I don't think I'll ever have use for Glass, but I hope it succeeds. I'm sure there are other people out there who could really use this for work or for their personal lives. Bio-chemists or quadriplegics,
Well, i do use the iPad now for star gazing. But pointing to a star with a device that blocks your sight is quite complicated. It seems to me that just looking at a star is the (far) more simple approach.
Great comparison, Glasses to Newton. I have a Newton. I remember using it at a meeting back in 1998, trying to take notes. I felt like a dork, and I think others thought the same. With Glasses, I would feel the same, and probably get the same reactions. BTW, my Newton is safely stored away, awaiting its value to increase as the years go by. (and it still works)
Just like the first Tablet PCs running Windows 3.11.
... During hiking, when performing surgery, whilst visiting a museum, when repairing a car, star gazing at night, ... enhanced reality has an edge. ...
No. Because what matters is WHAT the device does, not HOW it does it.
I don't care if it had a super-computer built-in, or needs to connect via a BT-interface to a phone, that connects to your home computer, which connects to a satellite uplink , which connects to supercomputer...
All that matters is that it's a massive invasion of privacy as the device stands. How it does so is utterly irrelevant.
You are ignoring the truths. The article wrongly called Google Glass as a cell phone. It does not have a cell phone chip inside it. So it can not be called a cell phone. Google and its supporters want the fools believe that Google created a great device. The truths is GG is not worth $1500. Its components worth probably just $100.
You are ignoring the truths. The article wrongly called Google Glass as a cell phone. It does not have a cell phone chip inside it. So it can not be called a cell phone. Google and its supporters want the fools believe that Google created a great device. The truths is GG is not worth $1500. Its components worth probably just $100.
Nor will it sell for $1500 when it becomes publicly available according to several blogs. The retail price guesses are more in the range of $300-500.
A lot of people think $199 for iPhone 5 is expensive.
And that's not what Apple sells the iPhone 5 for. A lot of people are willing to pay the non-subsidized (contract free) price of at least $649. The build cost has been estimated at around $200, with UBM saying it's even less than that, just $168 in component costs. Is Apple "ripping off" buyers too?
And that's not what Apple sells the iPhone 5 for. A lot of people are willing to pay the non-subsidized (contract free) price of at least $649. The build cost has been estimated at around $200, with UBM saying it's even less than that, just $168 in component costs. Is Apple "ripping off" buyers too?
iPhone 5 is well built. Google Glass is a defective device. Its battery life lasts only a couple hours. In order to use it you have to wear it when you need it. Other times you need to store it. This is very strange to other people seeing a GG using taking GG out and put it back from time to time.
Are you claiming the beta developer (explorer) device being tested is identical to the up-coming consumer version? Where are you getting that info?
One of the AI reviews said the battery life is poor. I doubt Google can improve the battery life significantly with the consumer version. GG designers probably do not know people wearing glasses the weight is an important factor.
One of the AI reviews said the battery life is poor. I doubt Google can improve the battery life significantly with the consumer version. GG designers probably do not know people wearing glasses the weight is an important factor.
I personally think Google will find a way to significantly improve battery life. One of the changes already slated for the consumer version is an OLED display which by itself may be a big assist.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by am8449
I don't think I'll ever have use for Glass, but I hope it succeeds. I'm sure there are other people out there who could really use this for work or for their personal lives. Bio-chemists or quadriplegics,
and Pedophiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1
star gazing at night, ...
How is that different from using iPad?
It seems to me that just looking at a star is the (far) more simple approach.
They use the iPad as well
Just like the first Tablet PCs running Windows 3.11.
The iPad shows you the name of the planets and constellations.
True but it's kind of hard hiding the iPad when spying in the playgrounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1
... During hiking, when performing surgery, whilst visiting a museum, when repairing a car, star gazing at night, ... enhanced reality has an edge. ...
What kind of surgery do you do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1
Well, i do use the iPad now for star gazing. But pointing to a star with a device that blocks your sight is quite complicated.
It seems to me that just looking at a star is the (far) more simple approach.
You know Star Walk got a augmented reality mode where you can align real stars with the ones on screen.
Beside, I don't find complicated at all to point the sky with my iPad and find out stars and constellation names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
No. Because what matters is WHAT the device does, not HOW it does it.
I don't care if it had a super-computer built-in, or needs to connect via a BT-interface to a phone, that connects to your home computer, which connects to a satellite uplink , which connects to supercomputer...
All that matters is that it's a massive invasion of privacy as the device stands. How it does so is utterly irrelevant.
You are ignoring the truths. The article wrongly called Google Glass as a cell phone. It does not have a cell phone chip inside it. So it can not be called a cell phone. Google and its supporters want the fools believe that Google created a great device. The truths is GG is not worth $1500. Its components worth probably just $100.
Nor will it sell for $1500 when it becomes publicly available according to several blogs. The retail price guesses are more in the range of $300-500.
There was an article on this a few days back.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2420852,00.asp
and in the Doctor's words:
http://rgrosssz.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/ok-glass-pass-me-the-scalpel-please-googleglass-during-surgery/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Nor will it sell for $1500 when it becomes publicly available according to several blogs. The retail price guesses are more in the range of $300-500.
$300-$500 is still a rip off. It can not be worth more than a cheapest Android tablet.
It's worth what the market will bear obviously. First mover advantage and all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It's worth what the market will bear obviously. First mover advantage and all that.
A lot of people think $199 for iPhone 5 is expensive.
And that's not what Apple sells the iPhone 5 for. A lot of people are willing to pay the non-subsidized (contract free) price of at least $649. The build cost has been estimated at around $200, with UBM saying it's even less than that, just $168 in component costs. Is Apple "ripping off" buyers too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
And that's not what Apple sells the iPhone 5 for. A lot of people are willing to pay the non-subsidized (contract free) price of at least $649. The build cost has been estimated at around $200, with UBM saying it's even less than that, just $168 in component costs. Is Apple "ripping off" buyers too?
iPhone 5 is well built. Google Glass is a defective device. Its battery life lasts only a couple hours. In order to use it you have to wear it when you need it. Other times you need to store it. This is very strange to other people seeing a GG using taking GG out and put it back from time to time.
Are you claiming the beta developer (explorer) device being tested is identical to the up-coming consumer version? Where are you getting that info?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Are you claiming the beta developer (explorer) device being tested is identical to the up-coming consumer version? Where are you getting that info?
One of the AI reviews said the battery life is poor. I doubt Google can improve the battery life significantly with the consumer version. GG designers probably do not know people wearing glasses the weight is an important factor.
I personally think Google will find a way to significantly improve battery life. One of the changes already slated for the consumer version is an OLED display which by itself may be a big assist.