Yep. It's not the glasses part that is the issue. It's the bulky side piece. They should be trying to go retro with a a big plastic "nerd" frame where all the bits are inside that frame than this 'sunglasses with a giant tech zit'.
Hipsters love the nerd spec look so they would jump for it.
And if google could figure out a way to protect onto the lens and not into the eye they would probably have fewer complaints of headaches etc.
Google Glass would be cool if they looked like Geordi Laforge's VISOR:
There is a South Korean company named CoreGem, that made something similar, called The Neomind Brainwave:
The biggest problem with Google Glass is that you just can't avoid looking like a tool every time you wear this in public. Maybe a product ahead of its time? In the dystopian future, maybe we'll all have this shit implanted, but until then...
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 .) 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.
The Google Glass component still hasn't changed in design since they first revelaed it 2 yrs ago. Still looks like shit. They havent been able to miniaturize anything during that time? Something like this would sitll be at a pre-alpha stage in Apple's labs, but Google is comfortable selling it.
.
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.
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
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.
It's plainly obvious Google Glass makes a lot of folks uncomfortable. For that reason and a couple of others I don't think Glass v.1 will be a commercial success as I've said before. They are being way too timid in releasing it and their their window of opportunity has already passed IMO. They gave the naysayers and FUD-makers too much time to formulate arguments against it.
It may serve as a learning opportunity but a profit center it won't be. You can mark Glass up as the Google equivalent of "Newton" IMO, a product that got a lot of attention but commercially and technically was before its time. That doesn't mean the effort is without value tho and I believe at some point a Glass-like appliance will see widespread acceptance. And yes I believe 10 years will be more than enough time for it to happen.
And I'm being cowardly?? You don't see me avoiding a discussion of it with anyone that wants to take part. That would include you good sir. Your Yedi mind tricks don't work on me.
"Nothingever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the onset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have a malady in the less attractive forms." -- Dickens
There is a lot of mocking going on here, coming from a lot of folks who have no understanding whatsoever of how quickly the capacity, capability, and usefulness of technologies like Glass are doubling. To roundly dismiss them, as some have done here, is the height of mockery and demonstrates enormous lack of vision.
If you want to learn something about just how fundamentally these and other technologies will change our society, go grab a copy of "The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies" - you can get it here.
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. But they cannot do that, fundamentally, because they can't understand the exponential speed with which our technological prowess doubles. In 2004 not a single entrant in Darpa's autonomous vehicle challenge was able to complete more than 5% of the test course. Yet flash forward to 2012 and Google's driverless cars had already logged hundreds of thousands of miles on public roadways in the United States without even a single accident. And in 2013, Nissan announced they would come to market with several models of driverless cars by 2020. So from 2004 to 2012 autonomous cars went from being a science fiction fantasy to demonstrable fact. 8 years. 4 doublings.
Google glass is no different. It is goofy to look at, and easy to mock. But doing that means that the pretentious people doing so lack the vision and the understanding to see how quickly these technologies will become commonplace and just how quickly they will evolve.
Check out Ray Kurzweil's TED talk on how technology doubles - done way back in 2005 - for a very interesting look at how quickly these changes are happening. FYI, Kurzweill is no dummy - in 1999 he predicted that within a decade we would see self-driving cars and mobile phones that could answer questions. At the time, he was greatly criticized by people who considered these predictions unrealistic. He was, in retrospect, quite correct. Kurzweil also happens to (as of December 2012) a director of Engineering in Google's Advanced Technologies and Projects group.
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.
They are being way too timid in releasing it and their their window of opportunity has already passed IMO. They gave the naysayers and FUD-makers too much time to formulate arguments against it.
What in the hell are you talking about?!?!? When was their "window"? Release week- Even if they advertised it ad naseum and slashed the price in half no one would buy it.
"Gave the naysayers and FUD-makers too much time"? How about- it was a piece of garbage that society didn't want. It's failure came on it's own merits- not because of "naysayers".
And you wonder why people think you're up Google's ass?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618
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.
Yes with those same "naysayers"- it became an undeniably successful and game changing product. Apples-Oranges.
Hey- I have a pile of shit I just created for sale. Don't criticize it, because someone once criticized the iPhone. And if no one buys it, it's because of the naysayers- not because it's an actual pile of shit.
What in the hell are you talking about?!?!? When was their "window"?
Two years ago.
At the time it was first announced there was lots of excitement. The tech crowd drooled over the possibilities and dreamed about the uses for it. Two years later and the shine is off and its still a beta effort. Pretty darn surprised you couldn't figure in what way the window of opportunity had closed, but I suspect it might only be because you weren't interested in thinking about it. Google Glass will die an ignobel death but leave a lasting influence, an idea to be picked up again when the market ir right.
