No to throw cold water here but Is it really? It seems to be rather trivial integration of currently known and available technologies with bit of miniaturization efforts. Nothing that 5 year old iPhone can't do with albeit more convenience. Space elevators, 100% artificial life form, fusion reactor of the size AA batteries - now that, my friend, would be sci-fi stuff.
If you are thinking HUD like we see in games then transparency is a relatively recent thing. If you look further back HUDs used to be opaque. The words "Heads Up Display" says nothing about it having to be transparent :)
Well the iPhone was a rather trivial integration of currently known and available technologies with a bit of polish efforts. It still kind of changed the face of connected technology past the "it can do email on the road!" to where we are today.
Nobody's ever done a really decent job of the miniaturization before, though. Generally a wearable computer involved an additional enclosure in a backpack or on the belt. The "best" I've seen that's all in one piece is the Golden-i (http://www.mygoldeni.com/home/) and just look at that damn thing.
Considering the bugs in Windows 8, and how Microsoft is already preparing a service pack for this year (Blue version), does that make Surface Pro a $1,000 product, too?
You're basically beta testing any brand new product. Always.
Let's be honest -- most if not all of the people who pay into the program do so for blog/column material. That it is somewhat exclusive is a big feature in that case.
Hmm - from the demo pictures it looks like you can snap on a lense behind the display. They use a sunglass lense in their example, but I don't see why it couldn't also be a corrective lense.
I didn't realise how bad it looks. The premise looks awesome. The demo video... awesome. The way the product looks on someone's face... this isn't the finished product right?
I think Google should look at designer glasses and outsource the design to someone who knows what they are doing.
Any suggestions to how you would prefer them look? I'm not sure the concept of Glass would work well with sunglasses for example. At that point you'd need it to be a HUD for one of the lenses, and I think that's really distracting.
It would probably look nicer with actual lenses, even if the lenses are just clear glass for people who don't need corrective lenses. I imagine it'd also help if the design was symmetrical, rather than having a bulge on one side that reminds everybody else they're constantly being recorded.
Of course, I also imagine the Glass design team tested those options, and decided to go with the current iteration for a reason.
Just my three cents - but I'd hate 'zero' lenses on Glass. My eyesight is just fine, and I find glasses to be huge hassle and generally annoying, having pieces of glass that just sit there without a reason would be very annoying.
Surely they could provide it as an option. Most of the glass photos I've seen have had no actual glass (ha), while some of them had sunglass lenses or actual lenses. I'm sure there will be options to suit your tastes.
I'm farsighted and I've been using glasses since I was ten. You get used to it. To the extend that they completely disappear from your mind if they're good glasses. Titanium frames are something incredibly awesome.
I wouldn't want 'zero' lenses either, they obstruct your vision by getting dirty and having light reflexes etc and also are an additional risk to your eyes in case of accidents.
Some symmetry would help. They could probably have a smaller profile if they had the components on the right arm and batteries on the left. Then encase each of the arms in some plastic for protection and fluid form. I think they would look better with some actual lenses but I wear glasses and I don't know how someone without glasses would feel about that.
I read somewhere (but can't find it now) that they're teaming up with sunglass and glasses companies to integrate it into their products, and that this is just the "base" model direct from Google, aimed more at geeks/early adopters.
And once it's integrated into your normal glasses tastefully, they just have that pesky social problem of having a voice-control-only gadget in public.
The metal line is reminiscent of a head brace, while the projector makes you look like cyborg escaped from a Halloween party. They will need a stunning amount of marketing and advertising for this to become socially acceptable.
I guess it could be a little bit worse, I can see they were trying to go for sleek...
I think the greater problem was that the actual uses they showed were so uninspiring. They should get more creative. The utilities arise from where (a) where we have difficulty giving meaning to something in our visual horizon, or (b) we wish to use a handicap (this normally requires hands and is better if hidden.)
Imagine going to a band's gig and you don't need to worry about only knowing the verses to some of the songs because you can see the lyrics? Hopefully the microphone could tell you if you're singing off-key...
Imagine busking with the lyrics, chords and notes for the song appearing in front of you as you play. No need to memorise everything.
Imagine walking up to an acquaintance and seeing their name next to their face; or walking into a pub and a bubble appearing when you see somebody telling you that they are the family member or friend of a close friend.
Or speaking to somebody and the software recognising their emotional cues for you. Pupils dilating, nostrils flaring, a fake smile, self-comforting, etc. Maybe you say something and a bar alerts you immediately to signs you have said the wrong thing; or a change in the tone of their voice signifying seriousness or interest.
It's hard to care about the time or temperature. And car's already have GPS...
Yes, the creep factor is very high with the facial and emotional recognition. Few people would trust a person with Glass if they knew the person <i>might</i> be using it as a tool to gain a social advantage.
I assume you're talking about things which give you a social edge. Unfortunately you will just have to deal with it as reality slowly attunes itself with science fiction.
Turn-by-turn directions alone for pedestrians, cyclists and motor bikes is probably enough to make a successful product. Google Now with glass could also be pretty amazing, and since you always have the sound on it could actually make push to talk (or.. talk to talk) a reality (since before it was too cumbersome to hear something, open your phone, say 'what', they repeat... 'oh ok', repeat..)
Like your ideas though, hopefully third party devs can make them a reality (I'm guessing battery is the issue on the persistant video recognition stuff). Seriously upbeat about this, it could change lives
That is a relatively small niche, they are looking for something much bigger. I personally can't see the use of wearing one, but then again, i still have a feature phone.
I would be willing to pay a fair share of money for the identification feature. It doesn't even have to identify strangers, just help my incompetent name-memory center remember the names of people I've met and where I met them. Some people can't remember names; some people can't remember
faces. I can't remember either. :(
They will need a stunning amount of marketing and advertising for this to become socially acceptable.
Not necessarily, the popularity of hipster glasses is a perfect example of something ugly and awkward becoming hip. It's very possible for these to ride the coattails of geek chic and become widely accepted.
That doesn't mean it will be easy, there's a fine line between geeky (hipster glasses) and dorky (bluetooth headsets, Segways). And of course, price will have a lot to do with it, a $700 fashion statement serves a very different niche than a $70 one.
I disagree. I think around the home and at family gatherings it would be really cool. I can just wear the glasses as my kids do things, without worry that I might miss the "perfect" timing of an event. No more reaching for my Canon Rebel/iPhone/etc--it's just on. How many parents knew that their kids were about to take their first steps, only to miss the opportunity to record it. Yes, it's silly, but parents are very sentimental and the idea of preserving family memories like this is very attractive. Or even video conferencing with grandma, etc. I see the attraction to this product coming from private people rather than public. I.e. they'll want to use it as a way to record their private lives, share memories, etc.
