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

Thoughts on Google Glass

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#11

Post by allsystemsgo »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #10
allsystemsgo wrote: post #6

I disagree. I own Glass. 99.9% of people who see me wearing them want to know more about them. They want to try them on and experience glass. And of course, I let them give Glass a whirl. They love it. Yes it's WAY too pricey but, it's still awesome. I don't find them that unattractive. I look at it like, "I'm at a sporting/concert event and I obviously want to take pictures, so I'm wearing this, which is more conven…

It needs Bluetooth LE. I'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support notifications at least. Does Android even support BLE yet in a way that's accessible and standardized across hardware manufacturers? I was looking at doing some work with Bluetooth LE last year but was amazed at the lack of attention Google was putting into it. It seemed likely they were going to ignore it altogether for a while.

Not sure. Like I said, I'm an iOS dev. I think the most recent version of android does?

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#12

Post by deckiedan »

jwcooper wrote: post #7

I like gadgets and various electronics, but for some reason Glass just rubs me the wrong way. I'm not sure if it's because of the 'creep factor' or what. I guess I'm just not ready for a society always recording everything. I can't even imagine what high school would be like. One embarrassing thing happens, and 30 people have it recorded, uploaded to the internet, and commenting on it in minutes. I guess that could a…

I could imagine an 'off'/airplane mode with a visible red LED on top or something, which, in such a small device clamped to your glasses would be fairly visible, and hard to fake/hack.

Alternatively, some kind of wifi/3g blocker or jammer, could be the answer.

In some ways it might make sense to use a polite version of that, where devices would 'hear' a wifi SSID signal, or whatever, with a 'this is a private place, no creepiness, please' signal embedded in it. To stop denial of service, or only having official jamming, you could have that privacy signal location specific, with a Lat/Long GPS position, and then the whole thing signed against a central server (probably google, but a non-Profit would probably be ideal), so that people couldn't wander around with portable jammers.

Then shopping centers, schools, private homes, resturants, etc, could easily register for a code, plonk it on a jammer or other wifi router, and behold, an illusion of privacy.

If there were government regulation about devices having to obey such signals to be legal for use, then I could see it working.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#13

Post by acgourley »

cargo8 wrote: post #8

> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does. To me, that’s everything. Same thing with all existing smartwatches — the problem isn’t the idea, it’s the actual execution. There are no points for being first to market with a bad product. This is just wrong. Google gains massive points in my book for putting something like Glass out there. They get points for showing the world a glimpse of what t…

His point is that no one remembers the Tablet PC and everyone remembers the iPad. But that's a really weak argument to me. The Tablet PC didn't just fail because the form factor was 10 years too early and because the design missed the mark... but because the product was abandoned. If Google keeps up, stays hungry and keeps working through the early issues they can come out as the market leader just as easy as Apple or whomever tries to follow.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#15

Post by stcredzero »

acgourley wrote: post #13
cargo8 wrote: post #8

> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does. To me, that’s everything. Same thing with all existing smartwatches — the problem isn’t the idea, it’s the actual execution. There are no points for being first to market with a bad product. This is just wrong. Google gains massive points in my book for putting something like Glass out there. They get points for showing the world a glimpse of what t…

His point is that no one remembers the Tablet PC and everyone remembers the iPad. But that's a really weak argument to me. The Tablet PC didn't just fail because the form factor was 10 years too early and because the design missed the mark... but because the product was abandoned. If Google keeps up, stays hungry and keeps working through the early issues they can come out as the market leader just as easy as Apple o…

My HP tc1100 has about the same functionality as a 1st gen iPad, only with more RAM, 1/5th the battery life, resistive stylus screen, and twice the weight. That's what it means that it was "10 years too early." That said, HP was a premier tech company in its day, and the tc1100 was a tour-de force of industrial time for its time.

If Google Glass is the best one of the premier tech companies can do now, then it's clearly too early.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#16

Post by julianpye »

What surprises me always is that people act as if Glass was the first of its kind. The tech has been around for ages and actually Glass is very poor in terms of its holographic projection technology. What is new is that Google is the first company who is really serious about this and has the guts about it flying in the face of negative publicity, not shying away from its weirdness for many people. I led an AR/VR project at Vodafone using Sony's far superior tech with local startups and the project while technically successful didn't make it past the prototype stage. All there is: Google has really high innovation reputation, they can shape the market even if it 'feels weird', that is why the article is spot on saying it 'will help grease the wheels for social acceptance'.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#17

Post by nickbarnwell »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #10
allsystemsgo wrote: post #6

I disagree. I own Glass. 99.9% of people who see me wearing them want to know more about them. They want to try them on and experience glass. And of course, I let them give Glass a whirl. They love it. Yes it's WAY too pricey but, it's still awesome. I don't find them that unattractive. I look at it like, "I'm at a sporting/concert event and I obviously want to take pictures, so I'm wearing this, which is more conven…

It needs Bluetooth LE. I'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support notifications at least. Does Android even support BLE yet in a way that's accessible and standardized across hardware manufacturers? I was looking at doing some work with Bluetooth LE last year but was amazed at the lack of attention Google was putting into it. It seemed likely they were going to ignore it altogether for a while.

Android 4.3 brought about much improved BLE support [1]. Unfortunately, driver support from manufacturers is still fairly limited, and hasn't been appearing very quickly.

[1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19717902/does-android-kit...

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#18

Post by reidmain »

vinkelhake wrote: post #5

It’s a cool lab demo that they’re presenting as a finished product. They do? It seems to me that they've been looking for early adopters that can provide feedback. It'll be a finished product once it's available for order on Google Play.

They've said that they are going to release the consumer version in 2014. Sure it could drastically change from what a developer could be receiving in December 2013 but odds are it is going to be stuff like the price that changes the most, not the actual hardware.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#19

Post by reidmain »

justina1 wrote: post #3

Mat Honan's article was a valuable critique. And interesting. Gruber's reaction on the other hand... > It’s a cool lab demo that they’re presenting as a finished product. Google couldn't be any more clear that it is a beta and they've never once said that the current price is what it will hit the market at (or if it will hit the market, for that matter). So that's just flat out wrong. > It is ugly and clunky and ridi…

They said they are going to release a consumer version in 2014. Perhaps something is going to drastically change but the vibe that I get is they are beta testing it so they are hammering out bugs and other rough edges not looking to drastically overhaul the hardware or software.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#20

Post by 51Cards »

stcredzero wrote: post #15
acgourley wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point is that no one remembers the Tablet PC and everyone remembers the iPad. But that's a really weak argument to me. The Tablet PC didn't just fail because the form factor was 10 years too early and because the design missed the mark... but because the product was abandoned. If Google keeps up, stays hungry and keeps working through the early issues they can come out as the market leader just as easy as Apple o…

My HP tc1100 has about the same functionality as a 1st gen iPad, only with more RAM, 1/5th the battery life, resistive stylus screen, and twice the weight. That's what it means that it was "10 years too early." That said, HP was a premier tech company in its day, and the tc1100 was a tour-de force of industrial time for its time. If Google Glass is the best one of the premier tech companies can do now, then it's clea…

There is no such thing as being "too early" to market. That is how you cut your teeth, learn and get ahead. You fail when you give up on the idea (or are proven that it will never catch on... either way). However if you create a product that eventually takes off, and if you continue to iterate it and not abandon it, you can't be too early. And, if nothing else, it is 100x less risky to be too early, than too late.
Post reply on HN