Instead of continuing to work on this dog of a privacy-shredding ego trip, Google should use its massive stores of filthy lucre to fund the conversion of all railroad crossings in the U.S. from grade-level to underpasses and overpasses.
13
You never come to market with an unfinished product. That's what has made Apple so successful this decade. When an Apple product comes to market, like the original Ipod or the Ibook, it is pretty much a perfect product. Then it can absorb some of the kinks in later products but people know that what they are getting is the best. A comment below states that big companies sometimes make big mistakes but sometimes those mistakes sink a company and cost it millions (or billions) of dollars and thousands of jobs. And second place in the Marketplace forever.
7
Not sure why there are so many nay-sayers. As an early "technology wearer" myself, (hearing aids, to be exact), I applaud the use of Glass. Is it perfect? No, but then, neither are hearing aids. "Recognize this" is wonderful. It is another tool to help someone with profound deafness interact in the hearing world. Glass is not (really) a toy. It can be, and is, useful for a lot more than skydiving stints and taking pictures on the run. Hopefully, future explorations in redesigns will continue to incorporate ways of perfecting life skills for all types of challenges.
6
The fundamental concept of this product is flawed. Who wants a distracting screen floating around next to one's field of vision?
Dick Tracy got it right -- what, 80 years ago? -- with his famous "2-way wristwatch radio." We already have "smartwatches," which do most of the things phones do, am I sure by now some models contain a web-surfing app. Nothing wrong with wearable technology, but it should be located where users have the choice of whether and when to raise the screen to view it -- just as they do now with smartphones.
Privacy concerns still abound, but they do with *any* mobile device with the capacity to search online. From what I read about "Glass," you were going to have to shake your head to the side or something equally weird and ticlike to get it to snap a pic or record, so it was hardly the "stealth" product everyone feared.
The real threat privacy is face-recognition software, w/h destroys our "street anonymity" in public. What a horrendous burden. Personally, I resent it less in the hands of the government than in those of general public who are bored, nosy, Schadenfreude-junkies or otherwise Need To Get a Life. "Oh, look at that woman with the dog. Let's find out her name, how old she is, where she lives, how much she paid for her house, what it's worth today, and whether it's more impressive than mine. Oh, let's see if that guy with the stupid knit flaphat has had any financial embarrassments, or a rating at dontdatehimgirl.com."
Dick Tracy got it right -- what, 80 years ago? -- with his famous "2-way wristwatch radio." We already have "smartwatches," which do most of the things phones do, am I sure by now some models contain a web-surfing app. Nothing wrong with wearable technology, but it should be located where users have the choice of whether and when to raise the screen to view it -- just as they do now with smartphones.
Privacy concerns still abound, but they do with *any* mobile device with the capacity to search online. From what I read about "Glass," you were going to have to shake your head to the side or something equally weird and ticlike to get it to snap a pic or record, so it was hardly the "stealth" product everyone feared.
The real threat privacy is face-recognition software, w/h destroys our "street anonymity" in public. What a horrendous burden. Personally, I resent it less in the hands of the government than in those of general public who are bored, nosy, Schadenfreude-junkies or otherwise Need To Get a Life. "Oh, look at that woman with the dog. Let's find out her name, how old she is, where she lives, how much she paid for her house, what it's worth today, and whether it's more impressive than mine. Oh, let's see if that guy with the stupid knit flaphat has had any financial embarrassments, or a rating at dontdatehimgirl.com."
9
First Apple made the Newton. Then they made the iPhone.
1
Google Glass was massively hyped only two short years ago and now it's done. Remember the iPod? That was the hot thing for about 35 months. Seems like yesterday I saw David Carr on Charlie Rose marveling in wonder at this new thing called an iPad. Now sales are slowing and people want big phones instead. Seriously, that happened inside of two years.
This is precisely why Warren Buffet does not invest in technology companies.
This is precisely why Warren Buffet does not invest in technology companies.
2
I *would* have thought privacy was one of the reasons for the broken Glass, but the real privacy problems here never really got adequate coverage. This very article is a case in point - it only mentions privacy in respect of surreptitious recording by wearers, yet the big issue is the constant surveillance of what wearers are doing by Google at the backend.
Have people forgotten the Google business model? Everything they do is about the data. Glass would turn millions of people into walking CCTV cameras, feeding raw real time voice, vision and ambient sound into Google, for image analysis, pattern recognition and natural language processing. Google gets to see what people are actually doing, where, when and with whom. When an informopoly knows first hand what you really do, they don't need you to click "like" on anything ever again. We are submitting to private sector surveillance. And to what end? Advertising.
As with all of their data collection practices, there never was any self-imposed restraint regarding its fate. So the real privacy issue with Glass, as with the entire Internet of Things, is what do they do with the information? Is the collection proportionate? Is re-use restricted? Are the side effects (like the NSA getting their hands on it) understood and accepted?
It's actually a bit of a giggle that people fretted about recordings in rest rooms. I bet Google executives were all too happy to have privacy critics distracted by that one.
Have people forgotten the Google business model? Everything they do is about the data. Glass would turn millions of people into walking CCTV cameras, feeding raw real time voice, vision and ambient sound into Google, for image analysis, pattern recognition and natural language processing. Google gets to see what people are actually doing, where, when and with whom. When an informopoly knows first hand what you really do, they don't need you to click "like" on anything ever again. We are submitting to private sector surveillance. And to what end? Advertising.
As with all of their data collection practices, there never was any self-imposed restraint regarding its fate. So the real privacy issue with Glass, as with the entire Internet of Things, is what do they do with the information? Is the collection proportionate? Is re-use restricted? Are the side effects (like the NSA getting their hands on it) understood and accepted?
It's actually a bit of a giggle that people fretted about recordings in rest rooms. I bet Google executives were all too happy to have privacy critics distracted by that one.
9
Most certainlt Glass will become a utilitarian product. One example is to use as a teaching tool for instance in surgical proceedings.
2
So let us quixotic advocates of that quaint notion known as 'privacy' bid Google Glass a fond farewell, with one slight caveat - it's much more likely than not to prove a temporary one. After all, the present 'design' (If such a word may be used to dignify this creepy-looking device) has all the subtlety of the firecracker dropped on Hiroshima back in '45. But what will happen when the Google wizards perfect miniaturisation of this thing to the point where all the goodies can be made to fit in a frame which is indistinguishable from typical horn rims? THAT'S when we'll find out that George Orwell was, in a way, an optimist.
2
This could have been a fascinating story if it had been reported in a straightforward manner instead of written like a bad imitation of a chick-lit novel.
7
I'm confused. Google Glass didn't break. Do you also say that about every other product that finishes beta testing?
1
Google is a fine ad sales company - Google is NOT a consumer goods company. Google has had ZERO succcesses SELLING anything - giving away things is acceptable (Gmail, search android on msrtphones) but consumers will NOT pay for something they deem is worthless (Android tablets, Moto, Nexus, GoogleTV, & Google Glasses).
Also, if Apple does not provide an OS for them to copy, they have no idea what they are doing (Google Glasses or driverless cars that can't drive when it's raining).
Again, Google is a ad sales company NOT a consumer goods company. It's very simple.
Also, if Apple does not provide an OS for them to copy, they have no idea what they are doing (Google Glasses or driverless cars that can't drive when it's raining).
Again, Google is a ad sales company NOT a consumer goods company. It's very simple.
10
Back around 1993, Apple's Newton was released. It "bombed" but it was interesting. The concept wasn't complete, the technology wasn't there, and the internet was undeveloped. Some fourteen years later Apple released the iPhone. The Google Glass concept will succeed, in some other form, and maybe by a company other than Google.
