101–110 of 179 posts
Maybe I am an idiot for not understanding this sentiment expressed below: "Google glass will make everyone smarter" Is it in the same way that a car makes an obese un-athletic person faster?
No. You get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Segways didn't "fail" because they were dorky, they didn't see wide adoption because they were [and are] extremely expensive.
They're also somewhat dangerous, having killed the guy who bought the Segway company, among others. That is not mitigated by the fact that the Segway was marketed as something like better walking, discouraging helmet use (even while claiming in safety manuals that helmets are required).
While anything on wheels is more dangerous than walking, it's disingenuous to claim that this particular death is proof of the danger of travelling by Segway.
It's interesting that in HN comments, most people are very excited for the arrival of glass. They think of it as something that will enhance their lifestyle, their productivity, etc. If you read comments about glass in other forums such as at the bottom of NYTimes articles or other more general public media, most comments seem to be just the opposite: fear and paranoia about the arrival of glass in terms of privacy,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't imagine Google Glass will be exactly cheap either. Also, just like Segway has been facing regulatory issues [1], Glass deployment might be hampered by safety and privacy issues, at least initially and in some markets. Not too far-fetched of a comparison really. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway_PT#Restrictions_on_use
Retail price is about $1500 on the glass.
The closest analogy I see is with the segway. Something that could be useful and even world-changing but overhyped and dumped on a market without justifying it's existence. Apple could have released the iPad first but they waited to teach the market what it was with the iPhone first. Thus each step (iPhone, tablet) was a new form of a familiar thing rather than a new thing altogether. If I were in Google's shoes, I w…
About six months ago there was a reddit post about a HDR welding mask ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM517kYS6kY ). The thread had many interesting comments, including welders claiming that they didn't need such a mask, because they could already weld well with their sense of feeling and limited vision. To me, this is a really good example of what we will be seeing with a lot of these kinds of technology.
I personally don't know many people who are dismissing it off as "ugly, useless, and un-productizable." Almost everyone understands this is the room-sized ENIAC equivalent of our times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
The closest analogy I see is with the segway. Something that could be useful and even world-changing but overhyped and dumped on a market without justifying it's existence. Apple could have released the iPad first but they waited to teach the market what it was with the iPhone first. Thus each step (iPhone, tablet) was a new form of a familiar thing rather than a new thing altogether. If I were in Google's shoes, I w…
> Apple could have released the iPad first but they waited to teach the market what it was with the iPhone first. Amazing. They had both products in mind, considered them both, and thought that it would be best to lead with the iPhone, aye? And Steve told you this, did he?
The closest analogy I see is with the segway. Something that could be useful and even world-changing but overhyped and dumped on a market without justifying it's existence. Apple could have released the iPad first but they waited to teach the market what it was with the iPhone first. Thus each step (iPhone, tablet) was a new form of a familiar thing rather than a new thing altogether. If I were in Google's shoes, I w…
The segway is not world changing. Full stop. It could never have been cheaper than a bicycle or a scooter yet it was less capable than either.
Were you not paying attention?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the aver person a small camera is a smartphone, which needs to be obviously held up when filming. Google Glass would be omnipresent so you wouldn't notice when a camera is turned on.
There is a red light glowing when the camera is on. But what happens when you have 10 people with Glass?How will you stop everyone from recording?And 10 is a small number in a fast-paced environment like NYC. What happens when someone zooms in on sensitive data in a company or home or anywhere you can think of. The more Glasses you have, the less control you get.
It's interesting that in HN comments, most people are very excited for the arrival of glass. They think of it as something that will enhance their lifestyle, their productivity, etc. If you read comments about glass in other forums such as at the bottom of NYTimes articles or other more general public media, most comments seem to be just the opposite: fear and paranoia about the arrival of glass in terms of privacy,…