Wasn't Robert Scoble The Great Antihyper? Everything he hypes will eventually fail?
I don't follow him too closely, but it seems that Scoble likes everything new. Some will be flops, others (eg, Instagram) will be hits.
My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price
41–50 of 159 posts
Re: My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price
#42Are there any Glass users around here? I have a basic question. Can the wearer see a video? I ask because I've seen captured video, still images of ... still images, etc. ;-) Conceptually, video is similar but I want to verify that video playback is in there.
Re: My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
A couple of differences. First, vision is much higher bandwidth. You can glance at a notification and immediately know that you have a message, who sent the message, and how you received it. Takes half a second. Bluetooth earpieces are only suitable for sustained conversation. They are social faux pas because you are having a sustained conversation with someone else. This is not the case with HMDs - someone using a t…
It is looking away that breaks conversations, not doing something else. You ARE looking away. And depending on how many messages you receive it could be just as irritating to the person(s) you're with as constantly checking your phone. Least of all the constant doubt about whether your conversation is being recorded or not. I am not disputing their unquestionable usefulness I just have doubts they will be acceptable…
From having tried Glass, I can affirm that you do indeed look away.
If any of you are wearing glasses, try looking at the top corner of your frame; that's the same motion needed to engage with Glass.
You'd effectively completely break eye contact with the person you're talking to and motion as if you're looking at something completely different. It's the equivalent of getting distracted by a cool car while your friend talks to you and you have to say "sorry, I saw a cool car, go on".
Re: My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guess it's because the camera has to be super-tiny.
Wasn't the camera one of the biggest selling points Google tried to make? Looking at picture quality in the blog post and the Glass demo at Google I/O 2012, there is a clear disconnect, in my opinion.
Yes, but I don't think they've ever claimed that the picture quality of the camera was great. They emphasized on the camera a lot because taking pictures with the Glass is way more personal than taking a picture with a traditional camera. After some time, when you go back to look at the pictures you'd taken, you live those moments again the same way you remember them, from your point of view. This was my take anyway.
Re: My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price
#45Interesting he feels so strongly about that... but then again, he always kinda does. Not sure what to make of it. I used to follow Scoble's blog back when he was evangelizing for Microsoft, but he's abandoned his mediums so often and so vociferously that I sort of lost track. Is Google Plus his latest platform now? Personally, I'm consciously trying _not_ to get stuck with a single company's ecosystem, so a lot of th…
Scoble is different from you and me. His job is (or was) to attract as many people and as much attention to Rackspace. By being a whore for every new platform he did that really well.
A normal person builds his own brand at hisname.com, but Scoble sorta sells his attention-getting services to others.
Re: My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an accessory to a phone. It uses bluetooth primarily, but additionally can use WiFi for network communication. It does not have 3g/4g nor require a SIM or contract. Think of it is a bluetooth headset that happens to have a camera and display, and additionally WiFi (for helping to upload those larger files).
Nobody in their right mind would hold a cell phone for most of the waking hours continously at their head. I wonder how problematic Bluetooth and WiFi are for your health.
The technologies aren't the only important part; one should consider that a cellphone is talking to an antenna a few miles away, compared to the Glass talking to a device a feet or so away.
Re: My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price
#47Link to the desktop version of this post: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9Gdmk...
Thank you.
Re: My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody in their right mind would hold a cell phone for most of the waking hours continously at their head. I wonder how problematic Bluetooth and WiFi are for your health.
Without discussing if Bluetooth and WiFi are bad for your health, it would be way better to keep those transmitters and receivers close to your head than for instance your upper body. Your skull is quite dense and blocks radiation way more than the soft material that protects your heart and lungs.
Not to mention the organs it's nearest to in your pocket
Re: My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody in their right mind would hold a cell phone for most of the waking hours continously at their head. I wonder how problematic Bluetooth and WiFi are for your health.
Without discussing if Bluetooth and WiFi are bad for your health, it would be way better to keep those transmitters and receivers close to your head than for instance your upper body. Your skull is quite dense and blocks radiation way more than the soft material that protects your heart and lungs.
Rather irrelevant in the GHz range, where density is much less significant than the chemical bonds and conductivity of the material. In fact the soft tissue would likely be a better absorber due to a higher concentration of water.
Re: My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't the camera one of the biggest selling points Google tried to make? Looking at picture quality in the blog post and the Glass demo at Google I/O 2012, there is a clear disconnect, in my opinion.
Yes, but I don't think they've ever claimed that the picture quality of the camera was great. They emphasized on the camera a lot because taking pictures with the Glass is way more personal than taking a picture with a traditional camera. After some time, when you go back to look at the pictures you'd taken, you live those moments again the same way you remember them, from your point of view. This was my take anyway.
Yeah I understand that but whats the point if the quality is not good. Good Idea. Poor execution.