8
As a Google Glass owner, I have to comment after reading comments from folks that obviously don't own Glass & have no clue as to what it does or how it works. I'm not a celebrity nor a journalist nor a tech geek, ust a retired IT person who happens to love "bleeding" edge technology. My Google Glasses are 2nd on list of things to take with me on vacation/road trip; 1st on my list is my iPad. I love that I can sight see & take pictures or videos with a blink or quick press of a button, without having to hold a camera up to my face (cell phone or 35mm camera) to get a shot. I can check the news, my e-mail, stock market, receive & make phone calls - all from a quick touch on the side of the Glass. Was it problem free - absolutely not. But I wasn't expecting it to be since it was in the early stages. Google's support team was phenomenal whenever I had a problem & if it was something they couldn't resolve remotely, I'd have a replacement Glass w/in a few days. And yes, I did buy the prescription glasses for mine. I commend Google for their innovation with this product & am looking forward to the next generation of the "Glass" or whatever it may be called. So for those of you that haven't used Glass or don't have a clue about Glass, you should reserve judgment until you can make a more informed critique of the product - you remind me of nay sayers who criticized the computer, laptops, DVDs, cell phones, tablets, .... look at where we are today. Ugly, I think not!
12
There was a funny skit on the Daily Show about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClvI9fZaz6M
My friend was the waitress who kicked Nick Starr, "Glass Explorer', out of Lost Lake in Seattle, after the owner of several bars in the area jokingly made it a "policy" to ban Google Glass from his businesses. It all blew up ridiculously out of proportion in a Facebook back and forth.
Personally, I'm Libertarian on Google Glass, and I don't judge those who like 'em. But it was funny that my friend got her 15 seconds of pseudo-infamy being at the center of this trivial social uproar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClvI9fZaz6M
My friend was the waitress who kicked Nick Starr, "Glass Explorer', out of Lost Lake in Seattle, after the owner of several bars in the area jokingly made it a "policy" to ban Google Glass from his businesses. It all blew up ridiculously out of proportion in a Facebook back and forth.
Personally, I'm Libertarian on Google Glass, and I don't judge those who like 'em. But it was funny that my friend got her 15 seconds of pseudo-infamy being at the center of this trivial social uproar.
3
If Apple would have developed it, everyone would have a different opinion of it, no?
5
Yeah, but Apple didn't develop it right? Tim Cook even stated in public that they don't think the product concept works. You know why Apple thinks so? Because the people who run Apple are not socially inept --they know that a person walking around all day with a camcorder held at the ready-to-shoot position is not going to be a popular figure.
2
Everyone would probably have hated it then. Of course apple would sell it to consumers at the $1500 price tag while Google's price will be a lot lower.
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” @nickbilton IS journalism!
In regards to Glass not being the first, that's true. I tested the monocular Augmented Reality glasses from Konika Minolta in 2007 (years before Glass came out).
In regards to Google, I'm glad good journalism is helping to deflate corporate egos. Google is very much like AT&T back in the day. It's getting out of hand (as is obvious by its internal relations).
In regards to Glass not being the first, that's true. I tested the monocular Augmented Reality glasses from Konika Minolta in 2007 (years before Glass came out).
In regards to Google, I'm glad good journalism is helping to deflate corporate egos. Google is very much like AT&T back in the day. It's getting out of hand (as is obvious by its internal relations).
2
I could not be happier that Google glass is going away...at least for now. The couple of people that I encountered who were wearing them were very obnoxious. They had no respect for the privacy of those around them. One guy got in my face and tried to start a debate with me while filming. I had to leave the scene. Apparently he got punched by another patron after I left.
11
There is a reason very few large company founders end up being the chief executives -- the skillset needed to 'invent' something is different from the skillset needed to increase its value. Mr. Brin's tech brilliance at helping bring Google search into the light does not make him the best choice to make day-to-day decisions that impact stock value, especially when it comes to product development. This experience with Google Glass might validate that point.
1
Google glass never made business sense because so man people already use corrective lenses, so Google would have had to get all the people who make and fit and sell corrective glasses and frames to deal with providing lenses for google (they would also have had to deal with any problems arising from the many corrective lenses that include bifocals and trifocals). The providers, on the other hand, would have had the frame-selling parts of their business -- the most profitable part -- threatened by Google.
It may have been a technological triumph, but the business part was very poorly done. One needs more than products ... one needs distribution channels ... and Google just doesn't seem to have thought about it. Google needs more business people and fewer stargazers when it comes to products that have to interface with already existing products.
It may have been a technological triumph, but the business part was very poorly done. One needs more than products ... one needs distribution channels ... and Google just doesn't seem to have thought about it. Google needs more business people and fewer stargazers when it comes to products that have to interface with already existing products.
3
They partnered with whoever owns Lenscrafters to solve all of these problems. the company basically controls eyewear, owning several major brands of sunglasses and corrective lenses.
Google is an advertising company. Nothing could be less interesting, or more profitable.
Without adding some kind of superior social value, or at least the appearance of something more, its just about making money from advertisers. Ho-hum. So, they copied Apple's iOS, and they bought YouTube.
Google Glass served it's purpose. One of the world's most pumped up advertising campaigns for how cool, and cutting edge, Google is supposed to be.
Then the ad campaign ran it's course. So it was pulled. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
More Google self-promotion will surely follow. Maybe they'll hire President Obama as CEO, when his term of office expires. Maybe they'll buy the International Space Station and re-name the giant porthole, the Google Glass in Space. With all that money from advertising, the possibilities seem endless.
Without adding some kind of superior social value, or at least the appearance of something more, its just about making money from advertisers. Ho-hum. So, they copied Apple's iOS, and they bought YouTube.
Google Glass served it's purpose. One of the world's most pumped up advertising campaigns for how cool, and cutting edge, Google is supposed to be.
Then the ad campaign ran it's course. So it was pulled. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
More Google self-promotion will surely follow. Maybe they'll hire President Obama as CEO, when his term of office expires. Maybe they'll buy the International Space Station and re-name the giant porthole, the Google Glass in Space. With all that money from advertising, the possibilities seem endless.
5
“This was the first time that people talked about wearable technology”? Aren't normal glasses wearable technology? Aren't running shoes, helmets, or the light on my bike helmet? How about my belt buckle? I think this was the first time people talked about wearing stupid, useless, problematic and ugly technology.
24
With Ivy Ross, who is a visionary as well as a designer, and Mr. Fadell working together, something educational and meaningful can be made of google glass. the bumps that have happened along the way just show the road not to travel.
2
Let's not forget that strapping a Bluetooth device to your forehead for eight hours a day is an efficient way to get brain cancer.
8
The hype preceded the ability to deliver usefulness. That doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
3
Don't forget Bill Gates started out selling software no one had written yet.
Sometimes audacity works...eventually.
Sometimes audacity works...eventually.
3
Big companies make big mistakes, then they move on. Big deal.
4
Maybe Google can work on something that might actually help people with ADD in social settings.
Or how about Google Glass that just shows you a live picture of youself, like a moving selfie.
Or how about Google Glass that just shows you a live picture of youself, like a moving selfie.
5
Reminds me of tablet computers pre-ipad. They had been around for a number of years languishing (I know, I had 2 of them). Then for a complex set of reasons, the concept took off. Timing, congregate mass, design and price are important for success.
I wonder what fate will befall the wearable computer/watch.
I wonder what fate will befall the wearable computer/watch.
3
Really, tablets were just a matter of time. In the beginning (post Windows XP tablets) they were just bigger phones that couldn't make calls.
Looks like there weren't enough geeks with money to waste.
3
Because they didn't call them "Goggles".
A. They already had something called Goggles. B. that name wouldn't make any sense for something that doesn't even go in front of your eyes.
