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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 interviewedDr. 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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
Comments
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.
And how pray tell do you honestly believe a "infrared or X-ray type" app will actually work with a camera?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
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.
So, Google Glass is going to shrink this down?
http://www.rnw.nl/data/files/images/lead/030110 bodyscanner ANP-11686439_1_0.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
So, Google Glass is going to shrink this down?
http://www.rnw.nl/data/files/images/lead/030110 bodyscanner ANP-11686439_1_0.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Windle
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportyguy209
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
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.
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmason1270
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.
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.
Straight from the National Camera Association handbook