or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google focuses on fashion with new Glass frames from designer Diane von Furstenberg
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google focuses on fashion with new Glass frames from designer Diane von Furstenberg - Page 3

post #81 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
 

 

Ok- last response because you are clearly insane.  An idea to be picked up again?  So Google glass was the first to have the idea of a wearable device?  Are you high?  The idea has been around for decades- they just tried to act on someone else's idea- and failed miserably at it.

 

Literally- they took an idea out of star trek, made it, and no one bought it.  Now they're making $1800 shades?  Its a freakin' joke!

 

Actually, you are the one being extreme and 'insane' here.  Glass is already seeing use in certain verticals, and it is the only implementation of a hands free augmented reality device to be even a little practical or functional.  And as a matter of fact, Glass works astoundingly well all things considered.  So to roundly dismiss it as a failure because you don't see half the crowd on the street wearing them is, really, just very ignorant.  In fact, it verges on being willfully stupid.

post #82 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post




Last response? Really? Then thanks as it's clear to me you have more interest in slinging ad-homs and insults than conducting a measured and intelligent discussion with me. 1rolleyes.gif

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssldTFWBv3E

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbQY1ay8Sew&index=16&list=PL3wyyKx8dUMY1G5kBC7C4k_JVjrjBsB2d

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h-JTdAQnz4&list=PL3wyyKx8dUMY1G5kBC7C4k_JVjrjBsB2d&index=12

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g4wNHIlaTY&list=PL3wyyKx8dUMY1G5kBC7C4k_JVjrjBsB2d&index=17

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKjXs2Varog&index=20&list=PL3wyyKx8dUMY1G5kBC7C4k_JVjrjBsB2d

 

If you think this is a 'failure' because it isn't something hundreds of thousands of goofballs are wearing around starbucks and playing candy crush with, it only shows how much you don't get it.

post #83 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post
 

If anything, comparing Glass to iPhone and then declaring it crap by comparison is the real idiocy. 

Yet you compared the Glass to the iPhone release as it relates to naysayers.  Please formulate a list for us, so we know when it is appropriate to compare the Glass to the iPhone and when it is not.

 

Quote:
 If you can't see the potential in devices like Google Glass because you've perma-grafted an Apple logo to your optic nerve, I can't help you.  Your insistence on mocking without actually making an argument only showcases a severely myopic ignorance, not an actual failure of the technology you are mocking.

I see the potential.  In fact, I think the premise once it comes to fruition is revolutionary- it might be strictly used when driving 20 years from now, or for work, who knows.  It clearly isn't Google's original idea (or Apple's for that matter), but an idea that has been around for decades. I also don't think Google is exclusive in their creation of wearables.  It would be naive to think that Microsoft, Apple- likely all major electronics manufacturers as well as boutique ones- even Samsung don't have substantial R&D committed to wearables.  The difference is that Google just throws their crap hardware out there and then abandons support of it entirely.  Google TV, Nexus Q- need I say more?

 

My criticism isn't in the idea of a wearable on your eyes.  Are we ready for it now?  Clearly not.  Will it be accepted and useful in the future?  Most likely.

Maybe I'm the crazy one because I've used Apple products so long- so in my eyes, a product that has been released for consumer purchase for over 2 years still being called a "beta" is laughable.

 

But all of that doesn't change my (or the consumer's) initial opinion of the Google Glass- that it's rubbish.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #84 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

People laugh at Google for projects like Glass and for self-driving cars because they can't see forward to a time when these technologies will be practical.

People laugh because it isn't practical. People want practical but instead of being smart and working on a project until the technology is available or, ya know, actually inventing the technology instead of trying to be "FIRST!" they release something that fails so miserably that's funny to watch.
Quote:
But they cannot do that, fundamentally, because they can't understand the exponential speed with which our technological prowess doubles.

Then Google should be able to produce something great in no time and yet here we are two years later and the best they could do is pay talking beef jerky to glue it to a ugly pair of frames. Progress¡
Quote:
Just think: In 2006, there was only a very small group of people that thought something like iPhone could exist, and the rest of the world thought they were crazy.  And there were plenty of mockers, even after the product was announced.

