Why Google Glass Broke • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#41

Post by kefka » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:16 PM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #40

kefka wrote: post #13

I work in a capacity that reviews, tests, and develops proofs of concepts for new tech. We purchased 3 glasses when they came on the market. Our review: 1. pathetic battery life. You're going to have at most 6 hours of life. And that's with the GG radios off (and functionality at a nil). 2. You can't turn it off. it goes into a screen-off non-standby that still chews through battery. So when you think that youre cons…

> 8. $1500 . For "Google Quality". I'm truly wondering whether you mean that Google usually makes high quality, or that they usually screw stuff up. I'm assuming the latter, because it's what I agree with (anyone ever used Maps or, say, Android <5?) but maybe I'm just weird that way.

Absolutely not. With Google, you're guaranteed quite a few things.

1. Lack of updates. Nexus 7 issue.

2. No support. Or read as "Community driven support" as in go to a forum and beg.

3. Beta = not even alpha.

4. Expected to pay retail production price for buggy crap.

5. Have to complain on HN or twitter to get any sort of response.

6. Every device chatters to home base constantly.

7. Updates end up downgrading features.

8. No safe fail-over when services halt (mailbox death with merge tool).

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#42

Post by schnable » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:24 PM UTC

spiralpolitik wrote: post #18

I look at Google Glass as this decades 'Segway'. Hyped beyond all proportions, it failed as a mass market product, but found enough of a niche that you still see them to this day. That will be the future of 'Glass.

That seems doubtful as they have stopped selling them.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#43

Post by Symmetry » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:31 PM UTC

adnanh wrote: post #2

Personally I think it was the camera that killed it. That, and the fact that google put out an unfinished product without providing plethora of resources and apps for it, to get people excited, hoping the community would finish it for them... That, and the fact that people started calling Google Glass users "glassholes".

One of the biggest potential uses of something like Google Glass I see is automatically pulling up information about things you're looking at and there's no way to do that without a camera. Now, as far as I know the Glass didn't have enough horsepower to do that usefully but theoretical future versions might. It's just too bad their advertising focused on people making recordings of what they were seeing.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#44

Post by dublinben » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:35 PM UTC

kefka wrote: post #39

kefka wrote: post #13

I work in a capacity that reviews, tests, and develops proofs of concepts for new tech. We purchased 3 glasses when they came on the market. Our review: 1. pathetic battery life. You're going to have at most 6 hours of life. And that's with the GG radios off (and functionality at a nil). 2. You can't turn it off. it goes into a screen-off non-standby that still chews through battery. So when you think that youre cons…

And one last story regarding the Glass. Google engineers came to us for a public demonstration. Now, our network has a secure component (WPA2-enterprise) and a non-secure component. However to use either, you need to register the MAC address with our system. Simple. No. For a company that made Android, and focuses oh so much on security, they dont support WPA2-enterprise. Just doesn't work. So, we were relegated to t…

This is obviously an issue with Google Glass, but MAC address filtering is a waste of time. It offers absolutely no protection against a determined adversary. It is a perfect example of security theater.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#45

Post by yequalsx » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:46 PM UTC

msabalau wrote: post #33

maccard wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was a marvellous bit of well-made kit Marvelous other than the 1500 dollar price tag for an unfinished product, the lack of software, the abysmal battery life, and the obvious privacy concerns of this device being constructed by one of the most invasive companies on the planet? I agree with the fact that it's the first, but calling it marvelous is a bit of a stretch.

Adjusted for inflation Glass was the price of an Apple One or the launch price of a Commodore 64 (which, if you preordered, came with a free cassette drive for storage: a $70 value.) It was priced correctly for for true early adoptors who wanted a prototype. Not as a consumer product. Google's stated target price for commercial release was "about the price of a smartphone."

It seems to me your adjusted for inflation price is talking about currency inflation and not the deflation in tech prices. $1500 is quite a bit of money for such tech in my opinion. This is especially so in light of Google's legendary poor customer service.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#46

Post by kefka » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:49 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #44

kefka wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And one last story regarding the Glass. Google engineers came to us for a public demonstration. Now, our network has a secure component (WPA2-enterprise) and a non-secure component. However to use either, you need to register the MAC address with our system. Simple. No. For a company that made Android, and focuses oh so much on security, they dont support WPA2-enterprise. Just doesn't work. So, we were relegated to t…

This is obviously an issue with Google Glass, but MAC address filtering is a waste of time. It offers absolutely no protection against a determined adversary. It is a perfect example of security theater.

You're assuming that it is the only defense. It isn't.

We look at security as one would look at an onion.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#47

Post by lfowles » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:52 PM UTC

kefka wrote: post #46

dublinben wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is obviously an issue with Google Glass, but MAC address filtering is a waste of time. It offers absolutely no protection against a determined adversary. It is a perfect example of security theater.

You're assuming that it is the only defense. It isn't. We look at security as one would look at an onion.

It makes you cry when you chop it wrong?

Brittle outer layers?

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#48

Post by abhigupta » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:55 PM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #44

kefka wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And one last story regarding the Glass. Google engineers came to us for a public demonstration. Now, our network has a secure component (WPA2-enterprise) and a non-secure component. However to use either, you need to register the MAC address with our system. Simple. No. For a company that made Android, and focuses oh so much on security, they dont support WPA2-enterprise. Just doesn't work. So, we were relegated to t…

This is obviously an issue with Google Glass, but MAC address filtering is a waste of time. It offers absolutely no protection against a determined adversary. It is a perfect example of security theater.

Do you also never use Padlock or Combination Lock or basic door lock because they also offer "no protection against a determined adversary" ?

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#49

Post by johnkpush » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

kefka wrote: post #13

I work in a capacity that reviews, tests, and develops proofs of concepts for new tech. We purchased 3 glasses when they came on the market. Our review: 1. pathetic battery life. You're going to have at most 6 hours of life. And that's with the GG radios off (and functionality at a nil). 2. You can't turn it off. it goes into a screen-off non-standby that still chews through battery. So when you think that youre cons…

We also tested glass in the same capacity. I'd like to add one of our most important UX findings:

9. It gave ~10% of users a headache after approximately 10 minues of use.

At least we learned that User experience isn't all about pressing buttons.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#50

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 2:56 PM UTC

kefka wrote: post #39

kefka wrote: post #13

I work in a capacity that reviews, tests, and develops proofs of concepts for new tech. We purchased 3 glasses when they came on the market. Our review: 1. pathetic battery life. You're going to have at most 6 hours of life. And that's with the GG radios off (and functionality at a nil). 2. You can't turn it off. it goes into a screen-off non-standby that still chews through battery. So when you think that youre cons…

And one last story regarding the Glass. Google engineers came to us for a public demonstration. Now, our network has a secure component (WPA2-enterprise) and a non-secure component. However to use either, you need to register the MAC address with our system. Simple. No. For a company that made Android, and focuses oh so much on security, they dont support WPA2-enterprise. Just doesn't work. So, we were relegated to t…

Why do people need to manually give you their MAC address for a non-secure network? Any "bad actor" could just sniff and copy an approved MAC address, so it does nothing for security. And while it's possible to look up the MAC address on some devices, it's not simple on any of them. This seems more like your shortcoming, not Google's.