I'm not sure, I felt (and feel) the same way about tablets, and about smartphones except in limited cases. But tons of people got them and now they're standard.
So I wonder if a good litmus test for this sort of review might be to find/replace Glass with iPad and see if any of the criticism doesn't apply. Very little in the article seems to pass the test, so even though I tend to agree with the sentiments, I'm not sure most consumers will feel the same.
Depends on context. I saw someone using an iPad in a movie theatre (before the movie started). I'm not sure if he looked more like a dork or an ass (with that ultra bright screen).
I remember a time when I was literally the only person around me who had a Smartphone. I would play with it on transit. Did a feel a bit like a dork? A little bit, yes. Now everyone has them, it's way more obvious, and nobody feels like a dork.
The thing is that being in the tech industry (I assume based on the fact that you're posting on HN in the middle of the day), you don't really need a smartphone because you're likely at your computer most of the day on most days. I don't have one either, or a tablet because there's no value added for me since I need a "real" computer with a keyboard anyway.
But folks outside the tech industry are dropping PCs completely in favor of these types of consumption-centric devices.
That's fallacious reasoning. Just because people said the iPad wouldn't fly doesn't mean that when people say something won't fly, it's valid to bring up the iPad as a counter example. 90% of the time people pan a product, it really does fail.
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
But if 90% of products fail anyway, then the panning carries no signal.
I am trying to point specifically to the parallels, which I think are valid ones, and seem to cast doubt on this line of reasoning (which apparently was incorrect in the past).
If she's going to write about a product, maybe she should actually use it, given that she actually has a pair.
It's bad enough when journalists write about a product without having it. She has it, but she's not using it, and then she's writing sweeping articles about it's long-term future.
Not only that, but you could replace 'Glass' with any mobile technology over the last decade (many of which are wildly successful consumer devices), and the 'review' still makes perfect sense (albeit, with the same, incorrect, conclusions). Maybe that should have been a signal to the author...
Yeah this is the same thing that happened with the iPad (it's a huge iPhone without the phone part? who would ever buy that?!) and more recently, with Windows 8 (metro is a failure! Microsoft is doomed!).
Google Glass, in its current iteration, will likely never catch on with consumers. But it's a limited availability "preview" for a reason. Something like this is eventually going to get cheap enough and usable enough that consumers will buy it.
For the typical day to day, I just don't see the killer application for a heads up display. My phone is never more than arm's reach away, and then it's out of sight when I'm done with it.
it's way easier to just look up and talk than to pull a device out of your pocket, unlock it, pull down notifications/open an app, then interact with the device. it will save you minutes everyday with that process alone.
"It’s robbing you of the joy of actually experiencing your life. You’ll realize it the first time you step in dog shit or have your girlfriend get mad at you for not listening to her or lose your kid in a store."
Last two things there? Both of them of them? It's you being a terrible person. Stop blaming technology for letting you be awful and blame yourself for being awful.
Couldn't agree more. If you have your priorities straight, communication tools can be wonderful--in this case, for example, letting you do a "hangout" with said girlfriend while stuck at work for lunch. When you screw up your priorities, all communication tools begin to look evil.
I don't believe the world is filled with "terrible" people. I do believe the world is filled with people who use their smartphones in inappropriate situations all the time.
There's a discrepancy here, and it's clear new tech is being consumed faster than we can propagate the social norms around the tech.
Yeah, I'm not about to buy Google Glass any time soon, but arguing about it ruining your life is kind of like claiming that having a GPS robs you of all the fun of getting lost and knowing how to fold roadmaps
It's amusing to see this back and forth of tech community where one side thinks it's the next big thing, the other thinks that because these "nerdy" tech journalists like Google Glass it won't be popular, and then the rebuttal that the critics are either jealous or just naysayers.
Honestly, it's all fun and games till the average consumer has the ability to buy it. The rest is just speculation.
I love reading stories like this, especially with hyper-revolutionary products like Google Glass.