The Google Glass was severely ugly, short-sighted, tacky, and, worst of all, gave the people who owned them this massive superiority complex. When reasonable privacy concerns were raised, they poo-poo'd them as the product of idiot luddites who don't understand that wearing a camera on your face that you can use to record stuff anywhere and everywhere at all times is the wave of the future.
16
Google Glass may not be ready for prime time in the consumer market, and it may never be, but it is very well-suited for other specific purposes. One example would be recording all surgeries performed by surgeons to detect/prevent errors. Another would for police to use it to record all encounters. A third would be for scientists to record their experiments when they are doing them.
7
I feel like none of those would apply because you need both eyes to perform those tasks. All of the things you mentioned are better served by other technologies. Imagine following an image while the doctor moves his head around to work with support staff. The fact that this article is in the style section says it all for me. That's why it failed.
2
And yet it hasn't failed.
This is a sad testament to public misinformation led by an ever hungry headline grabbing media which cares little for the truth.
I wanted a set of prescription Google Glasses last year BUT, decided to do some research first. What I found was a chaotic hodge-podge of misinformed folks/businesses/venues that had no real clue to the capabilities of the device, the legality of where I could use the device, nor the ramifications if I did violate some law when using the device. Not even the local police department, department of motor vehicles, nor the attorney general knew the factual legalities.
As a result, I passed on purchasing these (even though my optometrist was all for me going forward with it).
Yes, this device exploded on the scene but instead of open arms and enthusiasm, the underlying current was rife with innuendos of spying, of illegalities of use, and looking for ways to legally hinder devices like these.
A sad snapshot of a lemming led public fronted by extravagant media verbiage.
I wanted a set of prescription Google Glasses last year BUT, decided to do some research first. What I found was a chaotic hodge-podge of misinformed folks/businesses/venues that had no real clue to the capabilities of the device, the legality of where I could use the device, nor the ramifications if I did violate some law when using the device. Not even the local police department, department of motor vehicles, nor the attorney general knew the factual legalities.
As a result, I passed on purchasing these (even though my optometrist was all for me going forward with it).
Yes, this device exploded on the scene but instead of open arms and enthusiasm, the underlying current was rife with innuendos of spying, of illegalities of use, and looking for ways to legally hinder devices like these.
A sad snapshot of a lemming led public fronted by extravagant media verbiage.
1
Wearing the glass is sort of what Jerry Seinfeld said about wearing sweatpants in public.
"I give up. I can't compete in normal society."
"I give up. I can't compete in normal society."
6
Kudos to Google for trying to make Google Glass work. Innovation can be a bumpy road sometimes.
Shame on Google for throwing Glass out into the public spotlight before it was ready. That only diminishes the public's confidence in the company's capabilities, judgment, diligence, and quality standards.
Shame on Google for throwing Glass out into the public spotlight before it was ready. That only diminishes the public's confidence in the company's capabilities, judgment, diligence, and quality standards.
5
I can't help but think that the techie brains are designing for other techies - not for the general public. I get that celebrities fell in line with the trend, but seriously, from a very basic level, the product made no sense. The invasive consequences of wearing them in public, referenced in the article, as well as the utter ridiculousness of the look seemed fairly obvious. I wonder if, when surrounded by those of industry ilk, you lose touch with basic commonsense notions.
14
Obviously Google messed up their process regarding Glass, but to discount the idea as stupid is very short sighted.
Two of my past statments:
"Why would anyone want a phone with a camera." And 10 years later, "A phone camera will never take quality pictures. Cameras are about the quality of the lens. A 1/8" diameter disk of plastic will never work."
I was wrong. People first fought the camera phone, and then everyone wanted one. And I did not anticipate built-in software that could correct for phone camera failings in real time.
Famous comments from tech industry personalities who could not see the future.
On big cell phones. "you can't get your hand around it" ..."no one's going to buy that." --Steve Jobs iPhone 6?
On small tablets. “It is meaningless, unless your tablet also includes sandpaper, so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one quarter of the present size.” --Steve Jobs
The iPad Mini far out sell the larger iPad.
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." Ken Olsen, co-founder of Digital Equipment Corp, 1977
"Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become a practical proposition."
Dennis Gabor, 1962
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
Editor, Prentice Hall business books, 1957
Two of my past statments:
"Why would anyone want a phone with a camera." And 10 years later, "A phone camera will never take quality pictures. Cameras are about the quality of the lens. A 1/8" diameter disk of plastic will never work."
I was wrong. People first fought the camera phone, and then everyone wanted one. And I did not anticipate built-in software that could correct for phone camera failings in real time.
Famous comments from tech industry personalities who could not see the future.
On big cell phones. "you can't get your hand around it" ..."no one's going to buy that." --Steve Jobs iPhone 6?
On small tablets. “It is meaningless, unless your tablet also includes sandpaper, so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one quarter of the present size.” --Steve Jobs
The iPad Mini far out sell the larger iPad.
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." Ken Olsen, co-founder of Digital Equipment Corp, 1977
"Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become a practical proposition."
Dennis Gabor, 1962
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
Editor, Prentice Hall business books, 1957
13
Was all the details about Sergey Brin's personal life necessary? Or was this tabloid type coverage about the quadrangle an off handed way to critique Silicon Valley and Google's lax policy on fellow employees dating and mating with each other?
9
I'm glad to know what happened. I couldn't understand why the mysterious breakup just when 23andme was under attack.
I didn't get the glasses because the price was high, there were cheaper products and none seemed to be truly easy to use. More of these will come down until we really do have a well integrated personal system.
I didn't get the glasses because the price was high, there were cheaper products and none seemed to be truly easy to use. More of these will come down until we really do have a well integrated personal system.
1
No it wasn't. A simple link to the Vanity Fair story would suffice.
As to Google Glass this story is severly lacking in any of the details as to why it failed. clearly the camera was one. How was the access to the net and its functions left out?
As to Google Glass this story is severly lacking in any of the details as to why it failed. clearly the camera was one. How was the access to the net and its functions left out?
4
Not a failure at all. It answered many questions and revealed new and unexpected reactions. Bits and pieces of this experience will influence many related products in the future.
5
I'm sure when it comes out it will be different form the one we've seen. They definitely learned a lot from this one.
Breaking news!: tech is great, sex is better.
14
No article or photo of Google Glass ever showed me what it did. There was absolutely no ability to demonstrate anything beyond what appeared to be a $1500 fashion-tek item.
If you can't demonstrate it, then you can't sell it. Of course it had FAIL written on it.
Nick Bilton, what did it do?
If you can't demonstrate it, then you can't sell it. Of course it had FAIL written on it.
Nick Bilton, what did it do?
12
There are tons and tons of videos and articles that talked about what it did. Recording video or taking pictures with just a voice command or wink of the eye, showing information like messages and email you could see without looking away from what you were doing, other apps could do things like show a live navigation app that you could see without looking down. There were a number of other interesting apps too. Marques Brownlee did a great video on it.
http://youtu.be/elXk87IKgCo
http://youtu.be/elXk87IKgCo
And so as we leave the "real world" and enter into "ever after" land, the future is just ahead. Isn't it?
1
Talk about short sighted....
Google Glass is ugly, useless for most people, and ridiculously expensive.
The attempted association with "fashion" amateur night...as if one fashion show could change "perception."
Google Glass is ugly, useless for most people, and ridiculously expensive.
The attempted association with "fashion" amateur night...as if one fashion show could change "perception."
16
So this was Beta? wait for prerelease and version 1 to fail too. Usually tech products work just fine by the time they are on Version 2.
Any one who bought an early flat screen (plasma) TV can tell you, the later flat screens (LED, etc) are much better. Same with most electronics.
Napster too was a disaster, but it gave birth to buying music online.
This product has a future. Just it has to go through growing pains first.
