It's obviously still a work in progress. More like an experiment than anything else.
I think more companies should do such experimentation, instead of just waiting until they think something id perfect enough to be a big commercial success.
I'm sure lots of companies do similar experimentation, they just don't get on a pedestal and shout about what they're doing.
In my opinion, things like this and self-driving cars are Google's equivalent of a "halo effect".
I'm sure lots of companies do similar experimentation, they just don't get on a pedestal and shout about what they're doing.
In my opinion, things like this and self-driving cars are Google's equivalent of a "halo effect".
Not sure if you were being facetious, but I agree that it is a "halo effect" and has worked well for google's public image/brand.
What amazes me is the double-standard that the media/public have towards this. Google is given a free pass when they fail at things like TV, self-driving cars, google apps, smart phones, etc. But Apple is torn into shreds when iPhones do not have NFC, etc.
Maybe Apple would be better off taking the google approach (similar to ATV) and just have a whole lot more "hobbies"?
Not sure if you were being facetious, but I agree that it is a "halo effect" and has worked well for google's public image/brand.
What amazes me is the double-standard that the media/public have towards this. Google is given a free pass when they fail at things like TV, self-driving cars, google apps, smart phones, etc. But Apple is torn into shreds when iPhones do not have NFC, etc.
Maybe Apple would be better off taking the google approach (similar to ATV) and just have a whole lot more "hobbies"?
I was being entirely genuine. Maybe "halo effect" is the wrong term; it's similar to Lexus building a super car that will never hit the streets. It's impractical, but benefits the brand (it gets people talking, and there's the trickle down "I wanna check out what else they have").
To a certain degree, this is what Apple's Mac Pro is for, from a business perspective at least (I think Apple also genuinely has pride in it).
My point though was that you shouldn't expect any of these devices to ever be successful products. They're there to show off, and promote the Google brand. Of course, some tech will make its way into actual consumer products.
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.
Google Glass runs Android with a card interface. It has Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, gyroscope and an accelerometer. It pairs with other devices that don't have to be cell-phones to get signal and GPS data.
It displays live updating turn-by-turn driving directions. It has a camera, microphone, and display. It's a cell-phone minus the cell modem that is intended to be used for calling. Telling people it's a cell phone for the head is actually a pretty good summary, especially when they don't care about whether or not it pairs with a phone in the pocket, but instead care about what it's doing on the wearer's head pointed at them.
Telling people it's a cell phone for the head is actually a pretty good summary, especially when they don't care about whether or not it pairs with a phone in the pocket, but instead care about what it's doing on the wearer's head pointed at them.
You are disingenuous as Google and many Google fans. You can not make a call without pairing with a smartphone running a GG app.
You are disingenuous as Google and many Google fans. You can not make a call without pairing with a smartphone running a GG app.
Not entirely correct.
iOS has no Google Glass app. When paired with any iPhone, it will take and make calls based on the contacts that are in Glass via web setup (releases 4, 5, 6 of the Android OS for glass.)
It's also possible to use Glass with Nexus 7 which has no cell modem or phone dialer, but passes the GPS data from Nexus to Glass. (A bit of a cheat might be using Google Voice on Android as the dialer, and establishing calls that way.)
But based on Glass' BOM, it's got a lot in common with a smartphone. What do you use a cell phone for? Taking pictures, sharing, making web searches, emailing, getting driving directions. What does Google want people to use Glass for? So far, the same things.
How do you quickly summarize it for people who want to know what's pointing at them, or what you're looking at in the corner of your eye?
iOS has no Google Glass app. When paired with any iPhone, it will take and make calls based on the contacts that are in Glass via web setup (releases 4, 5, 6 of the Android OS for glass.)
It's also possible to use Glass with Nexus 7 which has no cell modem or phone dialer, but passes the GPS data from Nexus to Glass. (A bit of a cheat might be using Google Voice on Android as the dialer, and establishing calls that way.)
But based on Glass' BOM, it's got a lot in common with a smartphone. What do you use a cell phone for? Taking pictures, sharing, making web searches, emailing, getting driving directions. What does Google want people to use Glass for? So far, the same things.
How do you quickly summarize it for people who want to know what's pointing at them, or what you're looking at in the corner of your eye?
Please google the meaning of cell phone. I think you are confused of the meaning of cell phone.
It's also possible to use Glass with Nexus 7 which has no cell modem or phone dialer....
The Nexus 7 has had a 3G version since the beginning. Though it doesn't come standard with phone functionality, just data, XDA has a APK that can be installed to add it by using the software from the Nexus 4. Making the Nexus 7 into a cheap phablet, not a bad one either.
Not sure if you were being facetious, but I agree that it is a "halo effect" and has worked well for google's public image/brand.