Back in 2006 Apple kept their mouth shut but they know what they had ready for WWDC in January 2007. That's all the difference in the world as opposed to these constant comments about how Google will soon keep Android from being laggy on anything but the excessively powered HW and will sooon keep Android from fragmenting and soooon overtake Facebook with Google+ and will sooooon make Google Glass modern and useful. Who runs Google's PR team? Godot?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #85 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
 

Yet you compared the Glass to the iPhone release as it relates to naysayers.  Please formulate a list for us, so we know when it is appropriate to compare the Glass to the iPhone and when it is not.

 

I see the potential.  In fact, I think the premise once it comes to fruition is revolutionary- it might be strictly used when driving 20 years from now, or for work, who knows.  It clearly isn't Google's original idea (or Apple's for that matter), but an idea that has been around for decades. I also don't think Google is exclusive in their creation of wearables.  It would be naive to think that Microsoft, Apple- likely all major electronics manufacturers as well as boutique ones- even Samsung don't have substantial R&D committed to wearables.  The difference is that Google just throws their crap hardware out there and then abandons support of it entirely.  Google TV, Nexus Q- need I say more?

 

My criticism isn't in the idea of a wearable on your eyes.  Are we ready for it now?  Clearly not.  Will it be accepted and useful in the future?  Most likely.

Maybe I'm the crazy one because I've used Apple products so long- so in my eyes, a product that has been released for consumer purchase for over 2 years still being called a "beta" is laughable.

 

But all of that doesn't change my (or the consumer's) initial opinion of the Google Glass- that it's rubbish.

 

First, Glass was previously NOT available for general purchase on a consumer level - that change happened only about two months ago.  Prior to that you had to join the glass explorers program and be accepted, which meant Google had to individually examine and approve your idea.  So a large part of your argument is inaccurate because it hinges on treating Glass as a consumer grade product, which it is not.

 

Second, you seem confused about what constitutes success in even a consumer grade product.  What is that metric?  If 2% of a market buys or wants a product, is it unsuccessful?  By that token, Apple computers would have been seen as 'unsuccessful' by your own analyses for a significant portion of Apple history.

 

You cannot insist that Glass is 'crap' or that it is 'rubbish' because Google can't move 20 million of them a quarter.  Making that sort of analysis is predicated upon all sorts of terrifically flawed assumptions, the biggest one being that the product is even intended to be a mass consumer device.


Edited by tt92618 - 6/23/14 at 2:08pm
post #86 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What's your reaction when you see the back of a cellphone pointed in your direction? Do you assume they're taking a picture or video of you? They might be. Or maybe they're just checking their mail or playing a game. But why take any chance, "punch them right in their face" just to be sure. 1wink.gif

Oh come of it. Stop repeating this canard over and over. This is such a lame argument. You can tell if someone is aiming a cellphone camera at you. You''re an idiot if you can't. It's not just seeing the back of a cellphone, but the actions of the person holding the cellphone that's a give away.
post #87 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


People laugh because it isn't practical. People want practical but instead of being smart and working on a project until the technology is available or, ya know, actually inventing the technology instead of trying to be "FIRST!" they release something that fails so miserably that's funny to watch.
Then Google should be able to produce something great in no time and yet here we are two years later and the best they could do is pay talking beef jerky to glue it to a ugly pair of frames. Progress¡
Back in 2006 Apple kept their mouth shut but they know what they had ready for WWDC in January 2007. That's all the difference in the world as opposed to these constant comments about how Google will soon keep Android from being laggy on anything but the excessively powered HW and will sooon keep Android from fragmenting and soooon overtake Facebook with Google+ and will sooooon make Google Glass modern and useful. Who runs Google's PR team? Godot?

 

I think your fundamental assertions are flawed because they rest on an assumption that a product like Glass is a failure if it doesn't have 'mass market appeal'.  And secondarily, because your argument rests on the assumption that with Glass Google is even attempting to build a mass market device.  And I think both assertions are fundamentally wrong, and that in turn invalidates your entire argument.

post #88 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Oh come of it. Stop repeating this canard over and over. This is such a lame argument. You can tell if someone is aiming a cellphone camera at you. You''re an idiot if you can't. It's not just seeing the back of a cellphone, but the actions of the person holding the cellphone that's a give away.