Any one who bought an early flat screen (plasma) TV can tell you, the later flat screens (LED, etc) are much better. Same with most electronics.
Napster too was a disaster, but it gave birth to buying music online.
This product has a future. Just it has to go through growing pains first.
8
Google Glass is the Leisure Suit of the 21st Century, and like leisure suits, wearing it broadcasts not just the bad taste of the wearer, but that they are sleazy.
Leisure Suit Larry became Google Glass Gary.
Leisure Suit Larry became Google Glass Gary.
24
Some form of Glass-like wearable technology will exist, whether Google produces it or not. Google was not the first to produce such a gadget, and won't be the last. Future versions will probably not look any different than any other pair of glasses, with electronic components too small to notice. After that there will be electronic contact lenses, which will be even less obvious to observers. This is not a technology that can be prevented, except perhaps by law, and that is unlikely. Yes, the particulars of the Glass rollout, it's design, and it's users produced a backlash. A mostly ill-informed backlash, such as people worrying about surrepticious recording without knowing that there is an indicator light whenever Glass is recording. But backlash or not, there is a market, and the market will only grow as similar products proliferate and people get more used to them and fine more ways to use them. Phones may eventually become obsolete as all their functionality is moved to such devices.
2
If I could have shorted Google Glass independently of Google itself, I would have and would now be retired. There was no way this was ever going to fly. Just stupid.
The biggest question is why did the fawning press take so long to see reality?
The biggest question is why did the fawning press take so long to see reality?
11
It was creepy. Period.
46
Google Glass is Ok but Microsoft's Hololens is revolutionary.
5
"Mr. Brin was leaving his wife for Ms. Rosenberg, who was in turn leaving her boyfriend, who also worked at Google." ...So? What does this have to do with this story? Did the breakup of his marriage cause his "project deficit disorder" on Google Glass? Was Rosenberg's boyfriend the critical engineer who made the project work, and without him they had to shut it down? If this has something to do with the demise of Google Glass it should be explicitly included in the article. If not, isn't the NY TImes just gossiping for gossip's sake here?
66
The problem with Google Glass is very simple......it was a completely and utterly useless device. The price ($1500) for a device that cost less than $100 to make shows that Google had little faith in it.
Why did the end come a few weeks back? Because they knew that Microsoft was going to release what Google Glass needed to be to become relevant -- true augmented reality + the ability to interact with it.
Google Glass will be a footnote like 86-DOS or Apple Newton, but HoloLens is the future. It's probably the most important technology that will be announced this decade, and will cause more disruptive innovation than anything since at least the IPhone. It has multiple killer apps right out of the box (gaming/Minecraft, LOB apps, etc)
And, unlike Google -- Microsoft seems pretty confident in their product. Their patent buys and the 2.5 billion spent to acquire Minecraft kind of back this up.
Why did the end come a few weeks back? Because they knew that Microsoft was going to release what Google Glass needed to be to become relevant -- true augmented reality + the ability to interact with it.
Google Glass will be a footnote like 86-DOS or Apple Newton, but HoloLens is the future. It's probably the most important technology that will be announced this decade, and will cause more disruptive innovation than anything since at least the IPhone. It has multiple killer apps right out of the box (gaming/Minecraft, LOB apps, etc)
And, unlike Google -- Microsoft seems pretty confident in their product. Their patent buys and the 2.5 billion spent to acquire Minecraft kind of back this up.
5
Revolutionary, perhaps. Rudimentary, nonetheless. Back to the drawing board!
1
Not sure the Times even gets it. Glass is a horrible product with a very bad consumer value proposition. It has great niche applications (the disabled etc.) and UX. The last nail in the coffin was about a year+ ago when Apple spies (yes they have spies) started to learn about the HoloLens project at Microsoft.
Lesson learned? HoloLens has a great value proposition for some pretty hefty consumer market, design, construction, and industrial applications. If the user experience is as good as it look like it will be it will be a home run. Google should just forget the category. For once Microsoft will torch the market with a hardware product.
Lesson learned? HoloLens has a great value proposition for some pretty hefty consumer market, design, construction, and industrial applications. If the user experience is as good as it look like it will be it will be a home run. Google should just forget the category. For once Microsoft will torch the market with a hardware product.
5
Diane von Furstenburg would think that Google Glass is revolutionary. She's 69 years old. Color television is revolutionary to people of her generation. However, having seen a few folks stumble around in the subway wearing these things, I, a 74 year old, could see this "fail' coming a mile away. They were a silly idea, unlike a brilliant concept like Ms. v F's wrap around dress.
20
I think there are many, many women out there who would tell you that a man leaving his wife for a friend of hers is no "strange twist".
49
Yes, first wives are for breeding good kids and because when you are young, you want to marry an equal. When you are older you want to marry down and be catered to (slightly truthful).
5
A poorly written article with palace intrigues galore but missing the point. I think this product was far ahead of its time. So, it failed. I believe a similar product is likely to come out in 5-10 years time probably in a different form. Perhaps by that time privacy violations will have been figured out. Some experiments go awry, and this was just one of them. Sometimes even smart people make mistakes. That is simply called business risk and Google can afford one. Thankfully, they did not get all excited and began selling driver- less cars too early. Yet!
8
Yes, Google Glass was a product ahead of its time. Microdisplay technology has been around and relatively practical since 2000. Despite heavy marketing by some companies, probably no longer in existence, the product failed back then as well. I think the technology will become practical when it easily and wirelessly integrated into the technology in your phone, as a display. The creepiness that accompanies the ability to record what the glass sees and the bizarre head bobbing required to operate it should be excluded.
The fact that it makes you look utterly ridiculous might just be a factor as well.
43
There is a troubling undercurrent narcissism in the tech world that personal computer technology will not just make our lives better, but that our lives are unlivable without it. That to appreciate the world around us means having a camera on hand to capture it and post it on Facebook. That this new "app" is going to make you finally lose that weight. That we must always be immediately accessible to our employers and everyone else by messaging. That the wonderful best-device-ever you purchased just a few months ago is now hopelessly obsolete. Oh, and that having to pull it out of your pocket is too much work, so we need to be wearing it or on our wrists too.
29
Google Glass represents only the tip of the trend in the ultra-miniaturization of recording technology that represents, potentially, a myriad of legal, moral, and ethical dilemmas that we are not currently equipped to deal with. Once the novelty and gimmickry wears off, we will have a serious discussion regarding these devices and their potential impact on our lives and businesses.
7
Google Glass broke? Perhaps if you were so caught up in the product hype as well as a divorce of unexplained relevance, then perhaps it seems like a disaster. But I'm not sure that an experimental prototype can really "break" anyway - it's not pretending to be a polished and perfect product ready to achieve success. Google probably could have communicated that more clearly though - the way they promoted it appeared to suggest otherwise. Anyway, going back under wraps isn't the "death knell".
4
Not sure I get the overwhelmingly negative tone of the article. I don't really see a problem here except Google (mostly unintentionally) ended up with way too much publicity, which raised unrealistic expectations. Everybody who is least bit tech-savvy could see Google Glass was just the first stab at something important. It was a waste of $1,000 but otherwise no great harm done.
Google Glass is a little like the Apple "Newton" -- a first meaningful stab at a pocketable computer. Like the Newton, it lacks enough processing power or mature software to really fulfill its mission at this time, but in 5 to 10 years wearable computers and maybe implantable computers will be a reality.
Google Glass is a little like the Apple "Newton" -- a first meaningful stab at a pocketable computer. Like the Newton, it lacks enough processing power or mature software to really fulfill its mission at this time, but in 5 to 10 years wearable computers and maybe implantable computers will be a reality.
