smartphones, I need to take a break from them from time to time to be able to relate to people on a one on one basis with no distractions.  Something as simple as that can be more enjoyable.

post #49 of 100
Question1: does anyone else think this idea is just 'creepy', like being plugged into the Matrix?

Question2: how many people have lost or broken a pair of glasses?

Question3: I wonder how long it will be before someone starts getting vision problems from one of these?
post #50 of 100

What's that laughter I hear rolling across the Pacific? A tsunami? Oh no, it is just Steve Jobs laughing hysterically from his grave at the dumb idiots at Google who thought this was a good product idea. Steve would have blown his top right off if someone at Apple has proposed a product with so many serious usability flaws. Well done Google!

post #51 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Windle View Post

Question1: does anyone else think this idea is just 'creepy', like being plugged into the Matrix?

Question2: how many people have lost or broken a pair of glasses?

Question3: I wonder how long it will be before someone starts getting vision problems from one of these?

1. It's creepy but it's also hi-tech (Star Trek). Personally I think it's creepy because it's from Google. If it's from Apple who take privacy seriously then I'd be much more comfortable.
2. I yet to lose my glasses. I don't wear it all the time though.
3. Not very long indeed. This is a good point.
Edited by matrix07 - 7/7/13 at 5:14am
post #52 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

This is straw-ctuching. How can you easily record me taking the piss in the toilet with your phone? The moment you take out your phone is when you'll be met with my fist. 
And to have to notice that little red light all the time? You may not have better things in life to do but I do. That's why the Glass will be banned on my office also.

What exactly is straw clutching about my argument? If a perv wants to take video of you using the toilet, all they have to do is hit record on the phone before entering the bathroom and just be holding it. It doesn't take much skill and is a hell of a lot more discrete than someone having to stare at you the whole time. And since the phone would end up at waist height, it's better aligned for the "money shot." Or do you punch everyone who walks into the bathroom clutching a cell phone because if so I'm guessing you spend a good deal of time in jail?

And again, better to have a light you can notice versus a cell phone with no indicator. As much as people here want to say it's not about Google, the dismissive comments about cell phone intrusiveness paint a totally different picture
post #53 of 100
Some company will take what Google has achieved with glass and they will make it better and cheaper. It will become more useful and practical. But currently it just sent quite ready for prime time, that's all. But currently, you all sound like a bunch of grumpy old men, crying about "privacy", "I'm sick of Google stories on a Apple site" etc...
post #54 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

What exactly is straw clutching about my argument? If a perv wants to take video of you using the toilet, all they have to do is hit record on the phone before entering the bathroom and just be holding it. It doesn't take much skill and is a hell of a lot more discrete than someone having to stare at you the whole time. And since the phone would end up at waist height, it's better aligned for the "money shot." Or do you punch everyone who walks into the bathroom clutching a cell phone because if so I'm guessing you spend a good deal of time in jail?

And again, better to have a light you can notice versus a cell phone with no indicator. As much as people here want to say it's not about Google, the dismissive comments about cell phone intrusiveness paint a totally different picture

Hit record on the phone and then what? Tilt it at my dick? Oh, and for a record if someone holding a phone talking while I'm pissing then he/she will be met with my fist too but at least I'll see the phone clearly and can act accordingly.

Yeah, those little red light is really helpful.. You can see it from what? A foot maybe?

Straw-clutching man, if you think these two devices are the same. The world with this device is a heaven for peeping toms. I don't want to argue with someone who's not logical so good luck with your Glass but don't come near me. I might punch that Glass right into your eyes, seriously.
Edited by matrix07 - 7/7/13 at 7:01am
post #55 of 100
You might want to try talking to people before putting your fist in their face. Just a hint for day-to-day life.
Edited by Crowley - 7/7/13 at 7:40am

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #56 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

How might want to try talking to people before putting your fist in their face. Just a hint for day-to-day life.

Sure. I'm all for talk first but someone with Glass might give me the wrong impression frankly.

post #57 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Sure. I'm all for talk first but someone with Glass might give me the wrong impression frankly.

And, well now they have evidence of you punching them in the face too.
post #58 of 100
Well this google thing sounds like it is not really working out, so far.
post #59 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post


And, well now they have evidence of you punching them in the face too.
 

 

Yes, and all this is the problem waiting to happen. Someone might looks at you repeatedly because they thought they recognize you. This kind of situation will be completely different if that person has a Glass.

And I can bet a dollar one of the most popular app on Glass store will be infrared or X-ray type.


Edited by matrix07 - 7/7/13 at 7:25am
post #60 of 100

This is where Apple triumphs over other tech companies...