Sometimes it's obvious but I often see people holding their phones up to read or watch a video and their camera is pointing at me (or someone/thing else). I am not paranoid so I don't assume they recording but clandestine-like but they could be.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #89 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

I think your fundamental assertions are flawed because they rest on an assumption that a product like Glass is a failure if it doesn't have 'mass market appeal'.  And secondarily, because your argument rests on the assumption that with Glass Google is even attempting to build a mass market device.  And I think both assertions are fundamentally wrong, and that in turn invalidates your entire argument.

Yes, it's a failure because it doesn't have mass market appeal because the technology is not there to make it appeal to the mass market which is why it's woefully overpriced whilst doing very little in an exceptional poor manner for an unreasonably short duration while being grotesquely large and cumbersome. They fucked up!

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #90 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Yes, it's a failure because it doesn't have mass market appeal because the technology is not there to make it appeal to the mass market which is why it's woefully overpriced whilst doing very little in an exceptional poor manner for an unreasonably short duration while being grotesquely large and cumbersome. They fucked up!

 

I disagree with you.  That's all I can say.  I think your analysis is terribly short sighted and predicated upon a number of false assumptions.  You could compare iPhone iteration 1 with today's and come to the same conclusions.  But having done that would not have made you right.

 

Glass represents a first saleable implementation of something much larger, and it doesn't need to sell 20 million units to be a success; it needs to succeed at accomplishing the goals its creators had for it.  Are you really confident you know what those goals are?

post #91 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
 

and no one bought it

 

What the hell are you talking about?

post #92 of 159
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

What the hell are you talking about?

 

From a cursory examination of his statement, I’d imagine that he is implying the sales of the Google Glass are lower than would be expected by anyone.

 

Not Dr. Seussian Kin 1 and Kin 2 levels of failure, but close.

post #93 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Oh come of it. Stop repeating this canard over and over. This is such a lame argument. You can tell if someone is aiming a cellphone camera at you. You''re an idiot if you can't. It's not just seeing the back of a cellphone, but the actions of the person holding the cellphone that's a give away.

Amazing that so many miss the clues then only to find themselves in a surprise video or picture on Facebook or Youtube, or their wife's/Mother's/girlfriends up-skirt shot in a sexual deviants picture collection. Why do you suppose it's common for cellphones to be banned from gyms, locker rooms and even some bars if it's so obvious when pictures/videos are being taken or conversations recorded?

Here's a little test. Go to Bing Video. Few companies hate Google more than Microsoft. Search "secretly recorded cellphone video". I found lots of examples to choose from so take a few hours and enjoy them for yourself. Some of the targets were probably more than a little surprised to discover their actions recorded for the masses. Then change it to "secretly recorded Google Glass video" . How many secretly recorded videos from that device do you find? If Microsoft has cataloged from somewhere you can bet they'd make sure you found 'em.
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/23/14 at 2:30pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #94 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Sometimes it's obvious but I often see people holding their phones up to read or watch a video and their camera is pointing at me (or someone/thing else). I am not paranoid so I don't assume they recording but clandestine-like but they could be.

So you get up and go to the bathroom and if creepy cellphone holding guy follows you around, then you know.

And you don't usually enter a room and see seven people holding up a cellphone as if they just might be recording you. if Google's glass dreams came true, you could very well enter a room and see lots of glassholes gazing at you. What do you do then? Leave? Ask each and every glasshole to look away? Show them your best angle?
post #95 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

I disagree with you.  That's all I can say.  I think your analysis is terribly short sided and predicated upon a number of false assumptions.  You could compare iPhone iteration 1 with today's and come to the same conclusions.  But having done that would not have made you right.

Glass represents a first saleable implementation of something much larger, and it doesn't need to sell 20 million units to be a success; it needs to succeed at accomplishing the goals its creators had for it.  Are you really confident you know what those goals are?

You wanted to compare this to the iPhone so lets do it. The iPhone hit the market in June 2007. In October 2009 it was in its 3rd iteration which vastly improved HW and new design over the original model. In the same 2.25 years how has the Google Glass HW evolved and improved in terms of looks and capabilities? I see nothing to show that even the CPU was updated from that fateful developer release over 2 years ago. On top of that, the iPhone from past years was now significantly reduced in price whereas Google Glass is still holding the same price for a device launched over 27 months ago.

Jump ahead another 12 months and you have the iPhone 4 that was significantly thinner, with even more battery life, greater performance, and sporting a Retina Display. In 12 months will there be a new Google Glass on the market? That's the difference.