They will need a stunning amount of marketing and advertising for this to become socially acceptable.
Well, according to the already existing marketing, if I buy one of these things, I'll have a happy family, dance with a classy, beautiful woman, have fun at New Year's, travel to Sedona, ride a snowboard, see the Brooklyn Bridge, shop for veggies in Chinatown, and travel some more.
You know what's interesting to me is that none of the faces staring back at "you" in the marketing are wearing Geordi La Forge glasses. If they were, would these "friends" seem as interested?
I actually rather like the design. I'd love to see it be able to be integrated with proper lenses (perhaps via a slick interchangeable lens system?)
When I first heard of Glass, I was worried people who jumped on board would look like Geordi. This feels, to me, like a good starting point. It's a little sci-fi, but that's okay. That aspect can be toned down by adding glass in front of the projector, making the glasses look more like, well, glasses.
My bad, English is not my primary language and for whatever reason I was thinking of phones' bluetooth headsets. You're right :) Also, I probably need more coffee.
This isn't v1.0. Steve Mann has been researching these things for over 20 years now (Sorry google). This is approximately version 5.0. Everything that can be thought of or done in this space has been researched and demo'd with funding by Steve Mann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann) and his fellows for decades. Google Glass is not a serious activity, it's mainly a skunk works/rich man's toy/fun project for the well-heeled.
I still don't get why everybody is so upset over the aesthetics of these things? Nobody is going to force you to walk around with these on at all times. Like anything else, you'll choose when to put them on and use them. The alternative today is to walk around with your arms up holding your phone in front of you. Is that any better? The long-long term version of this looks like contact-lenses. We're just not there yet - so if you want to play with version one, this is how it'll look when you choose to wear 'em.
If the first iPhone was embarrassing to use, would it have hindered or enhanced adoption?
Jonathan Ive will design a nice version, Apple will own the market, and google will aghast "but... we were first...".
Google glasses look cool as an object - it's just that they look bad when worn. For a start, make them symmetrical (even if the "other" projector is fake).
I completely agree. I think this is the reason why bluetooth headsets haven't really had overwhelming appeal (except with certain marked segments, such as businessmen). If a product isn't sexy, people won't use it – and that's especially true with wearable technology.
For me, it's not the asymmetry of the projector but the massive back-end. You can tell even Google knows this is unattractive because their model is wearing a hoodie to cover it up.
While I respect the attempt to make a standalone device, I think Google would be better off introducing this as a lower-cost peripheral for those who already have android smartphones. I think this would get them market penetration and slim down the design (but that's just speculation).
Also, it's probably safe to say that early adopters would already have a smartphone, and if they don't it could be a game changer to get people on Android.
Was that just in the early prototype? The bulk at the back of present design looks OK to me: http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/ (3rd image from the bottom). Just going by appearance, there are ordinary sunglasses with a similar bulk. And the compute unit will only get smaller year by year.
I'm actually kinda amazed they've managed to make it that small - OTOH, I see the key point of the project is a way to make hardware smaller yet still be usable (because we don't need a large screen).
Didn't mean to sound unimpressed - it's absolutely amazing how compact they have managed to make it (although I'd like to dive deeper into specs before I make a full judgement).
It's really hard to tell from those photos because they don't provide a great reference. The best I saw was the "strong and light" photo, so I'm going to go ahead and say it's about the same size as my thumb.
That's pretty small, but I'm not sure its small enough to have an iPod-like takeoff (yet!).
Unless you're bald or buzzed. I'd expect this thumb sized computer... to be covered by your hair either entirely or mostly. That is if it doesn't wrap around your head.
Looking at most devices people have used on their head & the capabilities of this?! I can't complain even one bit.
It's not as bad as you think. I saw someone walking around with it the other day and at first I thought they just had designer glasses on. Someone had to point out that they were wearing Google Glass for me to even notice.
As much as I'd prefer things to look as nice as possible, the truth is that the market often doesn't care. I suspect people would allow Glass to slide, largely due to its futurist connotations, the same way they let many electric cars slide.
We all looked pretty stupid with giant brick phones jammed in our ears back in the day too but no one seemed to mind. I think the rule is "whatever rich people do is cool by definition".
Get a couple of trend-setters to sport these and your perception of how it looks will change.
You can't do the design until you know exactly how large each needed component will be and what hardware UI will work for a wearable computer that hasn't been people-tested for long yet.
They're not mass-producing them yet - the visuals can be defined much later than the actual tech.
I think this technology could replace mobile phones. I just notice how often i need to grab my mobile phone, just to check some little peace of information I need. When i'm in the car I cannot grab it.
Note that the glasses look ugly, but they are already developing lenses with screens in it. This is basically technology becoming one with your brain.
Why? Are you afraid that you are on a video, or pictures being taken? That's indeed a problem. The voyourism with google glass.. They have to think of something to fix that. Like a led light wich tells you it's recordign.
I hate it when people have loud phone conversations - especially if I can hear the person at the other end. ;)
And you're right about the voyeurism element as well, although it doesn't really apply to me as a twenty-something guy. There is a reason phone cameras are required to make a loud "SNAP" sound. With Glass, that may very well not be the case. Although you will be able to notice the dude with the weird glasses ogling you, I guess.
This is a real bummer, I have to wear glasses and can't wear lenses. Is there any information if there will be support for custom glasses being attached?
Can't wait for the next bunch of vomit inducing videos... or am I the only one who can't deal with all the head bobbing?
As for the HUD itself - I love the idea. But the problem is, while I love the idea, I'm not sure it wouldn't be super distracting in real life. Yes it works for fighter pilots and whatnot, but, to take the sample video as a benchmark, when I'm about to catch my girlfriend hurling towards me at high speed from a trapeze (which, like you I assume, I do on a regular basis), I'm not sure she'd be happy with me being distracted by some shit popping up in my view...
I have always wondered where are following hardware hidden in this design:
1. CPU and really the whole shebang. where is it?
2. It probably requires some sort of 3G/4G card and connection? Where the heck does it fit?
3. Batteries! Where are those? Are they solar charged?
I understand people who are saying, it is not that much of a big deal just miniaturization of existing technologies but if all above 3 fit in that glass frame, I am genuinely amazed. If anyone who have used Google glass and can chime-in, that will be awesome.