Because the more people say "it will never succeed with consumers", the fewer people will go into Gold Rush mentality (at least for now), and the more opportunity there will be for folks like me (and, I hope, other HN types).
I couldn't be more confident that some variation of this -- whether it's Google Glass or Apple Eyeball or whatever -- is going to really, seriously, emphatically, be a multi-billion-dollar market.
So keep going VentureBeat and others. Keep telling the world it's just a nerd toy or a fad or whatever. More time and more opportunity for the rest of us ;)
Are wearable computers going to be a thing? Probably. But if it does become a thing, Apple will make it one, not Google. Here is this product segment that is, by necessity, the intersection between computers and fashion accessories. Only Apple has the mind-share to pull that off.
Out of all the companies doing consumer electronics today, only Apple has the mind-share to fight the "I'll look like a dork using this" stigma. In the 1980's that company was Sony, but today it's Apple. It's definitely not Google or Samsung. Once Apple makes the sector "cool", like they did with smart phones and tablets, then it will be safe for lower-margin Android-powered products to come in.
I have not met anyone in tech or not who is excited about google glass. I think many of us have gadget fatigue after so long and so much new stuff all the time. As an early adopter for so long, it means nothing I have ever really works because I'm on to the next thing. It may be a billion dollar market, but I don't want to participate.
Seriously? Even if it lived up to its hype and everyone started wearing them, it would still only be a usability improvement on a mobile phone. That is a far from even revolutionary let along 'hyper-revolutionary'.
People think "HN is too negative", but can you believe the goddamn journalists fretting over this, despite 1) never having used it and 2) this was clearly presented as an early-adopter developer version?
Still mad about not having Reader available to do their work.
This article seems to piggyback on the recent meme of 'technology can be useful but also asocial and isolating/Why I deactivated my Facebook/Twitter/Google+', which I agree with, but she is a bit too preachy; please tell me why exactly Glass is bad, not just some general appeals to the bad side-effects of modern consumer gadgets.
> On the other hand, for myriad kinds of workers, I can see Glass being an extraordinarily helpful, hands-free tool. Imagine working on an airplane engine and having the manual right in front of you or using it to photograph and catalog new species during a deep-sea diving expedition.
Imagine being someone who has to fix his sink, so he has to bust out a manual and figure out the sink at the same time... oh wait, turns out this nugget doesn't only apply to professional contexts.
Consumer-applications ← not just playing casual games and updating social media about what you had for dinner.
I can see Glass being excellent for some things, while maybe not being ideal for most of the things that you do. Imagine that you are in a foreign country and don't speak the language and you want to talk to someone; do you bust out your smart phone and let the other person spell out the words, then have them played back to you or you read it yourself? Or do you simply talk to that person and see the subtitles pop up as you go? The latter one is clearly superior, IMO.
This is like a review of cellphones from the 80's, "Stuff like this will never be used by anyone else than really busy professionals. It doesn't even fit in your pocket!"
EDIT: A lot of the time I really only need my smart phone for special purposes. Things like finding my way around places I haven't been is much easier with google maps than with a physical map and/or asking directions. Other than that? Well, surfing the web and listening to music, the former being a way to kill time and the latter something that my iPod Nano does better. Yet, smart phones are here to stay for most people.
Imagine working on an airplane engine and having the manual right in front of you
For example, you already have Google Maps to guide you around your city with turn-by-turn audio navigation. That tool doesn’t get any better when it’s smack-dab against your eyeball.
I don't see why a manual for an airplane mechanic is better smack-dab against his eyeball but a map in one's line of sight is not better for a person navigating.
Her claims that Glass distract you from reality are counter to Google's thesis that Glass frees you from the distraction of staring at your phone. Both claims could be true, but I haven't seen much evidence regarding Glass.
> I don't see why a manual for an airplane mechanic is better smack-dab against his eyeball but a map in one's line of sight is not better for a person navigating.
If I'm performing a series of complicated manual tasks, I'm going to need both hands free. It's a pretty safe bet on something the size of an airplane that I'm going to be moving around a fair amount, too.