What amazes me is the double-standard that the media/public have towards this. Google is given a free pass when they fail at things like TV, self-driving cars, google apps, smart phones, etc. But Apple is torn into shreds when iPhones do not have NFC, etc.
Maybe Apple would be better off taking the google approach (similar to ATV) and just have a whole lot more "hobbies"?
For everything Google has failed at, they've succeeded at alot more. Maps, Documents, Android, Cloud services, advertising, search are all successes. The self-driving cars are probably still years away, but the prototypes have been mostly successful. Google gets away with all this because of their approach - they advise users of the 'beta' status of things, people get used to their experimentation, and because most of their services are free users can forgive the gaffes.
Apple doesn't get away with the same things because of the premium pricing, and their lofty claims.
For everything Google has failed at, they've succeeded at alot more. Maps, Documents, Android, Cloud services, advertising, search are all successes. The self-driving cars are probably still years away, but the prototypes have been mostly successful. Google gets away with all this because of their approach - they advise users of the 'beta' status of things, people get used to their experimentation, and because most of their services are free users can forgive the gaffes.
Apple doesn't get away with the same things because of the premium pricing, and their lofty claims.
One more reason why programs like Maps will remain beta for years to come is to try to avoid frivolous lawsuits like the one below.
"A Utah woman used Google Maps' walking directions on her Blackberry and was given directions to walk onto a highway. She got hit and is now suing Google for damages."
One more reason why programs like Maps will remain beta for years to come is to try to avoid frivolous lawsuits like the one below.
"A Utah woman used Google Maps' walking directions on her Blackberry and was given directions to walk onto a highway. She got hit and is now suing Google for damages."
Do you believe this WSJ article? The author said he can use GG without any other electronics.
July 22, 2013, 12:48 PM
Lost in the Woods With Glass
By Stu Woo
Earlier this month, my colleagues kidnapped me, dumped me in the woods, confiscated my electronics and — before speeding away — challenged me to find them.
My coworkers gave me one tool. Not a compass or a map; it was Google Glass.
Google gave us a prototype of Glass, the smartphone designed to be worn like a pair of eyeglasses. By now the features are well documented. A small piece of glass in front of my right eye displayed what I’d normally see on a phone screen: time, maps, websites. I controlled it with my voice, telling it to do things like “take a picture” and asking it to find out what poison ivy looks like.
Do you believe this WSJ article? The author said he can use GG without any other electronics.
July 22, 2013, 12:48 PM
Lost in the Woods With Glass
By Stu Woo
Earlier this month, my colleagues kidnapped me, dumped me in the woods, confiscated my electronics and — before speeding away — challenged me to find them.
My coworkers gave me one tool. Not a compass or a map; it was Google Glass.
Google gave us a prototype of Glass, the smartphone designed to be worn like a pair of eyeglasses. By now the features are well documented. A small piece of glass in front of my right eye displayed what I’d normally see on a phone screen: time, maps, websites. I controlled it with my voice, telling it to do things like “take a picture” and asking it to find out what poison ivy looks like.
It doesn't make sense. Glass needs to get a data connection from somewhere via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi.
They had to have given him a cellular->Wi-Fi hotspot at least. Without an Android device with GPS in it running the MyGlass app, "...get directions to..." won't work. It needs the GPS of the Android device to know which way to route.
Haha! And mind Google Glass adds some extra cameras around eveyone) By the way, this is one more encounter: its marketing is stuck in with privacy issues. Funny thing! I mean, it’s clearly seen that we all perceive privacy in different manners here, so this is the reason why some keep complaining about flashes without permissions, and simultaneously download personal photos into Facebook with little concerns about the security measures. It’s not about how many cameras you have on you all the time. Actually, we allow people seeing us, and watching us; at some point, the image is recorded in their memory and we are OK with it. What matters more is how these images are used without our authorization. The issue with ID theft and personal information security are burning, and it may even seem you can’t keep up with the tech pace and always stay behind, leaving your passwords, your personal information, your financial details in danger. Does that actually make sense to worry about an obvious camera on someone’s head? Something tells us we should shift our concerns to the other level or privacy we benevolently give up on using social networking and online input to endanger our financial standing. Curious, we are worried about the Google Glass camera used by the ones who care little about us anyway, and easily spread our personal info buying a lamp on eBay or searching for instant financial help. Speaking of which, financial operations, such as online applications, can jeopardize you future much more than just a simple video of you eating fries. Isn’t it much more important to secure your personal data with the operations online, especially, financial operations, than freaking out because of some abstract danger from some passing cameras? If you really want to know how to keep your personal and financial information secure and safe from any malicious attempts, you’d better get more prepared and use smart instructions for effective operations.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
It's obviously still a work in progress. More like an experiment than anything else.
I think more companies should do such experimentation, instead of just waiting until they think something id perfect enough to be a big commercial success.