That would indeed be the most obvious way to go, it would also make the device more powerful down the road since the computing is done on a smartphone which only get faster and faster by the year.
I'd say the computing is done "in the cloud". Low power transmission to your phone, then to the google datacenter.
It seems cool from a technology point, but I'm not sure I want to trust Google (and thereby the US Government) my life. Or am I doing that already by using Google Search and GMail?
Yeah, we're all doing it already. At this point it's more about managing what I do online then it is about avoiding using the services.
Google Glass will be massively popular with the active crowd (kind of how the GoCam got its big break) - I would personally use it in place of recording videos with my phone! I would not wear it all the time though, that's ridiculous.
I am sure that that is going to be the product that actually takes off. Google Glass will probably fail (at least the first iteration) but give some data for the next attempt. Then when Apple comes out with iGlasses everyone can act impressed.
But things like video recording and streaming requires some sort of high end processor (or even a GPU) and I do not think low power batteries will suffice in that?
Notice how you never see the wearer's whole torso in the promotional videos? All that stuff is in a 12 lb. backpack. It's color coordinated with the glasses.
Don't be a damn idiot. It's in a housing on the same side as the display, it kind of balances at your ear. I've worn a pair, I didn't have to put on some sort of massive backpack.
Those are the use cases ? Are they serious ? Not a single one of those occurs routinely enough to warrant you wearing glasses all the time.
I don't understand why they aren't positioning this for more serious markets e.g. education, training, factories, stock taking, hospitals, administration etc. Could have been far more interesting and allowed some far more interesting tie ins with their existing products.
well, they're asking you what you would do with it, right? keep in mind this is a developer edition, so they most likely want people to come up with new ideas of apps and use cases that they did not even think about, not just tell them what you would record with them or where you would take a picture without using your hands, we already know that glass can do that!
This seems like an exciting idea, but they're going to have to find a way to make the camera more discrete. People won't be comfortable always thinking they're on camera.
I think these things will need to use cell phone technology to work? I wouldn't be comfortable having a cell phone up against my head like that all day, even if this is paranoia.
In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.
Isn't the HUD a bit... distracting?
I mean, I was looking the video and if I focused in the HUD I couldn't watch the "real life" and vice-versa, how would that work in the real Glass?
Also, it seems like for now it's only focused in social features... I should get some friends before getting the Glass.
Hopefully in the near future there will be some way to install applications to it, Like accessing the glass app store from a web browser and clicking "Install to my glass."
I played World of Warcraft for a bit, and there was a HUD overlay onto the screen. After a while, you kind of get used to it. Also, the devs could make it so that you could control the opacity of the HUD, the position/size, or turn it on/off based on gestures.
And your girlfriend who was looking at instragram while she was walking with you, was she looking at the pictures, or was she watching another character look at them?
many people witness a lot of "important" real life things through the screen/lens of their phone.. for those situations, you're covered - and it's pointing where you look, so you don't have to look at it to know it's recording what you see.. (ish)
Demo video looks awesome. But what about privacy? I am not a privacy lunatic and not trying to complain (Scifi is here!) but wouldn't be this handling lots of problems against privacy?
Obviously photo cameras also have the same issue but still you can see when people is taking photos of you, in this specific case things are slightly different...
BTW, actually I like the design, looks like a totally new era of communication ;)
Ok. So 100% voice-based. That makes sense. That's great. Except if you don't speak English as your primary language.
I've tried Google's voice-recognition on my native language and the results have been closer to sad than lulz-worthy.
Yes, I know English. Yes, I can both write and speak it fairly well. That's not the point: You won't believe how awkward a context-switch from "I'm talking to people" to "I'm talking to this machine, but I need to do so in English" actually feels.
It's just feels so fundamentally wrong, that despite how it might save you time and effort you always go for the option where voice-recognition is not involved.
Unless Google improves their voice-recognition for everything not US English, I predict this product failing horribly in most markets, even with everything else 100% perfect and flawlessly executed.
Maybe they could link to a phone/tablet or a pebble style watch, alternatively I remember seeing Microsoft have done some cool by projecting a touch interface onto skin. Perhaps the user could do gestures which are picked up by the front camera but it may make everyone look like they're being attacked by invisible bees all the time.
Google Glasses remind me a bit of the time I tried to work out how Tony Stark actually controls all of the functions of his Iron Man armour, and what sort of (realistic) system might come close to what's shown in the movies. I didn't get very far.
To me, Glasses are an awesome concept that begins to fall apart as soon as I think about them - I think they'll either need to pull a major and completely surprising leap forward in how we interact with tech, or at some stage we'll need a keyboard to use them effectively.
This seems like a silly beef to have with a revolutionary product that still is in beta. You know it's developed by an American company, right? It's not crazy for them to have the first language supported to be the language the people from the company speak. Give it some time.
Voice recognition has always been patchy or non-existent for languages other than English, and it's a deal breaker for something that relies _primarily_ on voice for input. That's the point I believe he was making.
I don't think he was referring to the glasses in specific rather than the state of voice recognition as a whole.
The voice recognition has been in android for 4 major versions now. It no longer hold the beta-badge protection and needs to start showing some real world results to be taken seriously.
The Google Glass device probably uses the same voice recognition as Android. Android is not in beta anymore, yet its voice recognition fails pretty bad on anything other than English. Google Now is almost entirely useless unless your device is set to US English.
I get that they can't exactly make everything work perfectly for everyone. But most of the planet is not american. They want to interact with technology on their own terms, in their own language. Google is long past the point at which it can make excuses now. While breaking new grounds with stuff like Google Glass is very cool, so is offering useful voice recognition to most of the planet.
The big difference between the two is that Glass is powered 100% by voice, Android is powered primarily by touch. I am sure that by the time Google starts rolling this out to the mass market in other countries, they will have those problems figured out.
For what it's worth, Google Now works pretty well in French, so I'm confident they'll manage to do something usable after some time. Of course it won't be their first priority...
Voice-based input also has massive potential for trolling. I'm not keen on the idea of having a stranger walking next to me text my family through my glasses.
I'm thinking that once the promo videos are over and forgotten, the majority of the user input will be through a touch device linked by bluetooth. It just makes more sense to me from a practical standpoint.
Since it's attached to your head, it may be possible for them to match vibrations with speech input and verify that you're the one who said it. Would help in noisy environments, as well.
That's a really good solution - from memory a similar system is used on the headsets worn on Sydney Harbour Bridge tours. I'd forgotten about them until you mentioned vibrations.
I'm actually going to be disappointed if they don't have this in some form. I guess the most elegant solution would be to read skull vibrations rather than use voice at all - I'm not sure how viable that would be though.
