31–40 of 305 posts
There are very few visible pieces of technology that we carry and display in public (probably only glasses and watches). Visible wearable technology has a long history of being either geeky or douchebaggish (bluetooth headsets). I'm suspecting the current incarnation of Google's glasses would elicit both perceptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real artists ship. I'm very excited about all of Google's cool new projects, but they have a history of shooting themselves in the foot. If these technologies are so far along, why not build a consumer version and get people to pay to be testers?! Then iterate on the concept and keep improving it through successive versions. But that's Apple's game.
Well treating your users like guinea pigs can back fire. Look at Siri. There seems to be a lot of frustrated users, some even going as far as lawsuits. That model doesn't always work.
http://www.macnews.com/2012/03/26/87-iphone-4s-owners-use-si...
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/03/26/90-percent-siri-user...
Siri isn't perfect, but it's a great start. Apple will almost certainly improve Siri in the next iteration of iOS.
>“We’re sharing this information now because we want to start a conversation and learn from your valuable input,” the three employees wrote. “Please follow along as we share some of our ideas and stories. We’d love to hear yours, too. What would you like to see from Project Glass?” Why would you ask that? This type of product is so different from what's available on the market that I doubt the Project Glass team woul…
Also, I assume this is going to work with a data plan as well? Well at least this time I really hope Google will not give in to carriers, and compromise on nothing. Don't give carriers the power Google. When this product becomes extremely successful, as I believe it will become, they will be begging you to sell it on their network. Although I'd probably prefer something like the former Nexus store, that intended to commoditize carriers, rather than give them exclusives.
Why would the largest advertising company in the world want to place a screen between my eyeballs and reality?
The glasses the way they're designed are smart, not in between but rather in a fixed spot and only a part of the field of view. I definitely wouldn't want a computer screen between my eyes and 'the real world' in normal day to day life. Believing what my eyes see is important to me and with another layer in between you'll never know whether you are reacting to an overlay or the real thing. Especially if the images are created with input from a remote source which opens all kinds of interesting possibilities. Superimpose a picture of a traffic accident on the glasses of someone that is driving and you could very well end up with the real thing.
Seeing is believing they say and the response to visual input can be very reflexive. Audio alone can be distracting enough.
So google seems to have that part done right, it'd be great to play around with these.
As much as I like the design, I think Google should first aim at making them look as inconspicuous as possible by making it look like a normal piece of eyewear. There are very few visible pieces of technology that we carry and display in public (probably only glasses and watches). Visible wearable technology has a long history of being either geeky or douchebaggish (bluetooth headsets). I'm suspecting the current inc…
But I agree that if they got this far already, they can probably make them even more minimalistic in version 2.0 or 3.0. But really, they look very modern already. Kind of like some of the best looking bluetooth headsets out there - just longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you don't ship when it still kills people. Google launches stuff in betas all the time (arguably too much and for too long), but I'm glad they're not out there letting anyone test self driving cars or augmented reality contacts. Apple's difference isn't that they iterate, it's that they don't talk about their new stuff until it ships.
The automated car has driven over 200,000 miles and has never once been in an accident. I don't know many humans that can live up to that.
The Google car won't be truly safe until it has logged 1000x miles.
Looks like a great way to increase pedestrian fatalities.
Back to the drawing board, Google.