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

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#41

Post by corin_ »

laureny wrote: post #34

It's quite entertaining to see Gruber struggle so much with the idea that Google has out innovated Apple. You can tell he really wishes he could say that everything about Google Glass sucks but deep inside, he knows that Google is onto something, so he ends up making a weak, half positive and half negative point about the product. He knows deep inside that regardless of how Google Glass (and wearable glasses in gener…

I read it more that he's expecting Apple to be the company that comes along with the sexy, socially-acceptable version of Google Glass that takes it mainstream. Admittedly based more on the author than his words.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#42

Post by [deleted] »

laureny wrote: post #34

It's quite entertaining to see Gruber struggle so much with the idea that Google has out innovated Apple. You can tell he really wishes he could say that everything about Google Glass sucks but deep inside, he knows that Google is onto something, so he ends up making a weak, half positive and half negative point about the product. He knows deep inside that regardless of how Google Glass (and wearable glasses in gener…

[deleted]

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#43

Post by ncallaway »

throwawaykf03 wrote: post #30
51Cards wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

History is littered with counterexamples. If you look at people or companies that have been refered to as "ahead of their time", it is frequently in the context of why they ultimately failed. Tablet PCs are a case in point -- Microsoft or HP had not abandoned the tablet market. They were iterating and releasing tablets even after the iPad was released. They just didn't make the leap that Apple did to create a tablet…

"They were iterating and releasing tablets even after the iPad was released. They just didn't make the leap that Apple did to create a tablet that appealed to the masses."

I think this is a succinct refutation of the Tablet PC being a counterexample to something "ahead of their time". The lack of success of the Tablet PC wasn't because it was "too early for the technology", but it's because Microsoft and HP were developing the wrong device for the wrong market.

That said, I do tend to agree with your premise that you certainly can be "ahead of your time", and that being first to market does not always correlate with being the best to the market.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#44

Post by jfoster »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #33
abraham wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being in a social situation with someone who is wearing Glass now means that Google has identified who you are (and the NSA for that matter) and where you are What? Glass is not always recording, has no facial recognition and is no more invasive than the smartphones everyone already carries.

Yes, because obviously the originally stated intention for the device is the only use the device will ever have. The difference here is that a phone is usually in your pocket. The Glass is usually on your head, and the camera is pointed at the same thing you're currently looking at.

But it doesn't now, and there is no indication that it ever will aside from people not involved with the product inventing hypotheses. Fair enough if you want to express concern about the trajectory that you envisage, but in your original post you're simply saying it does something that it doesn't.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#45

Post by laureny »

corin_ wrote: post #41
laureny wrote: post #34

It's quite entertaining to see Gruber struggle so much with the idea that Google has out innovated Apple. You can tell he really wishes he could say that everything about Google Glass sucks but deep inside, he knows that Google is onto something, so he ends up making a weak, half positive and half negative point about the product. He knows deep inside that regardless of how Google Glass (and wearable glasses in gener…

I read it more that he's expecting Apple to be the company that comes along with the sexy, socially-acceptable version of Google Glass that takes it mainstream. Admittedly based more on the author than his words.

And that might very well happen, but if it does, it will still be described as Apple copying Google, which probably drives Gruber crazy.

Personally, I think that the simple fact that Google came up with the idea means that Apple will never create such a product.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#46

Post by reidmain »

magicalist wrote: post #32
reidmain wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Glass uses a TI SoC, and TI doesn't make SoCs anymore, so the odds are actually quite high that the hardware will be making a change before going into mass production. It was actually a surprise when they did a feature bump in October and it was still on an OMAP. A hardware change makes a lot of sense, besides. It's running slightly older phone hardware, but its still phone hardware. It would be silly to say that "od…

The phone manufacturers have been doing this for so long that they have the process down to an art. While I think Google could gain this ability in the future nothing they have done with hardware so far makes me believe they have the ability to drastically overhaul hardware in a short period of time. If they do radically change the Google Glass hardware so that it doesn't have the "glasshole" look or drastically improve the software I will be shocked.

It is entirely possible that I am wrong. But the look of Google Glass has barely changed since it was unveiled in the beginning of 2012. If they are truly going to try to push a consumer version of a brand new line of products you better be damn sure that when someone puts on Google Glass they instantly become attached to it. They want to know where they can get one. To do that you gotta test the hell out of it and make sure there are no sharp edges. That hardware would need to start getting into people's hands now and if they've just released a new model how much runway are they going to give between releasing the "golden master" version to their tester and getting it to market?

I've used Google Glass personally and seen dozens of people try it on around me as well. Most of the reactions are "Oh that is cool" but none want to actually buy the product. Compare that to the Occulus Rift where the people I've seen use it want to know when they will be able to buy it.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#47

Post by reidmain »

turing wrote: post #25
reidmain wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not really relevant. The point was that Gruber stated that Google is presenting Glass as a finished product, which is something they have never done.

Based on this website they are putting A LOT into presenting it to the public as pretty polished http://www.google.com/glass/start/

That isn't a developer website that is a website designed by marketing.

Re: Thoughts on Google Glass

#48

Post by reidmain »

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…

Sure they want to know more about it because it looks completely alien to them but when they've tried it on and understand it's capabilities do a lot of those people express interest in purchasing one?

My anecdotal evidence is that I've seen lots of people try on Google Glass and while they think it is interesting none of them actually want it.

Post reply on HN