 

Google Glass is a great concept, but it is obvious that this is a product that is not "fully cooked" --yet. I believe Google is rushing to get this out just for the sake of being the first. For the sake of being able to say: "hey! me too, me too! we innovate too!" Once again, this is where Apple triumphs over other tech companies. It is not just about the product and its features, but about the product and how its features are implemented. It's not just what it does, but how it does it. And that's what Apple is all about: implementation. Google Glass is not well balanced (I'm yet to see someone wear it without the frame leaning to one side because of its asymmetrical shape and uneven weight), it has no ease of use, it has limited and not well implemented features, and it's expensive. This is the formula for failure.

 

Do you guys remember the Tablet PCs? I mean, the "original" Tablet PCs. Again, a good concept... bad implementation. Total failure. It wasn't until Apple released the iPad that we learned what a "true" tablet PC was meant to be. It was not a just about the product and its features (the concept), but about the product and the implementation of its features.

 

I'm sad to say that despite Google Glass being a great concept, we may well be witnessing "Tablet PC" all over again...

 

...but then again, this is just my opinion, I may be completely wrong.

post #61 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Yes, and all this is the problem waiting to happen. Someone might looks at you repeatedly because they thought they recognize you. This kind of situation will be completely different if that person has a Glass.
And I can bet a dollar one of the most popular app on Glass store will be infrared or X-ray type.

And how pray tell do you honestly believe a "infrared or X-ray type" app will actually work with a camera?
post #62 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post


And how pray tell do you honestly believe a "infrared or X-ray type" app will actually work with a camera?

It will not be true infrared or X-ray but software-created from light. A freud app. The point is the app for creepy person, whom most likely buy Glass, will be the one that is a big hit.

post #63 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

It will not be true infrared or X-ray but software-created from light. A freud app. The point is the app for creepy person, whom most likely buy Glass, will be the one that is a big hit.

I don't doubt that such apps will be made but they will simply be "novelty apps" that won't really do anything. Such apps already exist and they are purchased by the same guy who buys the latest fart app.
post #64 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post


I don't doubt that such apps will be made but they will simply be "novelty apps" that won't really do anything. Such apps already exist and they are purchased by the same guy who buys the latest fart app.

Yes, but it will be the whole different world when you saw it with your own eyes, real time. Especially if they can fool you to think you can somewhat see through the dress.

post #65 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Yes, but it will be the whole different world when you saw it with your own eyes, real time. Especially if they can fool you to think you can somewhat see through the dress.

So, Google Glass is going to shrink this down?
http://www.rnw.nl/data/files/images/lead/030110%20bodyscanner%20ANP-11686439_1_0.jpg
post #66 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post

So, Google Glass is going to shrink this down?
http://www.rnw.nl/data/files/images/lead/030110%20bodyscanner%20ANP-11686439_1_0.jpg

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

It will not be true infrared or X-ray but software-created from light. A freud app. 

 

 

 

I don't think you understand that quote. The point is it's already on your eyes. You see through it all the time. This kind of app will be fun (for a creepy person who want the Glass.). You seem to think if it's not professional-quality it's garbage but I disagree. We shall see.


Edited by matrix07 - 7/7/13 at 8:42am
post #67 of 100
For some reason, the media love to overhype this silly project like they did with the Segway (which was going to change the world). Not sure why the public would ever be interested in Google Glass.

We all love to be connected, but the glasses take it to the realm of stupidity. And, people wearing them look so geeky. I would be embarrassed to hang with anyone wearing one.
post #68 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I'm so tired of these kind of comments.  

Yes, it's "AppleInsider" but to have the occasional article on the competition is perfectly reasonable, logical, and acceptable.  

Acceptable is a bit of an opinion and clearly there are those that disagree. Frankly I do myself as front page news. Backpage why not. Particularly articles that have zero to do with Apple other than being competition (this at least is supposed to work with apple devices if anyone wants to do the coding etc)

Or perhaps it's time for the folks behind the site to revamp the meta systems and let us put in excludes for article keywords, authors etc. just not see them at all.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #69 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post


I don't think you understand that quote. The point is it's already on your eyes. You see through it all the time. This kind of app will be fun (for a creepy person who want the Glass.). You seem to think if it's not professional-quality it's garbage but I disagree. We shall see.

I understand your quote. I don't think you understand the reality of the technology. Glass lacks any form of infrared or other optical sensor. Any app would simply be a novelty app and they already exist for any phone with a camera. Even if it did have an infrared sensor for use with the camera, it would be so low powered it would only be useful for about three feet.

I really just don't think someone is gonna drop $1000 dollars for the purpose of using a novelty app.

The truth is, app or no app, the person can see nothing more than they already could with just their naked eyes.

I really think people are overreacting to the camera aspect. Who wants to waste storage or a data hit by recording every moment? Always on does not equate to always recording.
post #70 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Windle View Post

Question1: does anyone else think this idea is just 'creepy', like being plugged into the Matrix?

Question2: how many people have lost or broken a pair of glasses?