My phone, giving me turn-by-turn directions, will always be just a foot or so away from me, and clearly visible from the driver's seat. I don't benefit from having it "smack-dab against [my] eyeball."
Your phone might be 1' from your hands, but not your eyes. I always hated trying to read a 4" screen on my windshield or in my cup holder while driving. I am not sure if refocusing your eyes on Glass's display would be an improvement though.
Speaking of looking like a dork, though, holding your phone right out in front of you while you try to navigate your way to a restaurant as a pedestrian is pretty much the height of that.
I thought her allusion to the Star Trek:TNG's episode of "The Game" was especially adroit. In a futuristic world where you have an unimaginable array of tech toys, such as the holodeck, why would visors be appealing? Well, it wasn't the greatest TNG episode, but I guess even in a Trek future, people will value the immediacy of such eyes-only technology. Just think about how phones have revolutionized thhe way we non-interact with each other in physical space.
Last night I saw the "Great Gatsby" and thought, like the book, it captured the timelessness of the story in that it would not feel any different in a modern setting, despite being written 80 years ago. But I kept thinking..."this is just like today, except no one is checking their phones"
The thing about Great Gatsby is that, aside from the smart phones, it was just like today. The 1920's and 1930's were modern times. Manhattan was a place of 2.3 million people (substantially bigger than today), and was heavily built up: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=34300&pag.... The electrical grid, subway systems, roads, etc, were all mostly in place by then.
We have pervasive digital technology today, and there are more cars and bigger high-rises in Manhattan, but you can picture a fancy dinner party today on Park Avenue in a building that was built in the 1920's and 1930's (like many luxury buildings in New York), with people who took a train in from Long Island on a line that was already old in 1920, etc.
I actually expected a "hands on" article. What I got instead were a couple stories, and then a bunch of vague predictions on the future of Glass.
> "And some overzealous Emily Post type (probably at an old-timey print rag) will write a much-mocked op-ed about the slight but growing disconnection between people."
A few paragraphs later...
>"...it’s not enhancing your life. It’s robbing you of the joy of actually experiencing your life. You’ll realize it the first time you step in dog shit or have your girlfriend get mad at you for not listening to her or lose your kid in a store."
>But give it a few months. Soon, it’ll be streaming Netflix queues, taking brilliant long-form blog post dictation, and offering up a wealth of casual social games, a portal into an endless labyrinth of distraction.
And so what if it did? Would her article be any more or less true if she dictated it as opposed to writing it? Is a movie watched on a private screen close to our eyeballs any less entertaining than one viewed on a mobile phone or television?
If the only real argument against Google Glass, as a product or as a concept, is that it offers too much, then I'm not sure I see what the problem is.
Well yes, but that's what the limited prototype is for, isn't it?
I mean, this one product isn't really sink or swim for the technology, and even if it doesn't meet the loftiest of expectations there's sure to be a lot to gain from the attempt in regards to features, usability, and UX.
After all, Blackberry smart phones sold extremely well prior to iPhone coming along and doing it "properly", but I'm sure Apple learned a lot of lessons from it. Even if many of those lessons were in what not to do.
The limitations specific to this device aren't the problem. The genuine issues will not be fixed before production, simply because don't have the technology. Specifically: the battery life, the poor voice recognition and the headaches.
How long till lawmakers prohibit using Glass while driving? Unlike hands-free ear pieces, Glass can distract the driver (like texting). Given Google's track record, I would not hesitate to think of a future where Glass will have ads pop in randomly. It is, after all, an advertising company.
Some studies found that even hands-free phone calls impair drivers significantly, as do traditional activities like changing the radio or just talking to another person in the car. Arguably anything that increases cognitive load (including a stick shift) could have this effect. Unless we're going to get into regulating everything you do in car, we probably need to just leave it to drivers or have self-driving cars.
>If you’re using it recreationally, not professionally to complete a task, don’t kid yourself — it’s not enhancing your life. It’s robbing you of the joy of actually experiencing your life.