I'm sure lots of companies do similar experimentation, they just don't get on a pedestal and shout about what they're doing.
In my opinion, things like this and self-driving cars are Google's equivalent of a "halo effect".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
I'm sure lots of companies do similar experimentation, they just don't get on a pedestal and shout about what they're doing.
In my opinion, things like this and self-driving cars are Google's equivalent of a "halo effect".
Not sure if you were being facetious, but I agree that it is a "halo effect" and has worked well for google's public image/brand.
What amazes me is the double-standard that the media/public have towards this. Google is given a free pass when they fail at things like TV, self-driving cars, google apps, smart phones, etc. But Apple is torn into shreds when iPhones do not have NFC, etc.
Maybe Apple would be better off taking the google approach (similar to ATV) and just have a whole lot more "hobbies"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808
Not sure if you were being facetious, but I agree that it is a "halo effect" and has worked well for google's public image/brand.
What amazes me is the double-standard that the media/public have towards this. Google is given a free pass when they fail at things like TV, self-driving cars, google apps, smart phones, etc. But Apple is torn into shreds when iPhones do not have NFC, etc.
Maybe Apple would be better off taking the google approach (similar to ATV) and just have a whole lot more "hobbies"?
I was being entirely genuine. Maybe "halo effect" is the wrong term; it's similar to Lexus building a super car that will never hit the streets. It's impractical, but benefits the brand (it gets people talking, and there's the trickle down "I wanna check out what else they have").
To a certain degree, this is what Apple's Mac Pro is for, from a business perspective at least (I think Apple also genuinely has pride in it).
My point though was that you shouldn't expect any of these devices to ever be successful products. They're there to show off, and promote the Google brand. Of course, some tech will make its way into actual consumer products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
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.
Google Glass runs Android with a card interface. It has Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, gyroscope and an accelerometer. It pairs with other devices that don't have to be cell-phones to get signal and GPS data.
It displays live updating turn-by-turn driving directions. It has a camera, microphone, and display. It's a cell-phone minus the cell modem that is intended to be used for calling. Telling people it's a cell phone for the head is actually a pretty good summary, especially when they don't care about whether or not it pairs with a phone in the pocket, but instead care about what it's doing on the wearer's head pointed at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmarks
Telling people it's a cell phone for the head is actually a pretty good summary, especially when they don't care about whether or not it pairs with a phone in the pocket, but instead care about what it's doing on the wearer's head pointed at them.
You are disingenuous as Google and many Google fans. You can not make a call without pairing with a smartphone running a GG app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
You are disingenuous as Google and many Google fans. You can not make a call without pairing with a smartphone running a GG app.
Not entirely correct.
iOS has no Google Glass app. When paired with any iPhone, it will take and make calls based on the contacts that are in Glass via web setup (releases 4, 5, 6 of the Android OS for glass.)
It's also possible to use Glass with Nexus 7 which has no cell modem or phone dialer, but passes the GPS data from Nexus to Glass. (A bit of a cheat might be using Google Voice on Android as the dialer, and establishing calls that way.)
But based on Glass' BOM, it's got a lot in common with a smartphone. What do you use a cell phone for? Taking pictures, sharing, making web searches, emailing, getting driving directions. What does Google want people to use Glass for? So far, the same things.
How do you quickly summarize it for people who want to know what's pointing at them, or what you're looking at in the corner of your eye?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmarks
Not entirely correct.
iOS has no Google Glass app. When paired with any iPhone, it will take and make calls based on the contacts that are in Glass via web setup (releases 4, 5, 6 of the Android OS for glass.)
It's also possible to use Glass with Nexus 7 which has no cell modem or phone dialer, but passes the GPS data from Nexus to Glass. (A bit of a cheat might be using Google Voice on Android as the dialer, and establishing calls that way.)
But based on Glass' BOM, it's got a lot in common with a smartphone. What do you use a cell phone for? Taking pictures, sharing, making web searches, emailing, getting driving directions. What does Google want people to use Glass for? So far, the same things.
How do you quickly summarize it for people who want to know what's pointing at them, or what you're looking at in the corner of your eye?
Please google the meaning of cell phone. I think you are confused of the meaning of cell phone.
The Nexus 7 has had a 3G version since the beginning. Though it doesn't come standard with phone functionality, just data, XDA has a APK that can be installed to add it by using the software from the Nexus 4. Making the Nexus 7 into a cheap phablet, not a bad one either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808
Not sure if you were being facetious, but I agree that it is a "halo effect" and has worked well for google's public image/brand.
What amazes me is the double-standard that the media/public have towards this. Google is given a free pass when they fail at things like TV, self-driving cars, google apps, smart phones, etc. But Apple is torn into shreds when iPhones do not have NFC, etc.