That's not for voice recognition, it's to replace the headphone SPEAKERS because it's so windy on the bridge. The thing sits on the bone just in front of your ear. It's a really funny sensation but works well.
But I assume the same system would work in reverse.
I know that the bridge headset replaces the speakers, but reversing the system would remove a lot of the inherent problems with a system that relies on speech for input.
I remember using them when I was on the Harbour Bridge what feels at least 5 or 6 years ago - so maybe the tech has developed enough since then. Especially if Google has been throwing resources at it.
This makes me happy - I remember the headsets I've used that used this in the past needed a lot of customisability to get a fit flush against my head. It was about 8 years ago though, so I'm assuming things have come along since then.
Do you have any idea if sound will be made though bone vibration or traditional speakers or both? I'm still a bit skeptical about how this is going to work in crowds.
From a demo I tried, the computer on your right temple is at least sensitive to swipes and taps to access a menu. In addition, the menu can be scrolled by looking up and down, so voice is not necessary.
Not too mention all the trouble when you live you life in two different languages... somehow, none of all language aware things are very practical when you communicate sometime in english, sometime not.
This Google Glass requires internet connection right? I like to know how effective it will be to those country with a limited or not so good data connection. Here in us, LTE is just starting, and mobile data service is not really that good. It's good to have this kind of gadgets, but I hope technologies in some non first world country can catch up. I really love to own one immediately, but I think, location wise, it's not a good idea yet.
I don't understand why they keep pushing the niche GoPro-style use case, and there's no way it has the battery life to really work for the livestream use case for more than a few minutes. I think the main use case would be people that want to look like they're paying attention in social situations and can't have their heads buried in their phone but still want to check their email and texts. But maybe that's not a sexy enough idea to sell. One thing that's missing from this new site is the eye-gestures that seemed to be part of demos last year. If it's going to be only voiced-controlled that would ruin it for the discreet-email-checking use case.
Because its the only use case that will make sense at the beginning. These videos look interesting but they are staged, no matter how casual de look is.
As of this moment, Google Glass is just a glorified wireless webcam. It might turn into something more than that in the future, no doubt, and I'm hopeful like you are that it will, but for the first generations what you are going to see is a lot of people using them in extreme sports to film POV activities and sharing them on Youtube. Nothing more.
Even if it's not only voice controlled theres no discreet-email-checking use case in social situations. Have you ever tried to talk to a person who is constantly looking away, even if his head still points to you?
> I think the main use case would be people that want to look like they're paying attention in social situations and can't have their heads buried in their phone but still want to check their email and texts.
That's not going to work if it requires voice commands to operate.
The recorded videos' have a strange voyeuristic feel, probably due to the POV being so close to the wearer's eyes. That you can use the glasses do do a hangout in real time and broadcast seems novel though.
There's no shortage of sci-fi stories dealing with this sort of always-on recording. "Strange Days", "Black Mirror (#3)". I wonder about the legality of this product, if it becomes inconspicuous.
Some product ideas:
1) "Datecast" -- get real-time advice and tips while on a date (or at a job interview. Or a business meeting -- is this startup's idea really that original? Or while shopping for some more complex consumer product: your remote wine expert suggests you to buy this particular bottle based on your previous tastes).
2) "Lifecast" -- our team of professionals reviews a total stream of your life and gives you advice on everything. They remind you how your wife liked this necklace a few days ago (you forgot, but they paid attention for you). That business meeting where you discussed your database scaling issues? An hour later we give you a call with with tips how to solve it. That hallway conversation? Transcripted before the next day.
3) Vacationcast: too old or poor or busy to go on a vacation? Want to relive your youth? Be anyone you want, transmitted in real time, unedited (this assumes that there's some thrill that seeing things happen real time, unscripted has over a more edited vacation footage). If video and audio alone is not enough, the vacationcasting company could offer a comfortable room, with scents and texture from your vacation destination.
4) Crimecam: anonymously send bitcoins to a criminal, encouraging a rampage of crime, broadcasted to your group of backers in real time. Will he get away with it?
Although, justin.tv has been doing this sort of thing for a while, and I'm not sure what has come out of it.
Wow. I didn't know what to expect, but was a little blown away by this. Watching this I experienced both an attraction and revulsion to the use of integration of technology into vision. This deep integration of vision computer interface pushes the characters deep into the uncanny valley, to the point of no longer appearing to be human, but something other than human, something different.
I love it, thanks for sharing. I especially enjoyed the real life fruit ninja part, if technology can be used to make mundane tasks more exciting I'm all for it.
I liked the dig on the perversion of gamification here.
"Achievements" have become very popular in games -- you might have fully complete a game level, but there's a bonus if you use a specific weapon or not kill people or not do something odd while doing so. So sometimes people spend inordinate amount of time in games that they've already completed, doing something over and over again to gain a perfect "score".
Here he cuts the cucumber imperfectly, not getting the perfect score and so he discards it. The date is also heavily scored, and the augmented reality wall seems to have plenty of other perfect achievements. He longer cares as much about the end result, but just about the achievement badge (perhaps to be flaunted to others).
- Remote business consultants advising you on handling various business problems
- College students (or anyone with specific domain knowledge really) could dial into a web based market for advice/mentoring, and charge by the minute. A really cool way to leverage your domain knowledge and get paid in your free time. It could be reputation based, tracked on how useful your advice was for people in the past.
The whole remote help/advice area could be HUUUGE.
Look at what businesses currently spend on consultants now.
Imagine anyone can get a consultant/advisor/mentor/subject matter expert, for any topic (DIY, personal life- e.g. dealing with depression, health issues- remote doctor in India, virtual assistant in your ear, fitness trainer, business coach), at at a fraction of the cost of what these guys charge today.
You could get mentored for any topic under the sun - would you like an expert violin prodigy teach your child to play the violin from Eastern Europe really cheap? What about a Russian chess master teaching you the game? Or a hangout with a poker celebrity telling you how to improve your mastery of poker? Dancing? Painting? Legal advice? Speaking with a native French speaker to learn the language? Chatting with Peter Norvig about AI?
The possibilities are endless. Getting expert advice used to be constrained by location, but if Google Glass becomes widespread, not anymore.
> - College students (or anyone with specific domain knowledge really) could dial into a web based market for advice/mentoring, and charge by the minute.
I think there is a Stack Overflow for hardware hacking in there: " I burned trough 4 capacitors already, what am I doing wrong? ... "
Also, say the mechanic is watching what you see on his computer, he could point to parts of his screen with the mouse and it would highlight it in your screen so he can actually point to certain places, etc.