Same with cell phones. And computers. And books. And your car. And Legos. And art. And music.
Wait. But we like books and creative things, right?
This is the sort of vacuous statement that irks me. "Well duh" is an obvious response, but it goes deeper. This can be applied to doing anything you enjoy, but it's wielded most frequently against new things, in a "get off my lawn" / rose-tinted glasses way.
Sure. New things get used for things you don't approve of. Easy art reproduction brought about the proliferation of porn and the commoditization of art in general. The printing press brought about the end of scribes, and is used to spread Christian, Buddhist, atheist, communist, anarchist, and democratic propaganda.
But new things also get used for things you do approve of. Like porn, art in every room, and spreading propaganda for your latest cause.
Can we please get an ounce of information, instead of vague new-thing-hate?
> And train yourself to rely less on your smartphone, while you’re at it.
This pretty much sums up this "review" for me. It's not a hands-on article so much as a reaction to her husband's device usage habits. May as well be about cell phones.
67 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 68.9 ms ] threadSo I wonder if a good litmus test for this sort of review might be to find/replace Glass with iPad and see if any of the criticism doesn't apply. Very little in the article seems to pass the test, so even though I tend to agree with the sentiments, I'm not sure most consumers will feel the same.
http://i.imgur.com/OY5RBuo.jpg
EDIT:
I see this is a repeat comment, but yeah I love watching people take photos with tablets.
But folks outside the tech industry are dropping PCs completely in favor of these types of consumption-centric devices.
I am trying to point specifically to the parallels, which I think are valid ones, and seem to cast doubt on this line of reasoning (which apparently was incorrect in the past).
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226604
It's bad enough when journalists write about a product without having it. She has it, but she's not using it, and then she's writing sweeping articles about it's long-term future.
Google Glass, in its current iteration, will likely never catch on with consumers. But it's a limited availability "preview" for a reason. Something like this is eventually going to get cheap enough and usable enough that consumers will buy it.
The only evidence I need that it sucks (in its current form) is that
1) Robert Scoble loves it. 2) Robert Scoble thinks he looks good wearing it.
You can't buy taste.
Last two things there? Both of them of them? It's you being a terrible person. Stop blaming technology for letting you be awful and blame yourself for being awful.
There's a discrepancy here, and it's clear new tech is being consumed faster than we can propagate the social norms around the tech.
Honestly, it's all fun and games till the average consumer has the ability to buy it. The rest is just speculation.
Because the more people say "it will never succeed with consumers", the fewer people will go into Gold Rush mentality (at least for now), and the more opportunity there will be for folks like me (and, I hope, other HN types).
I couldn't be more confident that some variation of this -- whether it's Google Glass or Apple Eyeball or whatever -- is going to really, seriously, emphatically, be a multi-billion-dollar market.
So keep going VentureBeat and others. Keep telling the world it's just a nerd toy or a fad or whatever. More time and more opportunity for the rest of us ;)
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
Are wearable computers going to be a thing? Probably. But if it does become a thing, Apple will make it one, not Google. Here is this product segment that is, by necessity, the intersection between computers and fashion accessories. Only Apple has the mind-share to pull that off.
why do you think that? Have you seen the latest market share of smartphones? Android?
Seriously? Even if it lived up to its hype and everyone started wearing them, it would still only be a usability improvement on a mobile phone. That is a far from even revolutionary let along 'hyper-revolutionary'.
Still mad about not having Reader available to do their work.
> On the other hand, for myriad kinds of workers, I can see Glass being an extraordinarily helpful, hands-free tool. Imagine working on an airplane engine and having the manual right in front of you or using it to photograph and catalog new species during a deep-sea diving expedition.
Imagine being someone who has to fix his sink, so he has to bust out a manual and figure out the sink at the same time... oh wait, turns out this nugget doesn't only apply to professional contexts.
Consumer-applications ← not just playing casual games and updating social media about what you had for dinner.
