I think the biggest problem is this swiping thing. Imagine Apple had released the first iPhone with a mouse plugged to it. It's a pure betrayal of the original Glass vision, where all user => machine communication goes through voice.
Why I'm Returning Google Glass
41–50 of 135 posts
Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass
#42I actually think industrial applications might be the hidden killer app for augmented reality. Imagine walking around a power plant and seeing your environment annotated: last inspection time for each inspection point, what is flowing through each pipe and its current pressure, etc. Construction sites could be truly amazing.
Call it a professional environment and I think that's where we will see the first true impact of wearable computing. Your examples are two good ones. And of course people have mentioned hospitals. Just consider every profession where a desk jockey is not the norm. That's police, firemen, first responders, military, teachers, etc. Heck, why not cashiers and even bar tenders?
Then again, I'm biased. We're building and selling our own version of wearable computing, but driven by your biological rhythms.
Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass
#43I had the option to get a Glass through the #ifihadglass program, but after reading up on it's abilities and more on augmented reality, this is not the device I want to spend 1.5k on.
Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass
#44The first paragraph says it all. > "Yesterday I made the call to return my Google Glass. After months of anticipation, a trip to New York, and several weeks with the device, after much deliberation I decided the device wasn't ready for prime time and my $1,500 would be better spent elsewhere." He shelled out for a beta product and was disappointed when it was, well, a beta product. More than that, even -- it was a be…
Yes it's a beta product, but it's a beta product that costs about 2200 bucks and a day+ of time in order to get to a Glass pickup center.
I just got mine, and I'm 50/50 on keeping it. I don't think anyone is faulting Google for the device, it's just that the value is negligible at its current price point.
Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
The TOS probitis reselling, loaning or transferring.
I don't think a TOS can override first sale doctrine on the physical hardware, can it? Or was the initial "purchase" actually structured as a rental or lease?
They can't prevent you from selling it, but they can revoke your access to the API.
Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass
#46"Wearables" in general are going to be a much tougher nut to crack than tablets. Glass is, at least, radical enough to stand a chance.
I'd be less sure that a watch is enough of an improvement over taking one's phone out of one's pocket.
Also, unlike tablets, which have the obvious business use case of liberating people from the "sit down with your computer" inhibitor to interpersonal interaction, nobody knows whether or how pervasive use of wearables could improve productivity or interaction in a business setting.
Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass
#47I actually think industrial applications might be the hidden killer app for augmented reality. Imagine walking around a power plant and seeing your environment annotated: last inspection time for each inspection point, what is flowing through each pipe and its current pressure, etc. Construction sites could be truly amazing.
Glass is not an augmented reality device.
Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass
#48The first paragraph says it all. > "Yesterday I made the call to return my Google Glass. After months of anticipation, a trip to New York, and several weeks with the device, after much deliberation I decided the device wasn't ready for prime time and my $1,500 would be better spent elsewhere." He shelled out for a beta product and was disappointed when it was, well, a beta product. More than that, even -- it was a be…
While I get this sentiment, in fairness, I think the reason we expect people not to be underwhelmed by beta testing is because it's beta testing . If you ask people to shell out $1500 for the privilege, you've now raised expectations - they're not just beta testing, they're buying a significant luxury good. I get why G charged - when you get people to invest in an item, especially by weeding out the less-passionate,…
In some environments (e.g., hospitals, military, probably police and first responders), $1500 is fair market value if the utility is there. Consider the rise of pagers. In 1950, at introduction, they were the equivalent of $100/month in today's dollars.
The Catch-22 for Google was establishing the value adds for wider adoption. They did an amazing job of launching the beta, considering that challenge.
Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass
#49I actually think industrial applications might be the hidden killer app for augmented reality. Imagine walking around a power plant and seeing your environment annotated: last inspection time for each inspection point, what is flowing through each pipe and its current pressure, etc. Construction sites could be truly amazing.
Glass is not an augmented reality device.
[deleted]
Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass
#50"Because a title like this is bound to drive traffic to my blog."