3
Ha ha ha ha ha. What goes around comes around. It is astonishing to live in a time when experts talk about the negative impacts on children of too much time on tech; a popular book a few years ago discussed how to get children to go outdoors; and Goggle Glass existed. We and our brains have evolved with five sensory systems: touch, taste, sight, hearing and smell. When we live on our tech screens we use two of those systems. We diminish ourselves. I am not a dinosaur. I work on a computer and use the internet. I feel the difference between screen time and when I am in three-dimensional, five-senses reality.
8
Poor writers often cherry-pick evidence to support whatever conclusion they want to make at whatever time. In this article, when Bilton wants to portray Glass positively, he notes that "Time Magazine named it one of the 'Best Inventions of the Year.'" When he wants the opposite effect, he notes that "Tech reviewers who finally got their hands on Glass described it as 'the worst product of all time.'" If he said that at one time it was a good product but that later it went downhill, I'd understand, but with no dates given, it only seems that he is cherry-picking evidence to support opposite conclusions when he wants to make one point or the other, thus confusing the reader about how Glass was actually generally received.
45
"... how Goolge Glass was generally received"?
Received by whom? I was given to understand that it was to be withheld from me because who got it was a society thing -- as in "Society". The snooty set. A night at The Opera or the Philharmonic Orchestra. A day at the races, or Royal Ascot. A toy for the upper 01% of the richest 1%.
Received by whom? I was given to understand that it was to be withheld from me because who got it was a society thing -- as in "Society". The snooty set. A night at The Opera or the Philharmonic Orchestra. A day at the races, or Royal Ascot. A toy for the upper 01% of the richest 1%.
4
Same as it ever was. The press and hangers on get to celebrate both the debut and the crash in an outsized and self serving way.
Google's hubris (ambition) and mistakes (iteration) are still more valuable than this weird, parasitic dependence on both, coming and going.
Google's hubris (ambition) and mistakes (iteration) are still more valuable than this weird, parasitic dependence on both, coming and going.
2
A classic case of technology being developed in isolation of any problem that needed to be solved. There is a reason NASA and space development is so important for the world. We need to fix real problems to survive in Space and the technological benefits and advances filter into our daily lives.
29
Maybe we ought to work with the problems we are inflicting on the planet and each other before we rush out to pollute space.
6
For me what will be breakthrough, in terms of new gadget.
A seamless software, like in the movie "her" It adds Human interaction with Computers our speech. Today we have great examples and actually they are the breakthrough's not Google glass.
So far we can only interact with Computers eyes and hands, but if we achieve with very impressive understanding of Human speech, just imagine how the Computers can change our lives.
Imagine your self , Your computer can read you a book or an essay with Morgan Freeman voice and chatting, discussing and sensing you, like another human being.
This is a incremental development , at the top , FULL fledged AI, on the road lots of fun.
So as a Neuroscientist My sincere advice to Google, Microsoft and IBM etc please make IBM Watson available for everybody. So we can utilize maximum our computers, Instead of playing candy crush saga in IPhone 6 plus.
A seamless software, like in the movie "her" It adds Human interaction with Computers our speech. Today we have great examples and actually they are the breakthrough's not Google glass.
So far we can only interact with Computers eyes and hands, but if we achieve with very impressive understanding of Human speech, just imagine how the Computers can change our lives.
Imagine your self , Your computer can read you a book or an essay with Morgan Freeman voice and chatting, discussing and sensing you, like another human being.
This is a incremental development , at the top , FULL fledged AI, on the road lots of fun.
So as a Neuroscientist My sincere advice to Google, Microsoft and IBM etc please make IBM Watson available for everybody. So we can utilize maximum our computers, Instead of playing candy crush saga in IPhone 6 plus.
On the one hand, Glass can be useful - for surgeons, for gardeners (looking up a plant while working) for technicians or anyone else who needs instant information while working and who can't get to a computer. On the other hand, it's bad enough having people shoving smart phones at you to take photos; surreptitious photography at the wink of an eye is worse. I suspect it is this latter feature that will make it difficult to get the idea accepted.
9
It is entirely possible that the time for wearable surreptitious recording devices like Google glass will come. But hopefully not until non-users find a way to pre-emptively disable its recording capabilities in bathrooms, locker rooms, beaches and parks, restaurants and bars, subways, and pretty much anywhere else that voyeurs and other various assorted creeps are likely to hang out.
16
Ask me if I care...
3
The Google Glass tale reminds me of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
Brin certainly strikes me as a fitting emperor. Naked as a jaybird.
Brin certainly strikes me as a fitting emperor. Naked as a jaybird.
7
What mystifies me is why people continue to give Google their undivided attention whenever they announce some crazy project or product. Now it's the driverless car. Google's track record is one of a few successes (Google itself, Google Maps, etc) and a lot of wild failures and ignominious poop-outs. Why are they taken so seriously? The results do not justify the hype.
8
Just the perfect example of hipster irony/obsolescence. As the rest of the world gets LASIK and contact lenses to get rid of glasses, the hipsters don them, ever assured that they are both novel and a sign of intelligence. Wearing your Grandpa's clothes is only incredible in a song. PS. Soon you'll need readers and that tiny screen will be useless. IBM used to have a motto: THINK. And think down the road past the next TED, Burning Bush, or other love fest of Silicon Valley.
7
Well said. As someone who is deeply nearsighted, I never got the excitement!
1
I thought this piece was about wearers of google glass developing vision problems similar to what Steve Martin's invention caused in his movie "the Jerk."
3
Since the day it is unveiled I found Google glass is same idea as Ford Edsel. It is ugly in terms of what it promise.
Nowadays mobile computer tech has a dizzying effect on us what we are capable of.
But actually inventors simply forgetting one issue.
Human evolution and what human intelligence about.
We the human beings are simply based on two important input and output organs, Eyes and Hands , remaining organs which serves to our brain unfortunately inferior to rest of the Animalia.
So in our interaction with another super intelligent being which is Computers ( soon AI) we can only manage optimal way via using EYES and HANDS.
Ignoring one of these organs , which is designs will doomed not the intrigued social things.
Todays, Mobile devices such as Phablets and tablets are the ultimate development for interacting with Computers , form reached its optimal level, beyond this needs software and hardware development to increase ability to do things of these devices. Any additional forms doomed to be loss in this race.
You simply cannot ignore ten finger and two hands, you cannot ignore stereoscopic vision that two thing makes human brain in optimal running.
So Google glass was remembered as eclectic device for just tasting.
Nowadays mobile computer tech has a dizzying effect on us what we are capable of.
But actually inventors simply forgetting one issue.
Human evolution and what human intelligence about.
We the human beings are simply based on two important input and output organs, Eyes and Hands , remaining organs which serves to our brain unfortunately inferior to rest of the Animalia.
So in our interaction with another super intelligent being which is Computers ( soon AI) we can only manage optimal way via using EYES and HANDS.
Ignoring one of these organs , which is designs will doomed not the intrigued social things.
Todays, Mobile devices such as Phablets and tablets are the ultimate development for interacting with Computers , form reached its optimal level, beyond this needs software and hardware development to increase ability to do things of these devices. Any additional forms doomed to be loss in this race.
You simply cannot ignore ten finger and two hands, you cannot ignore stereoscopic vision that two thing makes human brain in optimal running.
So Google glass was remembered as eclectic device for just tasting.
1
As a hardware solution it is obsolete. Engineers have already created digital contact lens which can perform the functions Glass provided (if it worked). No bulky and obvious hardware - whatever one sees can be digitally stored.
Great product in the future for cops.
Great product in the future for cops.