Google fucked up!
Edited by SolipsismX - 6/23/14 at 3:10pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #96 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Google fucked up!

Yes they did.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #97 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

So you get up and go to the bathroom and if creepy cellphone holding guy follows you around, then you know.

And you don't usually enter a room and see seven people holding up a cellphone as if they just might be recording you. if Google's glass dreams came true, you could very well enter a room and see lots of glassholes gazing at you. What do you do then? Leave? Ask each and every glasshole to look away? Show them your best angle?

I don't think GG is saying that cellphone cameras are as invasive or have the same effect as Google Glass but you could be recorded and not realize it. There are plenty of YouTube videos of people being recorded with phones that don't realize it.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #98 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I don't think GG is saying that cellphone cameras are as invasive or have the same effect as Google Glass but you could be recorded and not realize it. There are plenty of YouTube videos of people being recorded with phones that don't realize it.


You're correct.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #99 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You wanted to compare this to the iPhone so lets do it. The iPhone hit the market in June 2007. In October 2009 it was in its 3rd iteration which vastly improved HW and new design over the original model. In the same 2.25 years how has the Google Glass HW evolved and improved in terms of looks and capabilities? I see nothing to show that even the CPU was updated from that fateful developer release over 2 years ago. On top of that, the iPhone from past years was now significantly reduced in price whereas Google Glass is still holding the same price for a device launched over two ago.

Jump ahead another 12 months and you have the iPhone 4 that was significantly thinner, with even more battery life, greater performance, and sporting a Retina Display. In 12 months will there be a new Google Glass on the market? That's the difference.

Google fucked up!

 

Saying over and over that Google F'd up doesn't mean it is true.  Your assumptions and biases are at fault, because you insist that the product is even intended to have a mass market appeal.  But of course it isn't, and insisting that it should is a bit like insisting that the average person should want to go buy a stethoscope.  So you are essentially leveling the argument that a manufacturer of stethoscopes has failed because you don't see half the crowd on the subway wearing them.  And that sort of argument is rubbish, lets be honest.

 

Glass is an experiment.  So are Google's self driving cars.  They are efforts to build 'version 1' of an entirely new category of things, and to work toward consumer uses of these technologies.  Arguing that they are failures because the entire category as a consumer grade phenomenon is nascent at this time is, in my opinion, an absurd position to take.

post #100 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

From a cursory examination of his statement, I’d imagine that he is implying the sales of the Google Glass are lower than would be expected by anyone.

 

Not Dr. Seussian Kin 1 and Kin 2 levels of failure, but close.

 

But what was expected? Were there sales goals released, and sales figures announced? Does anyone know how many were sold, and why that number would not meet expectations? They sold out of them at one point, so it appears that they kept up with expectations.

 

Given that this product is widely viewed to be a beta anyway, why not assume that it actually is a beta, and that a sales goal is low on the priority list? Given that Google's main activity is gathering data, why wouldn't that be the assumed priority goal? Once they know more about how these devices are used, the kinds of people who buy them, and how the devices perform, then they could take the next step (which may or may not involve another Glass release).

post #101 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

I disagree with you.  That's all I can say.  I think your analysis is terribly short sighted and predicated upon a number of false assumptions.  You could compare iPhone iteration 1 with today's and come to the same conclusions.  But having done that would not have made you right.

Glass represents a first saleable implementation of something much larger, and it doesn't need to sell 20 million units to be a success; it needs to succeed at accomplishing the goals its creators had for it.  Are you really confident you know what those goals are?

Glass-like devices have their uses and will eventually be commercially successful for specialized applications. But they will never be the 24/7 where everywhere device that Larry and Sergey hoped they would be. Only a socially inept, Asperger-spectrum techhead would ever think that such a creepy device would be acceptable in public.
post #102 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

Saying over and over that Google F'd up doesn't mean it is true.  Your assumptions and biases are at fault, because you insist that the product is even intended to have a mass market appeal.  But of course it isn't, and insisting that it should is a bit like insisting that the average person should want to go buy a stethoscope.  So you are essentially leveling the argument that a manufacturer of stethoscopes has failed because you don't see half the crowd on the subway wearing them.  And that sort of argument is rubbish, lets be honest.

Glass is an experiment.  So are Google's self driving cars.  They are efforts to build 'version 1' of an entirely new category of things, and to work toward consumer uses of these technologies.  Arguing that they are failures because the entire category as a consumer grade phenomenon is nascent at this time is, in my opinion, an absurd position to take.