Crimecam made me laugh, hehe. The uses are potentially endless:
5) Procrastination monitor: Someone is actively monitoring you, making sure that you do what you're supposed to do. Actually, this would be even creepier if it were your corporate control-freak boss who ordained it.
6) Voyeurist's refuge: Pay someone with social skills far more developed than yours, have him go out and pick up a woman while you sit back in our couch and watch the spectacle unfold. Not sure how many would consent to a partner wearing glasses while having sex, though.
Actually, the more I think about this the creepier the potential scenarios seem to be. And let's not get started on how unfortunate it would be if your pair got struck with a case of malware. But the techie inside me still thinks it's way cool.
>>6) Voyeurist's refuge: Pay someone with social skills far more developed than yours, have him go out and pick up a woman while you sit back in our couch and watch the spectacle unfold. Not sure how many would consent to a partner wearing glasses while having sex, though.
Given the high amount of live sex available over cam right now, I think the voyeur idea is almost certainly going to happen.
It seems as more and more communication happens through channels available to all, and communication is no longer restricted to a few powerful channels (the media, the state, the church), we are starting to become more and more aware of the huge chasm that has always existed between what has been projected by society as "the norm" and people's actual willingness to act with a large deviation from the norm.
The malware in your personal brain extender scenario is pretty juicy. Hope some people write some crazy sci fi stories with that idea.
They are, at least in Atlantic City and Vegas. I believe the wording of the regulation is something like "electronic devices," so they can ban even a digital watch (or Pebble, heh) that they don't like.
I think one of the better uses of this camera will be in law enforcement. Not only can the glass record everything that happens, cops can use it as a tool to aid in real-time communication, a win for civil liberties groups as well as cops. Ensuring that the video evidence can't be tampered with or deleted is critical.
Actually, last night, I spotted some BART cops with glasses that had a little camera on the side. Pretty sure that they didn't have screens but it brought a smile to my face. Definitely a step in the right direction.
The concern isn't that you are generating too much video -- you can always turn it off.
The concern is that everyone else all around you is generating too much information about everything they see. Think "The Dark Knight," the scene where Batman uses a whole bunch of passive cellphones to map out the city and the people in it. The NSA is already spending enormous amounts of money building giant data warehouses, and there have been some startlingly accurate demos of live facial recognition software. It's really not that farfetched, technologically.
This could save millions of dollars on construction sites. It would give architects and engineers the next best thing to being able to teleport around a construction site. With the right software and organization, any foreman at a building site could get nearly instantaneous clarification.
Then again, maybe it would make people mentally lazy and unable to plan, like smartphones did with meeting up in town.
>"Lifecast" -- our team of professionals reviews a total stream of your life and gives you advice on everything.
This is a brilliant idea. However, I bet many people who would otherwise find it attractive would end up not using it because of the implications for personal privacy. Whoever is able to solve the privacy issues (real-time anonymization for footage? AI prescreening with a human expert team only seeing select things?) stands a good chance of getting rich.
There's a hacker character on Ghost in the Shell known as The Laughing Man.[1] One of his skills is being able to hack cybernetic eyes in real-time to superimpose an avatar on his face, to conceal his identity.
As an alternative to 4): 4.A) Law-cast - every law enforcement officer should be required to wear this. A real-time transcript of all events should be captured.
I could see a version of this product being a hit with journalists:
* Get instant fact-checks during an interview.
* Record interviews and investigative video safely to the cloud so no one can steal your footage.
* Capture always-on footage that doesn't require camera set up time so you never miss a shot.
* Recall notes and questions to ask without breaking eye contact.
* Instantly pull up details on a politician and voting record by saying names and bill numbers or by having a junior reporter dig up background details remotely.
* Look for related news headlines in real-time so you do not miss important background and you do cover ignored aspects of the story.
Wow. This is marketing material. This is going to be a real thing.
Wanna bet Google gives them away for free so they can sell advertising based on your exact context and needs; even what you're looking at? Maybe.
But just the idea and possibility of that is incredible. Imagine what this could be used for; not just what we can think of now, but a whole new paradigm of ubiquitous computing, a world to which mobile phones were only a stepping stone.
Come to think of it, I don't think we're ready for this.
I never said when they'd give them away. Just that it's a possibility due to the incredible context-aware advertising potential they have. Someone is thinking about it, I guarantee it.
This feeling, i've had it before. Google comes out with a new product, with a limited release... and I WANT IT REALLY BAD. Of course, after I get it, it's nowhere near as cool as what my head thought it was going to be.
If Glass takes off and especially if it runs Android we can except Samsung and other major players in the cell phone market to start offering their versions soon enough. With Android phones it didn't take long for Chinese manufacturers to start offering phones under their own brands for a fraction of what major manufacturers ask for their products [1] shipped directly from China to the customer. If a technological difficulty doesn't prevent Glass clones from being manufactured then given its high starting price of around $1500 (I wouldn't expect retail price to differ too much; cf. $529.99 for Google Nexus One at launch in the US) Chinese-brand AR glasses might become the next big thing around the world.
[1] See http://www.gizchina.com/2012/11/20/gizchina-exclusive-jiayu-... for what they offer for $200 unlocked. In, e.g., parts of Europe where pay-as-you-go is the norm and most phones are bought unsubsidized such prices are basically unheard for a similarly specced phone. Of course, those phones have their own problems (like worse QA) and come with little to no support. Despite that I personally know many technical types who have decided it to be worth it for themselves and sites like XDA Developers (http://forum.xda-developers.com) show a global interest.
I don't think they're going to give them away, I think they've got two options they'll pursue: 1) they'll do what they've done with the Nexus tablets and phones and sell them for as close to cost price as they can to get them out there, or 2) they're going to take advantage of the fact they'll be pretty much either first to market, or most desired and charge a reasonable markup on it.
Option 1 makes sense, Google's core business is monetizing your eyeballs. It's almost literal in this sense. Glass is going to have some form of advertising and Google has always wanted more data points and more ways to show adverts to you. They make a lot of money on it.
Option 2 is a bit out there for Google, and represents a business strategy shift. What if they can also become a respected hardware-software manufacturer? They've got as much brand awareness as Apple, they're building a reputation for devices as well. Glass could be phenomenally popular, so we're talking a whole new market share that could explode. That could make Google a serious amount of money if they were sticking a 30% markup on (lets be honest, they could do an Apple and go higher on it as well). It'd help them diversify so they've got advertising as a core, and a potentially large revenue stream from the hardware on top. Money in the bank helps pay for the next Moon shot.