Ridicule killed the Newton and it will kill Glass too. But the vision of the Newton didn't die and neither will Glass IMHO.
At the time it was first announced there was lots of excitement. The tech crowd drooled over the possibilities and dreamed about the uses for it. Two years later and the shine is off and its still a beta effort. Pretty darn surprised you couldn't figure in what way the window of opportunity had closed, but I suspect it might only be because you weren't interested in thinking about it.
The tech crowd didn't even buy it!
You make love to Google's products- did you buy one? No? Then that just further proves it was a heap of shit that the world doesn't want. There was no "window" because no one wanted it!
Google Glass will die an ignobel death but leave a lasting influence, an idea to be picked up again when the market ir right.
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!
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!
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. :rolleyes:
What in the hell are you talking about?!?!? When was their "window"? Release week- Even if they advertised it ad naseum and slashed the price in half no one would buy it.
"Gave the naysayers and FUD-makers too much time"? How about- it was a piece of garbage that society didn't want. It's failure came on it's own merits- not because of "naysayers".
And you wonder why people think you're up Google's ass?
Yes with those same "naysayers"- it became an undeniably successful and game changing product. Apples-Oranges.
Hey- I have a pile of shit I just created for sale. Don't criticize it, because someone once criticized the iPhone. And if no one buys it, it's because of the naysayers- not because it's an actual pile of shit.
Don't confuse the success or failure of a product with the success or failure of a technology. Glass can be loosely seen as an implementation of augmented reality, and the fact that Glass is not quite ready for prime time (as a consumer grade device) shouldn't keep you from seeing the compelling use cases for this sort of technology. There will be further implementations of Glass, and this kind of technology will see increasing acceptance in years to come.
Google doesn't expect or intend Glass to be a device that reaches wide use in a consumer base. Up until a few months ago, you couldn't even buy it without having applied and been approved. Glass is an experiment to see what can be done with a technology in its infancy - it is a beta, if anything, not a mass consumer product. The fact that Google has opened it up to the public doesn't signal that they are trying to create a huge mass-market win, it just signals their response to the fact that some consumers do want it. The fashion accessories for Glass are similarly experiments - social experiments, specifically, to look at how these technologies can start getting wider use and acceptance.
If anything, comparing Glass to iPhone and then declaring it crap by comparison is the real idiocy. It's like comparing a surgical instrument to a hammer and then declaring it a failure because only a small percentage of the populace wants it.
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.
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.
Comments
If you mean Google is inside, yes.
Yep. It's not the glasses part that is the issue. It's the bulky side piece. They should be trying to go retro with a a big plastic "nerd" frame where all the bits are inside that frame than this 'sunglasses with a giant tech zit'.
Hipsters love the nerd spec look so they would jump for it.
And if google could figure out a way to protect onto the lens and not into the eye they would probably have fewer complaints of headaches etc.
Google Glass would be cool if they looked like Geordi Laforge's VISOR:
There is a South Korean company named CoreGem, that made something similar, called The Neomind Brainwave:
http://www.mobilemag.com/2006/01/19/relax-and-learn-with-neomind-brainwave-visor/
In 2011, an Israeli company called Lumus, created see-thru video glasses that could easily be modified to look like Terminator shades:
http://www.telepresenceoptions.com/2011/12/headsup_lumus_shows_off_720p_s/
Now put them together, you would have something that would look like The Mass Effect Visor:
That is the first thing I thought of when I read this. Long live the opti-grab!
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
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.
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
Right, right and right.
It's plainly obvious Google Glass makes a lot of folks uncomfortable. For that reason and a couple of others I don't think Glass v.1 will be a commercial success as I've said before. They are being way too timid in releasing it and their their window of opportunity has already passed IMO. They gave the naysayers and FUD-makers too much time to formulate arguments against it.
It may serve as a learning opportunity but a profit center it won't be. You can mark Glass up as the Google equivalent of "Newton" IMO, a product that got a lot of attention but commercially and technically was before its time. That doesn't mean the effort is without value tho and I believe at some point a Glass-like appliance will see widespread acceptance. And yes I believe 10 years will be more than enough time for it to happen.
And I'm being cowardly?? You don't see me avoiding a discussion of it with anyone that wants to take part. That would include you good sir. Your Yedi mind tricks don't work on me.
"Nothingever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the onset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have a malady in the less attractive forms." -- Dickens
There is a lot of mocking going on here, coming from a lot of folks who have no understanding whatsoever of how quickly the capacity, capability, and usefulness of technologies like Glass are doubling. To roundly dismiss them, as some have done here, is the height of mockery and demonstrates enormous lack of vision.
If you want to learn something about just how fundamentally these and other technologies will change our society, go grab a copy of "The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies" - you can get it here.