You're "Google doesn't want it to be a successful product" argument is a whole new level of the sour grapes argument.

It's like when a cat jumps down and loses it's footing for a second so it decides to lay down for a minute but then looks around to see who saw him miss his landing while hoping you think that he meant to do that. (Does anyone know what I'm talking about?)
Edited by SolipsismX - 6/23/14 at 3:13pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #103 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You're "Google doesn't want it to be a successful product" argument is a whole new level of the sour grapes argument.

PS: Now you've fucked up!

 

Actually I know that Google isn't aiming at some sort of mass market phenomenon with the device because they have stated so.

 

Off topic - are you going out of your way to be an abrasive arse, or is that just your personal style?

 

You are being willfully obnoxious.  You cling to your own definition of what 'success' would mean for a product, and you refuse to recognize how basically flawed and absurd that definition is.  

 

I think I need to let this go, now, because it is just a tremendously unproductive waste of time - I have much better things to do with my time than debate you on a topic where you are willfully clinging to your biases and where your core problem is the simple bias that Glass doesn't have an Apple logo on it.  And you don't even have the intellectual honesty (or perhaps capacity) to recognize that you are biased - tremendously so.  But I can tell you this - if Steve Jobs had unveiled something like Glass and called it a 'hobby' where we 'think there is something there', we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because you and the rest of the fanzis here would be lauding it for the sheer vision, despite its practical limitations.

 

Oh wait - that was Apple TV.  

 

Apple insider is, in general, a den of irrationality, and from my conversation with you, I see that extends directly from the staff.  For the most part it isn't possible to have an open or honest conversation here, and I recognize that I should have remained silent because this is a gigantic waste of time.

 

PS - Being the biggest douche in the room, or swinging your dick around harder than the rest of the monkeys, doesn't establish your superiority or make you an endearing human - might want to consider that.

 

Maybe I should edit my message too, and remove the abrasive response?

I accept your apology ;)


Edited by tt92618 - 6/23/14 at 2:56pm
post #104 of 159

How is this any different then the first iteration of Google Glass that came out? The technology is obvious it is just on a different frame. It doesn't flow with the design of the glasses.

post #105 of 159
They consulted Fossil for watch design?! Fossil hasn't created anything that was considered "stylish" since the late 90s.
post #106 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

Actually I know that Google isn't aiming at some sort of mass market phenomenon with the device because they have stated so.

Off topic - are you going out of your way to be an abrasive arse, or is that just your personal style?

You are being willfully obnoxious.  You cling to your own definition of what 'success' would mean for a product, and you refuse to recognize how basically flawed and absurd that definition is.  

I think I need to let this go, now, because it is just a tremendously unproductive waste of time - I have much better things to do with my time than debate you on a topic where you are willfully clinging to your biases and where your core problem is the simple bias that Glass doesn't have an Apple logo on it.  And you don't even have the intellectual honesty (or perhaps capacity) to recognize that you are biased - tremendously so.  But I can tell you this - if Steve Jobs had unveiled something like Glass and called it a 'hobby' where we 'think there is something there', we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because you and the rest of the fanzis here would be lauding it for the sheer vision, despite its practical limitations.

Oh wait - that was Apple TV.  

Apple insider is, in general, a den of irrationality, and from my conversation with you, I see that extends directly from the staff.  For the most part it isn't possible to have an open or honest conversation here, and I recognize that I should have remained silent because this is a gigantic waste of time.

1) Wrong, nope, yes, why not, wrong again, and probably for the best.

2) The Apple TV is a great example of Apple fucking up in much the same manner as Google did with Glass, although not to the same extent. Apple announced the Apple about 4 months before the iPhone was announced. They did something unusual for Apple; they demoed it yet not only had a release date or price but also no name. Its codenamed with iTV back then.

Why did they do this? My guess — remember this was 2006 — is to appeal to the content owners to get them to be OK with digital downloads by seeing the reactions of those that wanted an "iPod for the living room." It didn't work. Apple had Disney/MGM and it was pulling teeth to get all the others on board with any decent content.