2
As one of the few female Glass Explorers, I questioned the wisdom of the open beta-test nearly a year ago, while most of my fellow Explorers were partying: "although Google can congratulate itself on effectively crowd-funding the development of its latest gadget, the demographics of its Explorer program and the blowback from its unfocused marketing strategy indicate a singular failure to engage the public imagination. Geeks in hoodies still dominate the Glassian landscape -- as far as one can tell from the chatter on the online Explorers forum... Had Google confined its Explorers beta-test to a handful of industries in which Glass could have the greatest impact -- medical science, empowering the disabled, law enforcement, workplace innovation, professional sports, and the performing arts come to mind -- it might have avoided much of the negative press and paved the way for a less turbulent commercial launch." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carla-escoda/dances-with-google-glass_b_56...
45
....or...wandering far from my area of expertise.....was this a remarkably successful attempt to make Google seem interesting and relevant, instead of a dull part of the cyber infrastructure?.....& do remember, the godlike Steve Jobs flamed out at least once... "fail better"
I fail to see the love triangle link to google glass's failure in the market. As some have pointed, it failed because it was a solution looking to solve an unknown problem. That was it's eventual kiss of death or was it the first kiss between Brin and Rosenberg caught on google glass?
9
This "story" is exactly what it says at the very beginning of it - a "tale". Something that would make good drama in an independent movie.
A much more tech- and business wise interesting question is why Google started to pursue the Glass idea at all. ...and if their HR-policy is failing big time, not being able to keep mr Brin and others in check.
...because Google continues to display a very disconcerting pattern; branching out to and into completely new fields of technology where the company has little or no track record. Glass is a prime example - while Apple has had a hardware focus for decades, Google is a data-centered company. They certainly know their server farms, but not consumer hardware. Not even Jobs where crazy enough to go after something like Glass (you would need to make it as slim as couple of Ray Bans and with the quality of a HD screen to make them attractive).
Makes no sense.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Google has aggressively bought into the military robotics industry, dabbles in drones and good knows what else.
(Don't be evil doesn't go too well with autonomous military robots... Not even if they aren't armed).
Ok, so those things lacks the drama the story of Glass has - but it is a story worthy of the NYT. Is Googles management starting to drift off into Neverland or what is happening?
It's not a good thing when one of the worlds biggest companies start behaving in a way that makes Steve Jobs look utterly boring by comparison.
A much more tech- and business wise interesting question is why Google started to pursue the Glass idea at all. ...and if their HR-policy is failing big time, not being able to keep mr Brin and others in check.
...because Google continues to display a very disconcerting pattern; branching out to and into completely new fields of technology where the company has little or no track record. Glass is a prime example - while Apple has had a hardware focus for decades, Google is a data-centered company. They certainly know their server farms, but not consumer hardware. Not even Jobs where crazy enough to go after something like Glass (you would need to make it as slim as couple of Ray Bans and with the quality of a HD screen to make them attractive).
Makes no sense.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Google has aggressively bought into the military robotics industry, dabbles in drones and good knows what else.
(Don't be evil doesn't go too well with autonomous military robots... Not even if they aren't armed).
Ok, so those things lacks the drama the story of Glass has - but it is a story worthy of the NYT. Is Googles management starting to drift off into Neverland or what is happening?
It's not a good thing when one of the worlds biggest companies start behaving in a way that makes Steve Jobs look utterly boring by comparison.
4
Google certainly does seem to have focus issues at times, but I don't think that glass is a really good example of such. Google is invested in Android and OS's in general in order to not get frozen out when it comes to driving people into their "data-centric" ecosystem.
Google created Android (and ChromeOS, etc) to make sure that they would remain relevant as people moved into the mobile computing realm. Otherwise, they'd be subject to the whims of OS/device providers ("Oh, Microsoft will spend $X to be our data/services/cloud provider for iOS, what's it worth to you?"). Wearables are just an extension of this. They're coming in some shape or form, though we don't know what that is, and Google needs to be relevant on them.
So, while it's still "pie-in-the-sky", there're very good business/strategic reasons why Google spends money on these sorts of things.
Google created Android (and ChromeOS, etc) to make sure that they would remain relevant as people moved into the mobile computing realm. Otherwise, they'd be subject to the whims of OS/device providers ("Oh, Microsoft will spend $X to be our data/services/cloud provider for iOS, what's it worth to you?"). Wearables are just an extension of this. They're coming in some shape or form, though we don't know what that is, and Google needs to be relevant on them.
So, while it's still "pie-in-the-sky", there're very good business/strategic reasons why Google spends money on these sorts of things.
Let's not congratulate ourselves prematurely on escaping this one. There is every reason to think there will be more and worse obnoxious, intrusive tech developments coming down the pike.
34
The most insidious of which cannot be seen or touched. At least with Glass, the victims faced the enemy. For most, our beloved smartphone betrays our privacy in relative yet relentless silence.
1
I grew up in a home that had the same black wall-phone for 26 years. Every time any one of us picked up the receiver to make a call it worked perfectly. Nowadays I am replacing my phone every couple of years due to one problem or another with it. Same goes for just about everything else in life these days, or so it surely seems. i spent an hour and twenty minutes on the phone with various tech people who couldn't figure out why my voicemail doesn't work. I seriously question whether these "advancements" truly are ....
66
If you are replacing things every couple of years it is either because you have bought into consumerism or you buy lousy products. I bought my mobile phone in 1996, and am still using it. For a while computers (desktop then laptop) were like cars in the '50s: buy a new one every two years, every year if you are really in lock step with Madison Avenue. Now it's phones. I can hardly wait until that fad passes, so I won't have to be swerving when I drive or walk to avoid all the distracted iZombies with their eyes down instead of looking ahead. Oh, yeah, I forgot, Google glasses were going to solve that. Right.
1
As a former broadcaster who has seen countless people freeze up when they were confronted with a microphone and sometimes a camera, I'm hard pressed to think of anything that would throw a wetter blanket on social interactions than to wear Google Glass. For anyone who enjoys relaxed interactions with friends and loved ones, I suspect Google Glass was a damper on relationships. I had Lasik eye surgery to ditch glasses. Adding glasses to my face again...NOT!!
33
I am reminded of the Black Mirror episode in which everyone has a "grain" implanted behind the ear that records one's every vision, for better or worse. Dystopian, indeed.
7
Interesting story, but what's the relevance of Mr Brin's love life or his personality for the story? Not really at the level of NYT.
5
Were the specific details of the affair between Mr. Brin and Ms. Rosenberg really necessary? Why write that specific part and attract them even more unwanted attention when, in the context of this particular article, it has no relevance to Glass' demise? And if it is pertinent to the story, can you do your job and write why it is, instead of stooping to tabloid lows and waving their dirty laundry in the wind. Fairly disappointing, Mr. Bilton.
36
This is not purely a tech-related journal, Justin, and it is in the "Style" section of the NYT.
1
Make it look like an ordinary pair of glasses or it will never catch on.
11
Right... who WANTS to look like a Borg? Not me.
3
Precisely! The world will have to wait for the Apple iLens.
The concept of a heads up display and the ability to capture what you see has great value. However since the eyes are the window to the soul, I don't think we are ready for it yet. Any product that obstructs our eyes, even a little bit, will be considered rude. Obstruction of the eyes would only be accepted if it allowed the wearer to overcome a handicap.
4
Maybe not ready for general consumption but I know of Silicon Valley medical clinics where docs do their patient checkups verbally while wearing the G Glasses. Their assessments are recorded by the device and transmitted to clerks for transcription.
1
John, you can do that with a pocket voice recorder, technology that has been around since the 60s.
5
Would it have cured myopia? Does anyone know the distraction of a dirt smudge on your glasses? Was it just a mini-GoPro? Maybe auto "night vision?" I got a million of 'em! (questions)
2
All this sophistry for why Google Glass broke?
