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

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#111

Post by brandynwhite »

threeseed wrote: post #108
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.

It is not illegal in most states (IANAL). I agree it is less safe than fully focusing on driving (as is talking to a passenger), but I'd much rather have people glance up briefly and speak out a text than look down at their lap like they do today. Each state will figure out where they draw the line on this, I personally think it is safe when used with care (like a navigation system).

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#112

Post by snom380 »

semiprivate wrote: post #109
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…

You're confusing the use case. If course you can already look up the data and get alerts, and every modern plant already does. But getting hands on data when you're at the plant isn't just helpful for repairs or inspections, it's helpful for lots of things including debugging problems, helping new employees learn about the plant and "map" the processes to the physical layout of the pipes. Nowadays people lug around papers or tablets, so this would just be an extension of that.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#113

Post by rafcavallaro »

KeliNorth wrote: post #96
robg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also consider that in professional environs, various pros get away with all sorts of silly attire and add-ons - from scrubs and stethoscopes to other uniforms and utility belts. You look ridiculous, but you have a job to do.

Exactly, pros do it all the time. Eventually it becomes cool. I never buy into the hype about it looking bad for a few reasons: I wear glasses. Years ago people thought all glasses looked silly. And they were, with giant thick lenses. Now people buy non-RX glasses to look cool, even. I saw an animated sci-fi show from around 10 years ago (Denno Coil, Japanese anime) where in order to see the AR/VR world, you wore gla…

Yup - all the cool kids are wearing stethoscopes!

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#114

Post by msabalau »

threeseed wrote: post #108
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.

Glass is a perfectly fine way to get directions while driving. Just listen to the voice prompts and ignore the screen. Heck, one can push the prism up to the top of your head so there's no chance to see it.

(To be sure, one can also do this with a GPS app on a smart phone, but having left a phone behind in a rental car, I see value in using a device that's attached to me.)

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#115

Post by BrainInAJar »

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.

no, it's not like that at all. It's like he bought the xbox one devkit & returned it because the OS was crap and the controls were fundamentally flawed and he didn't think there was going to be a way to make good games for it.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#116

Post by BrainInAJar »

rafcavallaro wrote: post #113
KeliNorth wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, pros do it all the time. Eventually it becomes cool. I never buy into the hype about it looking bad for a few reasons: I wear glasses. Years ago people thought all glasses looked silly. And they were, with giant thick lenses. Now people buy non-RX glasses to look cool, even. I saw an animated sci-fi show from around 10 years ago (Denno Coil, Japanese anime) where in order to see the AR/VR world, you wore gla…

Yup - all the cool kids are wearing stethoscopes!

And steel toed boots. And hard hats are the latest rage

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#117

Post by brandynwhite »

aetherson wrote: post #56
guelo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glass is not an augmented reality device.

Totally. I kind of want to start every comment on every thread on HN with "Glass is not an augmented reality device." I've worn one (very briefly) now, and let me be very clear: you can not superimpose labels or images on anything you see in daily life with Glass. This is a physical limitation of the hardware, and it is absolute. This hardware will never, ever, ever be able to do that. And it's unclear to me if the h…

A little late but relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQCSis4kKs

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#118

Post by dedward »

darklajid wrote: post #105
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.

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/'g…

From the consumer point of view, sure, sounds great.

Why would the vendor be at all obliged to let them return the unit in the first place though? Outside of misrepresentation and fraud and things that are not fit for the purposes sold, sellers in general have no obligation at all to take a return. You see retail stores always taking returns, but that's a business decision to stay competitive... they are under no obligation to do so.

If the terms of sale stipulates that you can return it for a refund, or if it was somehow completely misrepresented and then a fraudulent sale by default..... sure.

So if you bought a console dev kit, and it worked as described for the purposes sold (which aren't necessarily the purpose you bought it for) - the vendor is under no obligation to refund you.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#119

Post by dedward »

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…

The real question is were it's capabilities misrepresented - did they sell you something that didn't do what they told you it would do?

Because if not.. and if it was only your personal assumptions that were off despite google being clear about what it was you were buying.... that's your problem, not theirs.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#120

Post by dedward »

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.

Was that fact noted by google pre-purchase? Because if it was..... again, google did nothing wrong.
Post reply on HN