Question3: I wonder how long it will be before someone starts getting vision problems from one of these?

Vision problems?  Well, there was one developer that got these during that first release and he mentioned PUBLICLY that he wears prescription glasses and that he got eye strain after a short period of time and he couldn't wear them for long periods.

What does eye strain mean?  It's affecting your vision and eventually, you WILL need prescription glasses.  The big problem I see about these is that ONE eye is directed at a VERY short distance to view the video and the other eye is looking at a long distance away.  THAT is a VERY scary proposition.  Most devices that you use like night vision goggles, etc. have TWO things your eyes look through, or in the case of a telescope or a single lens microscope, you usually CLOSE the eye that's not looking through the lens and you are only looking through these things for a short durations of time.  I saw that potential problem immediately, but eyes don't change and develop problems overnight.  Some eye problems may take a year to see something noticeable when you go to the doctor for an eye exam.  Does everyone have an eye exam once a year like we're supposed to?  I doubt it. some do, most don't.  

 

They obviously haven't released these things to a medical group to do long term studies.  They probably SHOULD have discussed these things PRIOR to making ANY public announcements until they got a TEAM of leading ophthalmologists to explain the potential problems.   Google did say these "can cause eye strain" which is trying to minimize any outburst, but obviously they didn't go into detail as to what that can lead to.  Staring at a computer screen for hours a day leads to eye strain, so eventually you'll need glasses, but it affects both eyes, this is affecting one eye differently than the other.  I don't know about anyone else, but to me, that's not good.  One doctor wrote an article i read and he discussed not only might need glasses due to these things at some point in time, but they were leary about these things causing what's called lazy eye which is when one eye moves almost independently than the other.  that to me is a VERY serious eye condition, most other devices are NOT going to do that.  I wish I could post the article i read, but I can't. 


I think the media needs to discuss these things with a variety of eye doctors and get some expert opinions and mention this to people what the potential problems are.  I always look at who in the company is wearing these things daily.  Sergy is, but Larry Page and Eric Schmidt are NOT wearing these things.   Why is that?  Afraid to eat their own dog food?  That is a CLEAR signal that THEY, the CEO and Chairman of the Board don't wear something.   It's almost like the CEO of Ferrari talking about how great their cars are, yet they drive a Lambo or another competing brand.  I would EXPECT to see the CEO of Ferrari driving around in their own car unless it's a limo which Ferrari doesn't make and compete with. But heck, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt should ABSOLUTELY be asked publicly WHY they don't wear Google Glasses to give their input on such a hyped product. If I were in the media that's the first question I would be asking and they were cagey about the response, then I wouldn't give any additional attention.  But we live in a world where the media likes hyping things, even if it turns out badly, in the mean time, it's getting readership attention.  I just think the thing is a joke, it's getting banned already, even at Google's own shareholder's meeting.  Ooops.

post #71 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportyguy209 View Post

For some reason, the media love to overhype this silly project like they did with the Segway (which was going to change the world). Not sure why the public would ever be interested in Google Glass.

We all love to be connected, but the glasses take it to the realm of stupidity. And, people wearing them look so geeky. I would be embarrassed to hang with anyone wearing one.

That's my sediment and everyone I've talked to that use both iPhones and Android phones.  Most of them didn't even know what I was talking about because they don't follow the media, maybe their ignorance is bliss.  In a lot of ways, it actually good to be ignorant about certain things.  I'm completely ignorant about certain technologies that I have NO interest in.  Symbian phones? I'm TOTALLY ignorant about those other than I know they exist, because I don't want useless information in my head, I've got more important things to think about. I also many times don't even want to know as much as i do about Android phones.  I have no desire to buy one.  Yeah, they might have a cool feature here and there, but I'm not planning on buying one, so why know too much about them?   Same goes with Windows phones, I know that some might have a decent feature, but unless it's my job to sell them or be involved with those products, knowing too much about them is a waste of time.  I only keep track of certain things about the platform because I like analyzing companies and stocks for investment purposes, so I'm aware of the products on a certain level to know if a particular company might be a good investment or not and how it effects other platforms. So I'm not totally ignorant about them.

post #72 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

 I just think the thing is a joke, it's getting banned already, even at Google's own shareholder's meeting.  Ooops.

Good points overall, but how many people do you think are allowed to take their smart phones into shareholder meetings?

In fact, how many companies have little baskets to put your phone in at a security checkpoint to stay in until you leave?

Cameras and recording equipment are the items that are banned.
post #73 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post


Good points overall, but how many people do you think are allowed to take their smart phones into shareholder meetings?

In fact, how many companies have little baskets to put your phone in at a security checkpoint to stay in until you leave?

Cameras and recording equipment are the items that are banned.

