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.
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.
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.
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.
[VIDEO]
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¡
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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).
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[VIDEO]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
and no one bought it
What the hell are you talking about?
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.
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.
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?
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!
Yes they did.
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.
[VIDEO]
You're correct.
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.
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).
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.