Maybe Apple would be better off taking the google approach (similar to ATV) and just have a whole lot more "hobbies"?
For everything Google has failed at, they've succeeded at alot more. Maps, Documents, Android, Cloud services, advertising, search are all successes. The self-driving cars are probably still years away, but the prototypes have been mostly successful. Google gets away with all this because of their approach - they advise users of the 'beta' status of things, people get used to their experimentation, and because most of their services are free users can forgive the gaffes.
Apple doesn't get away with the same things because of the premium pricing, and their lofty claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85
For everything Google has failed at, they've succeeded at alot more. Maps, Documents, Android, Cloud services, advertising, search are all successes. The self-driving cars are probably still years away, but the prototypes have been mostly successful. Google gets away with all this because of their approach - they advise users of the 'beta' status of things, people get used to their experimentation, and because most of their services are free users can forgive the gaffes.
Apple doesn't get away with the same things because of the premium pricing, and their lofty claims.
One more reason why programs like Maps will remain beta for years to come is to try to avoid frivolous lawsuits like the one below.
"A Utah woman used Google Maps' walking directions on her Blackberry and was given directions to walk onto a highway. She got hit and is now suing Google for damages."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
One more reason why programs like Maps will remain beta for years to come is to try to avoid frivolous lawsuits like the one below.
"A Utah woman used Google Maps' walking directions on her Blackberry and was given directions to walk onto a highway. She got hit and is now suing Google for damages."
The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.
Do you believe this WSJ article? The author said he can use GG without any other electronics.
July 22, 2013, 12:48 PM
Lost in the Woods With Glass
By Stu Woo
Earlier this month, my colleagues kidnapped me, dumped me in the woods, confiscated my electronics and — before speeding away — challenged me to find them.
My coworkers gave me one tool. Not a compass or a map; it was Google Glass.
Google gave us a prototype of Glass, the smartphone designed to be worn like a pair of eyeglasses. By now the features are well documented. A small piece of glass in front of my right eye displayed what I’d normally see on a phone screen: time, maps, websites. I controlled it with my voice, telling it to do things like “take a picture” and asking it to find out what poison ivy looks like.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/07/22/lost-in-the-woods-with-glass/?mod=yahoo_hs
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Do you believe this WSJ article? The author said he can use GG without any other electronics.
July 22, 2013, 12:48 PM
Lost in the Woods With Glass
By Stu Woo
Earlier this month, my colleagues kidnapped me, dumped me in the woods, confiscated my electronics and — before speeding away — challenged me to find them.
My coworkers gave me one tool. Not a compass or a map; it was Google Glass.
Google gave us a prototype of Glass, the smartphone designed to be worn like a pair of eyeglasses. By now the features are well documented. A small piece of glass in front of my right eye displayed what I’d normally see on a phone screen: time, maps, websites. I controlled it with my voice, telling it to do things like “take a picture” and asking it to find out what poison ivy looks like.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/07/22/lost-in-the-woods-with-glass/?mod=yahoo_hs
It doesn't make sense. Glass needs to get a data connection from somewhere via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi.
They had to have given him a cellular->Wi-Fi hotspot at least. Without an Android device with GPS in it running the MyGlass app, "...get directions to..." won't work. It needs the GPS of the Android device to know which way to route.
It was clearly a comedic report, but yes, you could write them and complain that it's misleading, and that they should add a disclaimer.
Haha! And mind Google Glass adds some extra cameras around eveyone) By the way, this is one more encounter: its marketing is stuck in with privacy issues. Funny thing! I mean, it’s clearly seen that we all perceive privacy in different manners here, so this is the reason why some keep complaining about flashes without permissions, and simultaneously download personal photos into Facebook with little concerns about the security measures. It’s not about how many cameras you have on you all the time. Actually, we allow people seeing us, and watching us; at some point, the image is recorded in their memory and we are OK with it. What matters more is how these images are used without our authorization. The issue with ID theft and personal information security are burning, and it may even seem you can’t keep up with the tech pace and always stay behind, leaving your passwords, your personal information, your financial details in danger. Does that actually make sense to worry about an obvious camera on someone’s head? Something tells us we should shift our concerns to the other level or privacy we benevolently give up on using social networking and online input to endanger our financial standing. Curious, we are worried about the Google Glass camera used by the ones who care little about us anyway, and easily spread our personal info buying a lamp on eBay or searching for instant financial help. Speaking of which, financial operations, such as online applications, can jeopardize you future much more than just a simple video of you eating fries. Isn’t it much more important to secure your personal data with the operations online, especially, financial operations, than freaking out because of some abstract danger from some passing cameras? If you really want to know how to keep your personal and financial information secure and safe from any malicious attempts, you’d better get more prepared and use smart instructions for effective operations.