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

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#121

Post by dedward »

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…

Can't we consider a fighter pilot's HUD augmented reality? That's not exactly new.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#122

Post by dedward »

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,…

Call it beta or whatnot... but Google was very up-front that this was the initial release of the product, and that they wanted to select a limited size team to get them out in the world, to people who would give them perspective. He wrote that he'd use it and blog/journal about it and whatnot.

If he wanted an end product that was polished, he mislead google and misled himself.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#123

Post by coldtea »

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. 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.*

And it's also something Google and Microsoft do all the time. Release or pre-announce half-baked stuff, just to get some publicity, years (or decades) before they are fit for consumption.

That supposedly makes them look "innovative".

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#124

Post by DannyBee »

dedward wrote: post #120
ben1040 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it was noted that it was for developers and early testers:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57462641-1/brin-google-g...

(Note explorer edition is what the author of this post was testing)

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#127

Post by saraid216 »

rsl7 wrote: post #84
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…

> 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.

This amuses me, because I was building an iPhone app in 2008 for my then-employer, so I had a company phone. I barely used it. When I moved teams, I returned it and didn't bother owning a smartphone until 2011 when the entire market had matured.

Sounds like a pretty apt comparison.

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#128

Post by Wingman4l7 »

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.

Aren't there already HUDs in limited / experimental use in such applications?

Re: Why I'm Returning Google Glass

#130

Post by chenster »

saraid216 wrote: post #127
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. This amuses me, because I was building an iPhone app in 2008 for my then-employer, so I had a company phone. I barely used it. When I moved teams, I returned it and didn't bother owning a smartphone until 2011 when the entire market had matured. Sounds like a pretty apt comparison.

So what's wrong with the early generation iPhone since you think the dumb phone was still way cooler?
Post reply on HN