Even after some agreed it was still purchases, not rentals, and then there was the failed attempt at giving codes if you bought Blu-ray — remember the Blu-ray v HD-DVD wars. Perhaps they were scared (of downloads and/or how Apple controlled the music industry in short order) and/or perhaps they didn't like Apple's terms. Regardless, it was a failed attempt in late-2006

Then Apple re-announced and demoed the Apple TV with its proper name and price and shipping date that I think came in March or April of that year. They fucked up again because they did right before the iPhone announcements and demo. It was overshadowed to the point I doubt most here even remember that being part of the iPhone event in January 2007.

It was also too expensive therefore not appealing to enough of the base, while being too slow and too hot and not offering enough features. It was then left to rot for away too long before being updated to a proper iOS-based ARM device that cost under $100 with it's 4th(?) UI look. The original Apple TV is nothing like the current one in either HW, UI, or even fundamental logistics as there is no local HDD storage.

It was only after they had the content, the HW, the SW, the logistics, and pricing did it actually take off and did you hear Apple talk about it with pride in their quarterly reports and get frequent updates. Perhaps in 6 more years Google Glass won't be such a **** up, but right now and for over two years running it's a piece of shit.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #107 of 159

So... tt92618 is back again. I guess he wasn't lying when he said he worked for all platforms. I apologize for suggesting he was just an Amazon shill. Apparently he's simply a universal contrarian.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #108 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post
 

 

Actually I know that Google isn't aiming at some sort of mass market phenomenon with the device because they have stated so.

 

Off topic - are you going out of your way to be an abrasive arse, or is that just your personal style?

 

You are being willfully obnoxious.  You cling to your own definition of what 'success' would mean for a product, and you refuse to recognize how basically flawed and absurd that definition is.  

 

I think I need to let this go, now, because it is just a tremendously unproductive waste of time - I have much better things to do with my time than debate you on a topic where you are willfully clinging to your biases and where your core problem is the simple bias that Glass doesn't have an Apple logo on it.  And you don't even have the intellectual honesty (or perhaps capacity) to recognize that you are biased - tremendously so.  But I can tell you this - if Steve Jobs had unveiled something like Glass and called it a 'hobby' where we 'think there is something there', we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because you and the rest of the fanzis here would be lauding it for the sheer vision, despite its practical limitations.

 

Oh wait - that was Apple TV.  

 

Apple insider is, in general, a den of irrationality, and from my conversation with you, I see that extends directly from the staff.  For the most part it isn't possible to have an open or honest conversation here, and I recognize that I should have remained silent because this is a gigantic waste of time.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

So... tt92618 is back again. I guess he wasn't lying when he said he worked for all platforms. I apologize for suggesting he was just an Amazon shill. Apparently he's simply a universal contrarian.

 

No I'm a technologist and yes, a developer, and unlike you I don't have an agenda with respect to any particular platform - I simply like cool technology, and I'm happy to recognize it wherever it comes from, and regardless of the logo affixed to it.

 

By the way, I was really irked by your personal attacks on me, mostly because you have no basis for them at all; they are purely bias driven, are not substantive, and serve no purpose whatsoever.  They are juvenile.  Your sarcastic commentary questioning the veracity of my statements about development (because I cite so many different platforms) were particularly oafish because you clearly know nothing about actually doing development work.  I say that because if you did, you would recognize that there are many development platforms that allow deployment to many targets.  Unity, for example, allows a game developer to write a single code base and deploy it to iOS, Windows, Windows Phone 8, Android, Blackberry 10, Windows App Store apps, Mac OS, Linux, Web browsers (via unity web player), Playstation, XBox, and Wii.  And oh yeah, Amazon provides plugins so you can target their stuff too.  It's EASY to be a multi-platform developer in this day and age, and having an irrational bias towards any one is a true liability as a developer.  You mocking me for it simply shows what an ignoramus you are.

 

You are irrational - you and the rest of the fanzis here.  You are truly irrational in your absolute hatred, mockery, and dismissive attitudes towards anything non-Apple.  And it is sad for you.  There is so much cool stuff out here in the rest of the world.  Some of it is built by Apple, and some of it isn't.  It is really sad the way you willingly lobotomize yourselves and render yourselves incapable of gaining value of benefit from non-Apple products.  You can't even bring yourselves to admit it when someone else does something neat.

 

As a developer, I just think the whole thing is laughable.  I see no reason to slavishly tie myself to any particular company.  I don't need to invest a fragile ego into feeling superior about a stupid product and my support of it.  Quite the opposite - I get value from being willing to evaluate technologies on the benefit of the technologies alone.  Because ultimately I have more opportunities doing so.