590 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 211 ms ] thread[edit: mistakenly wrote wrong month]
You say that as if this is a USB dongle. This is sci-fi stuff. Who cares if it's beta?
WHAT ARE YOU NOT GETTING HERE?
In case you happen to be on Earth, can I borrow your iTransmogrifier for a weekend?
Google Glass could be the next iPhone.
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
Lol. Google Now (the tech powering Glass, effectively) still does stuff that current iPhones don't do.
You're basically beta testing any brand new product. Always.
It's amusing to hear this parroted across the Internet.
Let's be honest -- most if not all of the people who pay into the program do so for blog/column material. That it is somewhat exclusive is a big feature in that case.
I think it looks better with glasses: https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQr6-v...
Here is sunglasses on Brin from opposite profile: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvbW54...
In a high-contrast 200px image.
I think Google should look at designer glasses and outsource the design to someone who knows what they are doing.
(can't upvote)
Edit: ah nevermind, on the how do i get page. still, not a very highlighted part of the product.
Of course, I also imagine the Glass design team tested those options, and decided to go with the current iteration for a reason.
https://plus.google.com/111626127367496192147/posts/N95x6MCS...
And if the "screen" was at the height of your eyebrows it would be completely unusable!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/12/10/why-valves-s...
The metal line is reminiscent of a head brace, while the projector makes you look like cyborg escaped from a Halloween party. They will need a stunning amount of marketing and advertising for this to become socially acceptable.
I guess it could be a little bit worse, I can see they were trying to go for sleek...
I think the greater problem was that the actual uses they showed were so uninspiring. They should get more creative. The utilities arise from where (a) where we have difficulty giving meaning to something in our visual horizon, or (b) we wish to use a handicap (this normally requires hands and is better if hidden.)
Imagine going to a band's gig and you don't need to worry about only knowing the verses to some of the songs because you can see the lyrics? Hopefully the microphone could tell you if you're singing off-key...
Imagine busking with the lyrics, chords and notes for the song appearing in front of you as you play. No need to memorise everything.
Imagine walking up to an acquaintance and seeing their name next to their face; or walking into a pub and a bubble appearing when you see somebody telling you that they are the family member or friend of a close friend.
Or speaking to somebody and the software recognising their emotional cues for you. Pupils dilating, nostrils flaring, a fake smile, self-comforting, etc. Maybe you say something and a bar alerts you immediately to signs you have said the wrong thing; or a change in the tone of their voice signifying seriousness or interest.
It's hard to care about the time or temperature. And car's already have GPS...
Come on, people with these things http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/electronics/detai... on their ear look cool, busy and important ;)
"Is this guy recording me?"
I assume you're talking about things which give you a social edge. Unfortunately you will just have to deal with it as reality slowly attunes itself with science fiction.
That's how I'm "just going to deal with it".
Like your ideas though, hopefully third party devs can make them a reality (I'm guessing battery is the issue on the persistant video recognition stuff). Seriously upbeat about this, it could change lives
Would the glasses fit if someone was wearing a motorbike helmet?
I always imagined a world where some device would do the auto ID. Guess we're now living in the future. :)
Not necessarily, the popularity of hipster glasses is a perfect example of something ugly and awkward becoming hip. It's very possible for these to ride the coattails of geek chic and become widely accepted.
That doesn't mean it will be easy, there's a fine line between geeky (hipster glasses) and dorky (bluetooth headsets, Segways). And of course, price will have a lot to do with it, a $700 fashion statement serves a very different niche than a $70 one.
As another commenter mentioned -- police, yes. Good use case. Firefighters as well. (I assume the military already have similar gadgets.)
But the general public? I don't think so. Too creepy.
Well, according to the already existing marketing, if I buy one of these things, I'll have a happy family, dance with a classy, beautiful woman, have fun at New Year's, travel to Sedona, ride a snowboard, see the Brooklyn Bridge, shop for veggies in Chinatown, and travel some more.
You know what's interesting to me is that none of the faces staring back at "you" in the marketing are wearing Geordi La Forge glasses. If they were, would these "friends" seem as interested?
When I first heard of Glass, I was worried people who jumped on board would look like Geordi. This feels, to me, like a good starting point. It's a little sci-fi, but that's okay. That aspect can be toned down by adding glass in front of the projector, making the glasses look more like, well, glasses.
"It celebrated its debut in July 1979 for about $200. Truthfully, many were skeptical if this portable audio thing would take off. "
https://blog.sony.com/2010/08/flashback-friday-tps-l2-walkma...
http://coolmaterial.com/roundup/history-of-headphones/
To be honest headphones are still seen as an utilitarian thing only.
FTFY. There are a _lot_ of people who would disagree with you (which is why Beats/Skullcandy/etc headphones are so popular).
Fashion now != Fashion later.
http://www.medquarterly.co.uk/mq88V1/images/stories/futurama...
It actually doesn't look as bad with the sunglasses/shades clip in. No more so than the bluetooth Oakley sunglasses at least.
I don't even have any piercings but it would be pretty awesome.
Jonathan Ive will design a nice version, Apple will own the market, and google will aghast "but... we were first...".
Google glasses look cool as an object - it's just that they look bad when worn. For a start, make them symmetrical (even if the "other" projector is fake).
For me, it's not the asymmetry of the projector but the massive back-end. You can tell even Google knows this is unattractive because their model is wearing a hoodie to cover it up.
While I respect the attempt to make a standalone device, I think Google would be better off introducing this as a lower-cost peripheral for those who already have android smartphones. I think this would get them market penetration and slim down the design (but that's just speculation).
Also, it's probably safe to say that early adopters would already have a smartphone, and if they don't it could be a game changer to get people on Android.
I'm actually kinda amazed they've managed to make it that small - OTOH, I see the key point of the project is a way to make hardware smaller yet still be usable (because we don't need a large screen).
It's really hard to tell from those photos because they don't provide a great reference. The best I saw was the "strong and light" photo, so I'm going to go ahead and say it's about the same size as my thumb.
That's pretty small, but I'm not sure its small enough to have an iPod-like takeoff (yet!).
Looking at most devices people have used on their head & the capabilities of this?! I can't complain even one bit.
... in the larvae stage.
As much as I'd prefer things to look as nice as possible, the truth is that the market often doesn't care. I suspect people would allow Glass to slide, largely due to its futurist connotations, the same way they let many electric cars slide.