I can see Glass being excellent for some things, while maybe not being ideal for most of the things that you do. Imagine that you are in a foreign country and don't speak the language and you want to talk to someone; do you bust out your smart phone and let the other person spell out the words, then have them played back to you or you read it yourself? Or do you simply talk to that person and see the subtitles pop up as you go? The latter one is clearly superior, IMO.
This is like a review of cellphones from the 80's, "Stuff like this will never be used by anyone else than really busy professionals. It doesn't even fit in your pocket!"
EDIT: A lot of the time I really only need my smart phone for special purposes. Things like finding my way around places I haven't been is much easier with google maps than with a physical map and/or asking directions. Other than that? Well, surfing the web and listening to music, the former being a way to kill time and the latter something that my iPod Nano does better. Yet, smart phones are here to stay for most people.
For example, you already have Google Maps to guide you around your city with turn-by-turn audio navigation. That tool doesn’t get any better when it’s smack-dab against your eyeball.
I don't see why a manual for an airplane mechanic is better smack-dab against his eyeball but a map in one's line of sight is not better for a person navigating.
Her claims that Glass distract you from reality are counter to Google's thesis that Glass frees you from the distraction of staring at your phone. Both claims could be true, but I haven't seen much evidence regarding Glass.
If I'm performing a series of complicated manual tasks, I'm going to need both hands free. It's a pretty safe bet on something the size of an airplane that I'm going to be moving around a fair amount, too.
My phone, giving me turn-by-turn directions, will always be just a foot or so away from me, and clearly visible from the driver's seat. I don't benefit from having it "smack-dab against [my] eyeball."
Last night I saw the "Great Gatsby" and thought, like the book, it captured the timelessness of the story in that it would not feel any different in a modern setting, despite being written 80 years ago. But I kept thinking..."this is just like today, except no one is checking their phones"
We have pervasive digital technology today, and there are more cars and bigger high-rises in Manhattan, but you can picture a fancy dinner party today on Park Avenue in a building that was built in the 1920's and 1930's (like many luxury buildings in New York), with people who took a train in from Long Island on a line that was already old in 1920, etc.
> "And some overzealous Emily Post type (probably at an old-timey print rag) will write a much-mocked op-ed about the slight but growing disconnection between people."
A few paragraphs later...
>"...it’s not enhancing your life. It’s robbing you of the joy of actually experiencing your life. You’ll realize it the first time you step in dog shit or have your girlfriend get mad at you for not listening to her or lose your kid in a store."
No it won't. Give it a few years, maybe.
If the only real argument against Google Glass, as a product or as a concept, is that it offers too much, then I'm not sure I see what the problem is.
I mean, this one product isn't really sink or swim for the technology, and even if it doesn't meet the loftiest of expectations there's sure to be a lot to gain from the attempt in regards to features, usability, and UX.
After all, Blackberry smart phones sold extremely well prior to iPhone coming along and doing it "properly", but I'm sure Apple learned a lot of lessons from it. Even if many of those lessons were in what not to do.
http://mysite.verizon.net/horrey/papers/Horrey_HF2006meta.pd...
Same with cell phones. And computers. And books. And your car. And Legos. And art. And music.
Wait. But we like books and creative things, right?
This is the sort of vacuous statement that irks me. "Well duh" is an obvious response, but it goes deeper. This can be applied to doing anything you enjoy, but it's wielded most frequently against new things, in a "get off my lawn" / rose-tinted glasses way.
Sure. New things get used for things you don't approve of. Easy art reproduction brought about the proliferation of porn and the commoditization of art in general. The printing press brought about the end of scribes, and is used to spread Christian, Buddhist, atheist, communist, anarchist, and democratic propaganda.
But new things also get used for things you do approve of. Like porn, art in every room, and spreading propaganda for your latest cause.
Can we please get an ounce of information, instead of vague new-thing-hate?
This pretty much sums up this "review" for me. It's not a hands-on article so much as a reaction to her husband's device usage habits. May as well be about cell phones.
Very human eye has focus, Google just think din't about that.
I would love something as lens in the future than glass in the present. I would prefer glass for calls but not video calls.