Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I'm Returning Google Glass

internetevolution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#101

Post by ben1040 »

baddox wrote: post #100
pkfrank wrote: post #2

>It feels very prototype-ish and I can't help but feel that it's the precursor to something better Google might even be working on now as we try these. ^^ This is totally the point of this run of Google Glass. While this is a fair and worthwhile personal essay, I don't think it's a particularly impactful statement about the potential of the product. He's basically saying that, for $1500, he wants to be blown away now…

> This is totally the point of this run of Google Glass. Is there any indication that this generation of Google Glass is intended as a prototype rather than a consumer-ready product, other than the reviews which overwhelmingly seem to describe it as such?

The fact that it doesn't work for the >50% of people who wear corrective lenses would be a start.

Also, the last three months have seen numerous software updates to add features and change functionality. It is an unfinished product and they are iterating based on user feedback.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#103

Post by baddox »

ben1040 wrote: post #101
baddox wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is totally the point of this run of Google Glass. Is there any indication that this generation of Google Glass is intended as a prototype rather than a consumer-ready product, other than the reviews which overwhelmingly seem to describe it as such?

The fact that it doesn't work for the >50% of people who wear corrective lenses would be a start. Also, the last three months have seen numerous software updates to add features and change functionality. It is an unfinished product and they are iterating based on user feedback.

Well, non-prescription sunglasses don't work for people with corrective lenses either. I wouldn't call that definitive evidence.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#104

Post by wmf »

arkades wrote: post #28
portmanteaufu wrote: post #4

The 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,…

Is a $10,000 console devkit a luxury good?

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#105

Post by darklajid »

Goronmon wrote: post #94
rsl7 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While this is a fair and worthwhile personal essay, I don't think it's a particularly impactful statement about the potential of the product. This is an unfinished product and he wants his $ back because the user experience leaves him cold. He's not investing in Google - he's buying an actual product. And clearly he is skeptical that this particular product will ever live up to its potential. Contrast to the iPhone…

>Contrast to the iPhone, yet again (the original). It showed both incredible potential and was an excellent actual product. Or as someone else mentioned, contrast this to a console devkit. Imagine someone making a blogpost about how they are returning their Xbox One devkit because there aren't any good games for it.

I do like that comparison - but let's add a twist:

He bought the console devkit, because he wanted to _play_ with the console and there wasn't a normal unit available. Okay, that was a bad idea and he (obviously?) isn't impressed with what is available right now: Should he still hold on to that expensive unit, or wait for the normal console to appear for a much more reasonable price (and maybe with actual features/'games' he'd be interested in)?

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#106

Post by darklajid »

wmf wrote: post #104
arkades wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Is a $10,000 console devkit a luxury good?

If you want to find out if that console is fun to use? Yes.

Probably the 10k would be a bigger showstopper for people that are 'just curious' to even give it a try, but in this case this guy seems like someone interested in a sneak preview.

The devkit buyer hopefully plans to build stuff, _generate_ money with it. It should be an instrument to generate income, the money is spent on 'tools'.

Glass? That's a gadget. I said it elsewhere on the thread: I do like the comparison with a developer kit, but .. most people that seem to get one/use one (even the ones mentioned in the very article) look like end users, trying to get a sneak preview. Not 'I want to build my business on Glass apps' type of guys.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#107

Post by wmf »

maffydub wrote: post #95
psbp wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really want to see glass interact with your phone so that you can perform minute actions like pinching and zooming or turning on certain camera features with your phone still in your pocket.

The touch pad on the side of the glass is multi-touch-capable, so it can detect pinch and zoom. You can't use this function via the Mirror API, but you could do it by side-loading an APK.

But then people see you touching the side of your head. Personally, I'm hoping for a ring controller.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#108

Post by threeseed »

brandynwhite wrote: post #25

I've been wearing glass for a while now and am active in development (see http://openglass.us ), there are a few select groups of people I'd recommend it to at this point: developers (it's a fun/simple/exciting platform to write for), researchers (just like with the kinect, it makes it much easier to reproduce experiments), people who are constantly running around town while being in contact with others (business/sal…

DO NOT USE GLASS FOR DRIVING.

It is illegal, is not safer than a car docked phone and since it moves your eyes away from the road is extremely dangerous. Stop being so selfish and stop the car. Studies have shown that when you are distracted you are more likely to crash. So innocent people's lives are at stake here.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#109

Post by semiprivate »

api wrote: post #29

I 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.

While those are novel applications and would probably work well in a repair situation, those things would be better managed by software that alerted you when things like "inspection time had been exceeded" or if "pressures were out of range". Having to look at every pipe and piece manually to check it's stats is error prone at best.

"You mean we have all this stuff recorded and in a database, but I have to go look at it to get the info?"

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#110

Post by Finster »

baddox wrote: post #99
Goronmon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Contrast to the iPhone, yet again (the original). It showed both incredible potential and was an excellent actual product. Or as someone else mentioned, contrast this to a console devkit. Imagine someone making a blogpost about how they are returning their Xbox One devkit because there aren't any good games for it.

Is Google Glass marketed as a developer kit, or even as a prototype or "first run" device? All the FEM I've seen is very polished (leading me to believe the company wants me to think the product is polished) and seems to be catering to a mainstream audience. Compare this to the Oculus Rift, which explicitly sells a "development kit" and even requires checking a box that says "I understand this hardware is intended fo…

Yes, I think Project Glass has been pretty clear about this being a first run device. That's why the participants are referred to as "Explorers". The point is to start mapping out use cases and fine tuning the UX.

Source: My wife is getting her Glass in a few weeks.

Post reply on HN