 

Anyway, I have real things, of actual benefit, to accomplish.  So I'll leave you for now.

 

I accept your apology ;-)

post #109 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post


No I'm a technologist…

lol.giflol.giflol.giflol.giflol.gif
Quote:
Anyway, I have real things, of actual benefit, to accomplish.  So I'll leave you for now.

You say that a lot but keep posting.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #110 of 159

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #111 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


lol.giflol.giflol.giflol.giflol.gif
You say that a lot but keep posting.

 

You are nothing but a mocker.  

post #112 of 159
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

You are nothing but a mocker.  

 

I thought you were leaving.

post #113 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

You are nothing but a mocker.  

Then that makes you a mockmuncher?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #114 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I thought you were leaving.

 

I might just hang around just to make you unhappy.

post #115 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
But this is OUR hill... and these are OUR beans!

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 90

Ah, Naked Gun. I have yet to watch the third one; the trailer looks good. He sadly died recently.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #116 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


Ah, Naked Gun. I have yet to watch the third one; the trailer looks good. He sadly died recently.

 

Four years ago.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #117 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobJohnson View Post

 
If you've never heard of DvF then you've never heard of anyone in fashion.

Tsk, it's a wonder I've even survived all these years.  

/s

Funny!

Dare I say it, apparently, one of the perks of being a guy is that I can throw on the next shirt that is at the end of my wardrobe.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #118 of 159
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

I might just hang around just to make you unhappy.

 

Oh, that’s rich. Making me unhappy. :lol:

 

Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
He sadly died recently.

 

What’s even worse is that last I heard they’re going to keep making the 4th one without him. :grumble: 

post #119 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

10 years from now no one will find it unusual, anymore than few seriously worry about surreptitious recording from someone's smartphone today (unless you're a dress-wearing woman in Wal-mart 1rolleyes.gif .) If anything it's probably easier to take a sneak pic or video with one of those than Google Glass. Do a search for something like "Take a sneaky picture with iOS7" to see how easy it is.

Seriously, how far up Google ass are you? This "people can take sneaky photos of you in other ways" argument is so damn weak. Why is it so difficult for Google evangelists like you to understand that someone with a camera/computer strapped on their damn face makes people uncomfortable, and justifiably so? If I was talking to someone wearing Google Glass, that monstrosity would be all that I could focus on, and nothing else. 

Also, we're today, not "10 years from now". Making an asinine prediction of how you think things will change in the future is such a cowardly way of avoiding responding to arguments made about the product today. Also, that's quite the assumptions- that "noone" will find it unsual 10 years from now- you don't know that, and I find that prediction very difficult to believe. The face is a sacred part of the body, and there's no indication that looking like a cyborg and having a camera permanently strapped to your face will be the norm in a few years, as much as you and google would love it to be. Glass is a PR disaster, I don't see the mainstream clamoring for such a product, and there's no reason social norms are suddenly going to change so suddenly. Don't use smartphones and tablets as a comparison, because that example is not even in the same universe. 

Glorious comment, Slurpy.

All these people comparing taking a video on a phone to Google Glasses-so dumb. When we hold a phone up to our face, it is an honest act that signifies to everyone what we are doing. Wearing Glass? Who knows what you are doing?
Edited by Benjamin Frost - 6/23/14 at 4:48pm
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #120 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

So... tt92618 is back again. I guess he wasn't lying when he said he worked for all platforms. I apologize for suggesting he was just an Amazon shill. Apparently he's simply a universal contrarian.

 

No I'm a technologist and yes, a developer, and unlike you I don't have an agenda with respect to any particular platform - I simply like cool technology, and I'm happy to recognize it wherever it comes from, and regardless of the logo affixed to it.

I'm not sure I have an agenda. What did I say that gave you that impression? I have a preference, but not an agenda. I use all sort of Google services like Gmail, Analytics, Search, News, Translation, Drive and Maps, to name a few. I never said anything against Glass although I know I am not interested in buying it. Sure, I prefer Apple devices and computers, although I have both Windows and Linux. I haven't had the pleasure of trying Android yet. Let's just say I haven't gotten around to it. I've been busy.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google focuses on fashion with new Glass frames from designer Diane von Furstenberg