How about the simplest explanation: it was product in search of a solution. In other words, useless?
How about the simplest explanation: it was product in search of a solution. In other words, useless?
95
It was a solution in search of a problem.
2
I think you mean "a solution in search of a problem" -- but totally agreed on the point and the conclusion is the same ("useless"), and I think profound in terms of product development.
2
That's what you get when you have juvenile CEOs with too much money: childish ideas that make no sense other than for people that live in world of bad fantasy.
15
Nobody knew it would fail ahead of time.
As for all the great successes, nobody knew ahead of time they would succeed either.
When we see success we often think it was inevitable and had to be. History was inevitable. Progress is inevitable! (Hah!)
Most new ideas and gadgets fail, but we never see their buried corpses.
As for all the great successes, nobody knew ahead of time they would succeed either.
When we see success we often think it was inevitable and had to be. History was inevitable. Progress is inevitable! (Hah!)
Most new ideas and gadgets fail, but we never see their buried corpses.
1
great story about life as a developer at Google
did you miss the story about creepy ? about how people felt creeped out when a guy wearing some kinda spy camera gets in their face and asks how they're doing - and how said people would feel like punching the creepy guy in the face ?
you know - stuff like privacy and consent - those small details - which the public care about - d'oh !
did you miss the story about creepy ? about how people felt creeped out when a guy wearing some kinda spy camera gets in their face and asks how they're doing - and how said people would feel like punching the creepy guy in the face ?
you know - stuff like privacy and consent - those small details - which the public care about - d'oh !
24
Gosh, luckily it was just glass and not pretty much every consumer electronics device nowadays that has recording capabilities. Otherwise, there'd be a lot of people at risk given the presence of people with rage issues as you detail.
Of course, being people like everyone else, a person wearing glass is sort of unlikely to "get in the face" of a random stranger and "ask how you're doing" randomly, presumably while recording everything.
Of course, being people like everyone else, a person wearing glass is sort of unlikely to "get in the face" of a random stranger and "ask how you're doing" randomly, presumably while recording everything.
We built stuff like this and FB's HMD in the VR days 20 years ago, but just didn't have a decent Internet to connect them to, and it took six figures of computing power to do anything interesting. Even then we knew camera/glass combos were good for special purposes (overlaying instructions over a car engine you are fixing for example) but not for full-time use. And, we knew it would be all about content and apps, not HW. Some things do not change...
1
A non-story about a non-event.
2
Google would do better spending its seemingly limitless resources and acclaimed brain power finding ways to solve the dreadful problems faced by seriously vision-impaired people. Get THEM a glass that would open new vistas for them! And if the fashion-conscious had any idea of how ridiculous they looked with Google Glass, they would never be seen in any version of them again. (Sorry, Diane von Furstenberg: I like you, but....)
6
amazing, you'd think google would have learned it's lesson.
this is the problem with having too much money, you will repeat the same mistakes.
ultimately, you can thank the federal reserve and huge asset bubbles for this 'malinvestment' occurring accoss the fortune 500.
this is the problem with having too much money, you will repeat the same mistakes.
ultimately, you can thank the federal reserve and huge asset bubbles for this 'malinvestment' occurring accoss the fortune 500.
4
"Mr. Thrun, instructed to come up with a cool name, temporarily called the lab “Google X,” hoping to choose something better later."
When a project starts with "come up with a cool name," the team has already taken its eye off the ball.
When a project starts with "come up with a cool name," the team has already taken its eye off the ball.
9
Google glass won't become popular until it does something people need it to do.
Smart phones do everything glass does except record video with no hands. That's just not a reason for most people to buy it.
Smart phones do everything glass does except record video with no hands. That's just not a reason for most people to buy it.
5
Ok, its not a great product. That's not really the point. Apple's Newton wasn't a great product either, but it had the DNA of something that would totally change society. And so does this. And that is why its worth paying attention to, and not getting distracted by who is sleeping with whom. Haters gonna hate. Wearable is very likely the future. Its just a matter of battery life and processor power.
1
Diane von Furstenberg.
Prince Charles.
Two oldsters names associated with a tech product = kiss of death.
And I'm an oldster, technically, and I wouldn't be influenced by these two people, except for the negative.
Prince Charles.
Two oldsters names associated with a tech product = kiss of death.
And I'm an oldster, technically, and I wouldn't be influenced by these two people, except for the negative.
4
I was an "explorer".
I had the first generation of Glass
It had problems, but it was interesting.
People spend most of their time today staring at their iPhones.
With Glass, your iPhone was effectively suspended in front of you all the time.
You could video chat with people, Google information, text - all the stuff you do now, but without breaking contact with the real world.
Like I said, it was interesting.
The problem with it was that the software was clunky to operate
Like most Google based systems.
Mac would have been far more intuitive
This wasn't.
And that, I think, was the primary problem with it.
So it will come.
It's just the first iteration of wearables
But having worn them myself.
It will come.
I had the first generation of Glass
It had problems, but it was interesting.
People spend most of their time today staring at their iPhones.
With Glass, your iPhone was effectively suspended in front of you all the time.
You could video chat with people, Google information, text - all the stuff you do now, but without breaking contact with the real world.
Like I said, it was interesting.
The problem with it was that the software was clunky to operate
Like most Google based systems.
Mac would have been far more intuitive
This wasn't.
And that, I think, was the primary problem with it.
So it will come.
It's just the first iteration of wearables
But having worn them myself.
It will come.
2
> People spend most of their time today staring at their iPhones.
Why? For the life of me, I don't get that. Why on Earth do people fritter away their lives staring at video screens? Can they not think of dozens if not hundreds of more worthwhile things to do?
PS That last question was rhetorical.
PPS I'm almost 50 yrs old. Does it show?
Why? For the life of me, I don't get that. Why on Earth do people fritter away their lives staring at video screens? Can they not think of dozens if not hundreds of more worthwhile things to do?
PS That last question was rhetorical.
PPS I'm almost 50 yrs old. Does it show?
9
I enjoyed the naive and shiny exuberance of the monied creators of google glass (I am looking at you Brin) but for anyone who cares about technology it was a poorly thought idea from the start.
At least one lens of the glasses fully needs to cover the eye before you can "see" the data that would make these glasses useful. And of course I am referring to Gibson's Neuromancer, which Brin should read again to figure out what the Google Glasses should actually have been.
1
Google, whose mission once was to organize all the world's information and make it accessible to anyone, has lost its way.
13
"
Lost its way" to go where though?
Some would say that Google's "way" is to collect and re-sell people's data at literally the global level. Some would say they are doing that successfully.
Lost its way" to go where though?
Some would say that Google's "way" is to collect and re-sell people's data at literally the global level. Some would say they are doing that successfully.
5
Capturing and selling its users' personal information is one way. Creating devices that make elites excited while making the hoi polli nervous is another.
1
The Web's card catalogue has became the library.
Not as silly as self-driving cars. Computer programming isn't rocket science.
1
I see. Rocket science isn't computer programming either.
4
If you were a wheelchair user, you might not think self-deriving cars were a silly idea.
5
There are already vehicle adaptations that make it possible to bypass the car's pedals. Now if you were talking about a quadriplegic, I'd agree with you. But such a person might need more assistance than just driving the vehicle, e.g., getting in and out and storing the wheel chair. I don't necessarily think self-driving cars is a bad idea, but the usefulness would go far beyond physically challenged drivers.
Not one word about how incredibly stupid people look wearing these things? About how they are distracting and interfere with vision? About how people don't need to be - shouldn't be - slaves to their technology every waking moment?
Funny you mentioned Shteyngart. There was nothing creepier or more depressing than the apparat pendants. I had thought that the author was expressing disdain for this kind of thing so it is surprising to know that he was a google glass enthusiast.