Get a couple of trend-setters to sport these and your perception of how it looks will change.
They're not mass-producing them yet - the visuals can be defined much later than the actual tech.
I'm just saying that stuff like the Nexus (any of them) haven't been released here.
Which probably is the same thing as with you :)
Note that the glasses look ugly, but they are already developing lenses with screens in it. This is basically technology becoming one with your brain.
I want one bad!
And you're right about the voyeurism element as well, although it doesn't really apply to me as a twenty-something guy. There is a reason phone cameras are required to make a loud "SNAP" sound. With Glass, that may very well not be the case. Although you will be able to notice the dude with the weird glasses ogling you, I guess.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQr6-v...
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvbW54...
They're definitely focused on support people who wear glasses.
As for the HUD itself - I love the idea. But the problem is, while I love the idea, I'm not sure it wouldn't be super distracting in real life. Yes it works for fighter pilots and whatnot, but, to take the sample video as a benchmark, when I'm about to catch my girlfriend hurling towards me at high speed from a trapeze (which, like you I assume, I do on a regular basis), I'm not sure she'd be happy with me being distracted by some shit popping up in my view...
1. CPU and really the whole shebang. where is it?
2. It probably requires some sort of 3G/4G card and connection? Where the heck does it fit?
3. Batteries! Where are those? Are they solar charged?
I understand people who are saying, it is not that much of a big deal just miniaturization of existing technologies but if all above 3 fit in that glass frame, I am genuinely amazed. If anyone who have used Google glass and can chime-in, that will be awesome.
It seems cool from a technology point, but I'm not sure I want to trust Google (and thereby the US Government) my life. Or am I doing that already by using Google Search and GMail?
Google Glass will be massively popular with the active crowd (kind of how the GoCam got its big break) - I would personally use it in place of recording videos with my phone! I would not wear it all the time though, that's ridiculous.
Atmel has micro-controllers that include the whole "shebang" the size of your pinkies fingernail!
> 2. It probably requires some sort of 3G/4G card and connection? Where the heck does it fit?
micro-SIM card!
> 3. Batteries! Where are those? Are they solar charged?
Low power means small batteries!
I don't understand why they aren't positioning this for more serious markets e.g. education, training, factories, stock taking, hospitals, administration etc. Could have been far more interesting and allowed some far more interesting tie ins with their existing products.
Those and making pornos. I see a whole Glass getting its very own tag.
Finally, our previous disadvantage will now become our social advantage!!
I think these things will need to use cell phone technology to work? I wouldn't be comfortable having a cell phone up against my head like that all day, even if this is paranoia.
Source: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html
People (at least USAians who work in an office and live or work in something larger than a village) are on camera way, way more than they realize.
I am still interested though cause perhaps we will have one by canonical in 2020!
Also, it seems like for now it's only focused in social features... I should get some friends before getting the Glass.
Exactly. These things are not for people who want to experience real life.
(And if you think this is just being crude, then something essential and primal has been lost for you.)
Obviously photo cameras also have the same issue but still you can see when people is taking photos of you, in this specific case things are slightly different...
BTW, actually I like the design, looks like a totally new era of communication ;)
I've tried Google's voice-recognition on my native language and the results have been closer to sad than lulz-worthy.
Yes, I know English. Yes, I can both write and speak it fairly well. That's not the point: You won't believe how awkward a context-switch from "I'm talking to people" to "I'm talking to this machine, but I need to do so in English" actually feels.
It's just feels so fundamentally wrong, that despite how it might save you time and effort you always go for the option where voice-recognition is not involved.
Unless Google improves their voice-recognition for everything not US English, I predict this product failing horribly in most markets, even with everything else 100% perfect and flawlessly executed.
Google Glasses remind me a bit of the time I tried to work out how Tony Stark actually controls all of the functions of his Iron Man armour, and what sort of (realistic) system might come close to what's shown in the movies. I didn't get very far.
To me, Glasses are an awesome concept that begins to fall apart as soon as I think about them - I think they'll either need to pull a major and completely surprising leap forward in how we interact with tech, or at some stage we'll need a keyboard to use them effectively.
I don't think he was referring to the glasses in specific rather than the state of voice recognition as a whole.
I get that they can't exactly make everything work perfectly for everyone. But most of the planet is not american. They want to interact with technology on their own terms, in their own language. Google is long past the point at which it can make excuses now. While breaking new grounds with stuff like Google Glass is very cool, so is offering useful voice recognition to most of the planet.
I'm thinking that once the promo videos are over and forgotten, the majority of the user input will be through a touch device linked by bluetooth. It just makes more sense to me from a practical standpoint.
I'm actually going to be disappointed if they don't have this in some form. I guess the most elegant solution would be to read skull vibrations rather than use voice at all - I'm not sure how viable that would be though.
But I assume the same system would work in reverse.
I remember using them when I was on the Harbour Bridge what feels at least 5 or 6 years ago - so maybe the tech has developed enough since then. Especially if Google has been throwing resources at it.
Do you have any idea if sound will be made though bone vibration or traditional speakers or both? I'm still a bit skeptical about how this is going to work in crowds.
The other problem with their voice recognition is speaking English with an accent that isn't US or RP.
Maybe because no one else sees you actually wearing the glasses :)
As of this moment, Google Glass is just a glorified wireless webcam. It might turn into something more than that in the future, no doubt, and I'm hopeful like you are that it will, but for the first generations what you are going to see is a lot of people using them in extreme sports to film POV activities and sharing them on Youtube. Nothing more.
Even if it's not only voice controlled theres no discreet-email-checking use case in social situations. Have you ever tried to talk to a person who is constantly looking away, even if his head still points to you?
That's not going to work if it requires voice commands to operate.
There's no shortage of sci-fi stories dealing with this sort of always-on recording. "Strange Days", "Black Mirror (#3)". I wonder about the legality of this product, if it becomes inconspicuous.
Some product ideas:
1) "Datecast" -- get real-time advice and tips while on a date (or at a job interview. Or a business meeting -- is this startup's idea really that original? Or while shopping for some more complex consumer product: your remote wine expert suggests you to buy this particular bottle based on your previous tastes).
2) "Lifecast" -- our team of professionals reviews a total stream of your life and gives you advice on everything. They remind you how your wife liked this necklace a few days ago (you forgot, but they paid attention for you). That business meeting where you discussed your database scaling issues? An hour later we give you a call with with tips how to solve it. That hallway conversation? Transcripted before the next day.