I haven't been to a shareholder's meeting since the advent of the smartphone, but don't they just tell people to put it on vibrate or turn them off?  Google Glass aren't smartphones, they are Bluetooth earpiece/video camera/display devices.  But they didn't want people wearing them from what I was told.   I would think they would want EVERYONE in the audience to be wearing those things.  I don't know how wearing them would pose a threat.  A sharesholder's meeting is a public event for shareholders, it's not some private meeting where everyone has to sign a NDA before they walk in the door.

post #74 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Vision problems?  Well, there was one developer that got these during that first release and he mentioned PUBLICLY that he wears prescription glasses and that he got eye strain after a short period of time and he couldn't wear them for long periods.

 

He likely got extra eye strain because he wears glasses that are focused further away.

 

Quote:
What does eye strain mean?  It's affecting your vision and eventually, you WILL need prescription glasses.

 

Eye strain doesn't work that way. 

 

NBC interviewed Dr. James Salz, a clinical spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, about Google Glasses:

 

Quote:

Salz compares what you could potentially experience while using Glass to reading a small-print book for hours.

 

"Other than feeling a bit uncomfortable or getting a headache from this ... there's no evidence that this would do permanent damage to your eye."

 

"That feeling of eye strain is not going to translate to eye damage," he reiterates.

 

 


Edited by KDarling - 7/7/13 at 11:39am
post #75 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I haven't been to a shareholder's meeting since the advent of the smartphone, but don't they just tell people to put it on vibrate or turn them off?  Google Glass aren't smartphones, they are Bluetooth earpiece/video camera/display devices.  But they didn't want people wearing them from what I was told.   I would think they would want EVERYONE in the audience to be wearing those things.  I don't know how wearing them would pose a threat.  A sharesholder's meeting is a public event for shareholders, it's not some private meeting where everyone has to sign a NDA before they walk in the door.

It is the recording element that is banned. If all you have to do is turn your phone off then all you have to do is take your Google Glass off. It isn't a big friggin deal. But in either event, if you pulled out your phone and started to record then it too would be "banned".
post #76 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270 View Post

It is the recording element that is banned. If all you have to do is turn your phone off then all you have to do is take your Google Glass off. It isn't a big friggin deal. But in either event, if you pulled out your phone and started to record then it too would be "banned".

 

Exactly.   Many companies forbid recording devices during stockholder meetings.  

 

Even if they make such devices.

 

Including Apple.

post #77 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Hit record on the phone and then what? Tilt it at my dick? Oh, and for a record if someone holding a phone talking while I'm pissing then he/she will be met with my fist too but at least I'll see the phone clearly and can act accordingly.

Yeah, those little red light is really helpful.. You can see it from what? A foot maybe?

Straw-clutching man, if you think these two devices are the same. The world with this device is a heaven for peeping toms. I don't want to argue with someone who's not logical so good luck with your Glass but don't come near me. I might punch that Glass right into your eyes, seriously.

Let's see if I can make this easy enough for you to grasp. A perv sees you head to the bathroom and decides he wants some video. He pulls out his iPhone and goes to the Camera app. He sets it to video, hits the record button and lowers his hand down to his waist. He walks in sees you at the urinal and casually strolls up. The camera is still recording all this time. He stands next to you, shoves the phone in his front pocket, not far enough down to obscur the camera. He does his business, washes up and leaves to his enjoy his voyeur video.

In your scenario, he walks up beside you and stands there staring directly at your penis with his Google Glass, red light glowing the whole time.

Which of those scenarios sounds more discrete to you?

You have one device you can discretely aim at a wide range of targets versus a device that requires you directly stare at your target. Is that simple enough and logical enough for you?
post #78 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Let's see if I can make this easy enough for you to grasp. A perv sees you head to the bathroom and decides he wants some video. He pulls out his iPhone and goes to the Camera app. He sets it to video, hits the record button and lowers his hand down to his waist. He walks in sees you at the urinal and casually strolls up. The camera is still recording all this time. He stands next to you, shoves the phone in his front pocket, not far enough down to obscur the camera. He does his business, washes up and leaves to his enjoy his voyeur video.

In your scenario, he walks up beside you and stands there staring directly at your penis with his Google Glass, red light glowing the whole time.

Which of those scenarios sounds more discrete to you?

You have one device you can discretely aim at a wide range of targets versus a device that requires you directly stare at your target. Is that simple enough and logical enough for you?

Cameras don't record men urinating, pervs with cameras record men urinating. Pervs will always find a camera, you're just keeping non pervs from having Google Glass.
post #79 of 100

Straight from the National Camera Association handbook 1smile.gif

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #80 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Google and Apple have very different incubation philosophies. Apple tends to design and perfect, and it's all done behind closed door until it's ready.

 

Sure, like smartphone with no copy/paste, non-working antenna or messed up maps...

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › First look: Google Glass unboxing, setup, and first impressions