Live data from Hacker News

The Glass Bicycle

dcurt.is

161–170 of 179 posts

Re: The Glass Bicycle

#161
post #8

I wish Google would focus on using Google Glass within the workplace before trying to take it to the streets for casual use. I can imagine using them within the office, because anything that makes me more productive is totally acceptable "socially". Outside of the office however I have serious doubts to if I'd wear these around daily. My colleague will know why I'm essentially talking to myself to use Google Glass, w…

Why the hell would you care about what people in the streets "think" of your glasses, clothes, sexual inclination or color of skin?

Re: The Glass Bicycle

#162
I'm still guessing how Glass would stand up to the performance shown in the demo video. For Glass to work like as shown it would need to have Internet connection everywhere (including ski slops and dessert roads) and batteries need to last for a significant portion of the day. One way it can do is to offload processing + connection to cellular via Bluetooth to phone in your pocket. In which case Glass becomes just interface device for phone like Bluetooth headsets but with camera and tiny projector. The projector could be LED based low powered device with a lens. I think whole thing can be made very cheaply, probably under $199. It would be a very cool thing for sure.

Re: The Glass Bicycle

#163
post #38

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?

This is well known...

Re: The Glass Bicycle

#164

The biggest problem with Google Glass is privacy.Anyone can record you without you knowing it. And it's not just walking down the street. There are so many bad scenarios. Usually we embrace new tech here but this device would bring privacy to a whole new level. Not to mention that Google is starting to be too powerful for our own good.

It seems to be an unpopular opinion, but what you see as the biggest problem I see as the most exciting feature (albeit Glass doesn't go far enough for my desires). I can't wait to see how machine learning can be applied to the corpus of audio and video recorded throughout my daily life. The idea that additional value can be "mined" from that data, retroactively, makes me even more excited.

Did you ever read the blog by Stephen Wolfram about his historic personal data collection and analysis?

http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/03/the-personal-analytic...

It offers great insight into how he lives and works, and that is just from the analysis of his historic email, (rigorous!) calendar appointments and phone call metadata, not their actual content!

Re: The Glass Bicycle

#165

I'm still guessing how Glass would stand up to the performance shown in the demo video. For Glass to work like as shown it would need to have Internet connection everywhere (including ski slops and dessert roads) and batteries need to last for a significant portion of the day. One way it can do is to offload processing + connection to cellular via Bluetooth to phone in your pocket. In which case Glass becomes just in…

The internet connection is already external. It uses wifi or tether with your android/iphone. So no, it is not going to be cheaper. You can't offload processing because then it totally depends on the phone.

Re: The Glass Bicycle

#166
The key problem with Google Now is that you have to remember to look at it, and so, most people don't get the benefit as much as they should. The act of having to physically remove the phone, unlock it, to see contextual Now card notifications IMHO is a transaction cost that makes it less likely you'll use it effectively.

You need to be able to see and dismiss a contextual notification within a second, like a warning light in a cockpit. It should be effortless and almost second nature.

That's one reason why the glass, or going further, direct-mind-machine interface, would be better - speed. Latency matters. I am often deterred by the time it takes to unlock a phone to perform an action. For example, I once witnessed a car accident and wanted to snap a picture, but it took too long to get my phone out, and I missed the moment. Other times, I want to translate something I'm looking at, but bringing up an app to do it is just too annoying. Look at the way the characters in Star Trek the Next Generation call on the computer to answer questions as if it is always just there for the asking. That's the kind of responsiveness you want.

I think a lot of people assume that a device that sits on your face would be "always on", constantly distracting you, but I'd argue that the ideal device is one that is out of your way, but activates extremely quickly on demand, or contextually as appropriate, like a subconscious subroutine or personal assistant.

Too much effort I think is focused on immediate mass mainstream adoption. It's as if, you can't have an iPhone level sales volume, it's not even worth doing. But there are lots of things worth doing that the masses don't necessarily adopt out of the gate. Someone needs to lay the foundation that the future is built on, that other people can build on. Google Glass doesn't need to "kill" the iPhone to succeed.

Re: The Glass Bicycle

#167
post #38

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?

In addition to the already mentioned quotes and biography, Apple had nearly 30 years of research in the space [1]; you've probably heard of the (failed) Newton. At some point in 200x, they decided to try one more time, this time as a smartphone. It kind of worked.

[1] http://blogs.wundrbooks.com/apple-their-tablet-computer-hist...

Re: The Glass Bicycle

#168
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Treo was not new, the Blackberry already did everything the Palm did years before.

Nope. The Treo 180 was the first Treo that had phone capabilities, and it was released in 2002. The first BlackBerry that had phone capabilities was also released in 2002, but the first BlackBerry that didn't require an external headset to talk with wasn't released until 2003. BlackBerry was in no way years early to the smartphone market - they just approached it from a different angle.

Don't forget the Handspring Visors and Compaq iPAQs that could be turned into smartphone-equivalents with the appropriate add-ons. Those came even earlier.

Re: The Glass Bicycle

#169
post #88

To my mind, the Google Glass is far more like the Microsoft Tablet, the Tesla Roadster and the Palm Treo: the initial realization of a concept that, before now, didn't exist in the world at all. It seems incorrect to compare it to the iPhone and the iPad because both of those were taking technology that had existed in the tech community for years and reimagining them in a way that appealed to the general public. As a…

I agree but why is the tesla roadster in that list?

Surface and Treo are not the best examples either. His definition of "didn't exist in the world" is getting mainstream recognition.

Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle...

Re: The Glass Bicycle

#170
It's unclear from the article whether or not the author has actually used Google Glass. It's pretty vague, so I assume not. It's easy to wax on about the greatness of a device if, having never used one, you're free to project all of your hopes and fantasies onto it.
Post reply on HN