3) Vacationcast: too old or poor or busy to go on a vacation? Want to relive your youth? Be anyone you want, transmitted in real time, unedited (this assumes that there's some thrill that seeing things happen real time, unscripted has over a more edited vacation footage). If video and audio alone is not enough, the vacationcasting company could offer a comfortable room, with scents and texture from your vacation destination.
4) Crimecam: anonymously send bitcoins to a criminal, encouraging a rampage of crime, broadcasted to your group of backers in real time. Will he get away with it?
Although, justin.tv has been doing this sort of thing for a while, and I'm not sure what has come out of it.
This instantly makes me think of Short Circuit 2!
This was addressed in the short film called Sight:
http://vimeo.com/m/46304267
It was really well done for a small budget.
"Achievements" have become very popular in games -- you might have fully complete a game level, but there's a bonus if you use a specific weapon or not kill people or not do something odd while doing so. So sometimes people spend inordinate amount of time in games that they've already completed, doing something over and over again to gain a perfect "score".
Here he cuts the cucumber imperfectly, not getting the perfect score and so he discards it. The date is also heavily scored, and the augmented reality wall seems to have plenty of other perfect achievements. He longer cares as much about the end result, but just about the achievement badge (perhaps to be flaunted to others).
- Code tutorials
- Remote business consultants advising you on handling various business problems
- College students (or anyone with specific domain knowledge really) could dial into a web based market for advice/mentoring, and charge by the minute. A really cool way to leverage your domain knowledge and get paid in your free time. It could be reputation based, tracked on how useful your advice was for people in the past.
The whole remote help/advice area could be HUUUGE.
Look at what businesses currently spend on consultants now.
Imagine anyone can get a consultant/advisor/mentor/subject matter expert, for any topic (DIY, personal life- e.g. dealing with depression, health issues- remote doctor in India, virtual assistant in your ear, fitness trainer, business coach), at at a fraction of the cost of what these guys charge today.
You could get mentored for any topic under the sun - would you like an expert violin prodigy teach your child to play the violin from Eastern Europe really cheap? What about a Russian chess master teaching you the game? Or a hangout with a poker celebrity telling you how to improve your mastery of poker? Dancing? Painting? Legal advice? Speaking with a native French speaker to learn the language? Chatting with Peter Norvig about AI?
The possibilities are endless. Getting expert advice used to be constrained by location, but if Google Glass becomes widespread, not anymore.
I think there is a Stack Overflow for hardware hacking in there: " I burned trough 4 capacitors already, what am I doing wrong? ... "
5) Procrastination monitor: Someone is actively monitoring you, making sure that you do what you're supposed to do. Actually, this would be even creepier if it were your corporate control-freak boss who ordained it.
6) Voyeurist's refuge: Pay someone with social skills far more developed than yours, have him go out and pick up a woman while you sit back in our couch and watch the spectacle unfold. Not sure how many would consent to a partner wearing glasses while having sex, though.
Actually, the more I think about this the creepier the potential scenarios seem to be. And let's not get started on how unfortunate it would be if your pair got struck with a case of malware. But the techie inside me still thinks it's way cool.
pornstars
It seems as more and more communication happens through channels available to all, and communication is no longer restricted to a few powerful channels (the media, the state, the church), we are starting to become more and more aware of the huge chasm that has always existed between what has been projected by society as "the norm" and people's actual willingness to act with a large deviation from the norm.
The malware in your personal brain extender scenario is pretty juicy. Hope some people write some crazy sci fi stories with that idea.
It would be safe to assume that a lot more than just visual information is captured and recorded I think.
[1] http://www.cyanogenmod.org/
The concern is that everyone else all around you is generating too much information about everything they see. Think "The Dark Knight," the scene where Batman uses a whole bunch of passive cellphones to map out the city and the people in it. The NSA is already spending enormous amounts of money building giant data warehouses, and there have been some startlingly accurate demos of live facial recognition software. It's really not that farfetched, technologically.
Then again, maybe it would make people mentally lazy and unable to plan, like smartphones did with meeting up in town.
However, I do see this being super useful for navigating racks and racks of servers to kick one over if it needs thunking.
Also "A Deepness in the Sky", by Vinge. Early on one of the characters says to another something like "hey, check out the last 300 seconds of my POV".
This is a brilliant idea. However, I bet many people who would otherwise find it attractive would end up not using it because of the implications for personal privacy. Whoever is able to solve the privacy issues (real-time anonymization for footage? AI prescreening with a human expert team only seeing select things?) stands a good chance of getting rich.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughing_Man_(Ghost_in_the_Shel...
This would have a profound impact on society.
* Get instant fact-checks during an interview.
* Record interviews and investigative video safely to the cloud so no one can steal your footage.
* Capture always-on footage that doesn't require camera set up time so you never miss a shot.
* Recall notes and questions to ask without breaking eye contact.
* Instantly pull up details on a politician and voting record by saying names and bill numbers or by having a junior reporter dig up background details remotely.
* Look for related news headlines in real-time so you do not miss important background and you do cover ignored aspects of the story.
Wanna bet Google gives them away for free so they can sell advertising based on your exact context and needs; even what you're looking at? Maybe.
But just the idea and possibility of that is incredible. Imagine what this could be used for; not just what we can think of now, but a whole new paradigm of ubiquitous computing, a world to which mobile phones were only a stepping stone.
Come to think of it, I don't think we're ready for this.
[1] See http://www.gizchina.com/2012/11/20/gizchina-exclusive-jiayu-... for what they offer for $200 unlocked. In, e.g., parts of Europe where pay-as-you-go is the norm and most phones are bought unsubsidized such prices are basically unheard for a similarly specced phone. Of course, those phones have their own problems (like worse QA) and come with little to no support. Despite that I personally know many technical types who have decided it to be worth it for themselves and sites like XDA Developers (http://forum.xda-developers.com) show a global interest.
Edit: expanded the footnote.
Option 1 makes sense, Google's core business is monetizing your eyeballs. It's almost literal in this sense. Glass is going to have some form of advertising and Google has always wanted more data points and more ways to show adverts to you. They make a lot of money on it.
Option 2 is a bit out there for Google, and represents a business strategy shift. What if they can also become a respected hardware-software manufacturer? They've got as much brand awareness as Apple, they're building a reputation for devices as well. Glass could be phenomenally popular, so we're talking a whole new market share that could explode. That could make Google a serious amount of money if they were sticking a 30% markup on (lets be honest, they could do an Apple and go higher on it as well). It'd help them diversify so they've got advertising as a core, and a potentially large revenue stream from the hardware on top. Money in the bank helps pay for the next Moon shot.