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. But they cannot do that, fundamentally, because they can't understand the exponential speed with which our technological prowess doubles. In 2004 not a single entrant in Darpa's autonomous vehicle challenge was able to complete more than 5% of the test course. Yet flash forward to 2012 and Google's driverless cars had already logged hundreds of thousands of miles on public roadways in the United States without even a single accident. And in 2013, Nissan announced they would come to market with several models of driverless cars by 2020. So from 2004 to 2012 autonomous cars went from being a science fiction fantasy to demonstrable fact. 8 years. 4 doublings.
Google glass is no different. It is goofy to look at, and easy to mock. But doing that means that the pretentious people doing so lack the vision and the understanding to see how quickly these technologies will become commonplace and just how quickly they will evolve.
Check out Ray Kurzweil's TED talk on how technology doubles - done way back in 2005 - for a very interesting look at how quickly these changes are happening. FYI, Kurzweill is no dummy - in 1999 he predicted that within a decade we would see self-driving cars and mobile phones that could answer questions. At the time, he was greatly criticized by people who considered these predictions unrealistic. He was, in retrospect, quite correct. Kurzweil also happens to (as of December 2012) a director of Engineering in Google's Advanced Technologies and Projects group.
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.
Have a great day.
They are being way too timid in releasing it and their their window of opportunity has already passed IMO. They gave the naysayers and FUD-makers too much time to formulate arguments against it.
What in the hell are you talking about?!?!? When was their "window"? Release week- Even if they advertised it ad naseum and slashed the price in half no one would buy it.
"Gave the naysayers and FUD-makers too much time"? How about- it was a piece of garbage that society didn't want. It's failure came on it's own merits- not because of "naysayers".
And you wonder why people think you're up Google's ass?
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.
Yes with those same "naysayers"- it became an undeniably successful and game changing product. Apples-Oranges.
Hey- I have a pile of shit I just created for sale. Don't criticize it, because someone once criticized the iPhone. And if no one buys it, it's because of the naysayers- not because it's an actual pile of shit.
I don't wonder at all why you would think that.
Two years ago.
At the time it was first announced there was lots of excitement. The tech crowd drooled over the possibilities and dreamed about the uses for it. Two years later and the shine is off and its still a beta effort. Pretty darn surprised you couldn't figure in what way the window of opportunity had closed, but I suspect it might only be because you weren't interested in thinking about it. Google Glass will die an ignobel death but leave a lasting influence, an idea to be picked up again when the market ir right.
Ridicule killed the Newton and it will kill Glass too. But the vision of the Newton didn't die and neither will Glass IMHO.
Two years ago.
At the time it was first announced there was lots of excitement. The tech crowd drooled over the possibilities and dreamed about the uses for it. Two years later and the shine is off and its still a beta effort. Pretty darn surprised you couldn't figure in what way the window of opportunity had closed, but I suspect it might only be because you weren't interested in thinking about it.
The tech crowd didn't even buy it!
You make love to Google's products- did you buy one? No? Then that just further proves it was a heap of shit that the world doesn't want. There was no "window" because no one wanted it!
Google Glass will die an ignobel death but leave a lasting influence, an idea to be picked up again when the market ir right.
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!
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. :rolleyes:
What in the hell are you talking about?!?!? When was their "window"? Release week- Even if they advertised it ad naseum and slashed the price in half no one would buy it.
"Gave the naysayers and FUD-makers too much time"? How about- it was a piece of garbage that society didn't want. It's failure came on it's own merits- not because of "naysayers".
And you wonder why people think you're up Google's ass?
Yes with those same "naysayers"- it became an undeniably successful and game changing product. Apples-Oranges.
Hey- I have a pile of shit I just created for sale. Don't criticize it, because someone once criticized the iPhone. And if no one buys it, it's because of the naysayers- not because it's an actual pile of shit.
Don't confuse the success or failure of a product with the success or failure of a technology. Glass can be loosely seen as an implementation of augmented reality, and the fact that Glass is not quite ready for prime time (as a consumer grade device) shouldn't keep you from seeing the compelling use cases for this sort of technology. There will be further implementations of Glass, and this kind of technology will see increasing acceptance in years to come.
Google doesn't expect or intend Glass to be a device that reaches wide use in a consumer base. Up until a few months ago, you couldn't even buy it without having applied and been approved. Glass is an experiment to see what can be done with a technology in its infancy - it is a beta, if anything, not a mass consumer product. The fact that Google has opened it up to the public doesn't signal that they are trying to create a huge mass-market win, it just signals their response to the fact that some consumers do want it. The fashion accessories for Glass are similarly experiments - social experiments, specifically, to look at how these technologies can start getting wider use and acceptance.
If anything, comparing Glass to iPhone and then declaring it crap by comparison is the real idiocy. It's like comparing a surgical instrument to a hammer and then declaring it a failure because only a small percentage of the populace wants it.
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.
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.