An example of group think at its worst. In their little echo chamber, they convinced themselves that this was cool and that people would want it.
Funny you mentioned Shteyngart. There was nothing creepier or more depressing than the apparat pendants. I had thought that the author was expressing disdain for this kind of thing so it is surprising to know that he was a google glass enthusiast.
An example of group think at its worst. In their little echo chamber, they convinced themselves that this was cool and that people would want it.
68
As far as I understand, It was only the end of the BETA program. They are probably developing a commercial product named Google Glass or similar.
Also there is Apple, who is taking the good things, create a patent on it and sell it under their name. Then it will be Google, who will get the product commercial done but will be sued for selling his own product and violate the patent.
Also there is Apple, who is taking the good things, create a patent on it and sell it under their name. Then it will be Google, who will get the product commercial done but will be sued for selling his own product and violate the patent.
I never understood the attraction to Google Glass. I paid plenty of money to get rid of wearing glasses. Why would I want to buy an expensive pair of glasses which were a very shoddy product?
13
For me, Glass isn't for social interaction at all. I use it to take pictures or videos I want to share, as anyone might, whether it's a sunrise or the crazies in the Bay To Breakers race, except that it's far easier than using a camera or a smartphone. I've used it to see a map of where I was going -- and where there was less traffic. I'm planning to use it with WordLens so that when I'm looking at a sign in Venice that my meager Italian can't handle, it will show me the translation, right before my very eyes. I didn't find it useful for email or calendar, and while it was fun to say "Stravinsky Symphony of Psalms" and be hearing it five seconds later, speech and sound were not its strong suits. But as a device that captures what I'm *seeing*, as opposed to what I'm *filming*, it's terrific.
25
It's pleasant to read something without some apocalyptic hysteria regarding technology. So you were one of the lucky few that got to try it out?
I believe that big business got in the way with the product's initial public announcement, but at the same time, I also feel that Google Glass still has a chance of having a large enough technological buff niche to stay in the market if they try another release in the future under the new staff. There are bugs to fix, possibly thousands. But I hope for the best.
I believe that big business got in the way with the product's initial public announcement, but at the same time, I also feel that Google Glass still has a chance of having a large enough technological buff niche to stay in the market if they try another release in the future under the new staff. There are bugs to fix, possibly thousands. But I hope for the best.
2
Haha, have fun with automatic translation -- another bad idea that often has hilariously terrible results. And all your photo-taking needs… while you creep out the people around you.
6
AT&T's videophone failed way back when. Now we have Skype and FaceTime.
2
Saw a young "explorer" riding the subway taking questions from various characters about his toy - did he not get how much of a target he was making of himself?
5
There is a God if He spares me from the misery of having to see those things on people's faces everywhere, and from having to constantly wonder if I'm being video taped or whatever. Ugh!
75
You don't constantly need to wonder anymore, yes you are often being watched by camera anyway.
4
Time Magazine is not wrong.
GG selling at $152.47 in parts and manufacturing will sell 3 billion the first day and there will be a 4 billion fully paided back log.
Now
It will be Russia, France, Italy or Mexico that will have these I phone killers out in 2 or 3 months. Only thing now is there will be no photo finish USA corporation in the running.
GG selling at $152.47 in parts and manufacturing will sell 3 billion the first day and there will be a 4 billion fully paided back log.
Now
It will be Russia, France, Italy or Mexico that will have these I phone killers out in 2 or 3 months. Only thing now is there will be no photo finish USA corporation in the running.
Glass was an experiment, not a product, so it didn't "break" or "fail". It's already inspired similar products from a number of other companies. It's made its mark even if Google doesn't go forward with it, which I doubt.
As for its shortcomings, it has long been recognized in hacker culture that the first try at a big new idea is always wrong. (Cf. the entry for "creationism" in the Jargon File.) Thus likely the reason why Glass wasn't released as a product from the start. Unlike, say, the Apple Newton, which naysayers might want to read up on.
As for its shortcomings, it has long been recognized in hacker culture that the first try at a big new idea is always wrong. (Cf. the entry for "creationism" in the Jargon File.) Thus likely the reason why Glass wasn't released as a product from the start. Unlike, say, the Apple Newton, which naysayers might want to read up on.
37
"Glass was an experiment, not a product, so it didn't "break" or "fail". "
Diane von Furstenberg doesn't exactly do much work in research labs. It was an experimented that was launched like a product, which is the gist of the article.
Diane von Furstenberg doesn't exactly do much work in research labs. It was an experimented that was launched like a product, which is the gist of the article.
1
There's still time for Apple to do it right.
4
Seriously? Apple hasnt actually innovated anything in recent years. Steve Jobs is dearly missed. The 4k display is pretty but not actually groundbreaking tech. Thunderbolt is nice but not actually Apple tech. I could go on....
And yet as a proud Google Glass Explorer who received a lot of attention for wearing a coveted gadget in downtown Chicago in 2012, I wonder whether wearing them today will make me look like I'm sporting a pair of DeLorean glasses on my head. But then again, and based on the feedback from readers of this article, I can well do without the sneers or ridicule for having tried something different that didn't work out as intended. For now that is.
5
A lot of us on the subway noticed a few people who were wearing the device but we were not impressed nor envious. We thought it looked stupid and like an invasion of privacy, we called the wearers glassholes.
18
By 2099, we'll probably be sitting like zombies watching the images beamed into our heads just like we were watching TV.
4
Except we will all be zombies by then :-)
6
We already sit like zombies in front of the TV/computer--nothing to wait for.
10
Google glass: Instead of just annoying people by ignoring them to look at your phone, now you can record their annoyance to upload later. Very Warholesque. It gives me a tiny measure of confidence in my fellow humans that the project is defunct.
111
Google Glass Explorers were having so much fun playing with their expensive, exclusive toy that most of them ignored the storm clouds. A few of us, however, found the entire open beta-test bizarre: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carla-escoda/dances-with-google-glass_b_56...
2
Mr. Brin has the financial resources to realize whatever technology he is interested in. I think he was right to expose Google glass before it was ready.
The technological challenges of making it a successful product are orders of magnitude less difficult that getting social acceptance for it. Mr. Brin was trying to assess that gap.
Mr Brin is not alone in thinking that the future of humanity lies in computer human augmentation.
The technological challenges of making it a successful product are orders of magnitude less difficult that getting social acceptance for it. Mr. Brin was trying to assess that gap.
Mr Brin is not alone in thinking that the future of humanity lies in computer human augmentation.
15
As painful and heartbreaking this breakup can be for Brin's wife, it's part of life, it happens. I don't mean to defend this fabulously rich and powerful man; but at the same time, his wealth and power should not be applied to strip him of his humanity. Sometimes love renders people helpless.
3
I agree. No one knows the full details of his former or current relationship in order to judge or condemn him for his actions. At the same time, from what I've read here Brin had the ambition to take a leap of faith in order to let the world know about a product he truly believed in. I think that the public unveiling after the redesign will be received with much praise and intrigue. People will want to feel like they are a part of an exclusive crowd just as long as the price is right.
3
True. But if Brin really did have problems with focusing on projects for very long -- although this evidence is anecdotal at best -- then he tossed Google Glass into the open for his own reasons, ignoring the fact that it was incomplete. I'm happy to hear the product may still be alive, though.
1
Funny enough, Microsoft just unveiled Hololens to the public. I wonder if it will be a fad like Glass or stand on its own. Either way, technology companies that are eager to show the world what they have created (no matter how revolutionary and ingenious), need to take a page from Apple. A working, minimal glitch product will sell and survive longer than any other. Take another year and a test group and perfect your product before any form of public attention is garnered. A bad review can sink a product before it has the chance to prove its capability.
7
The nytimes article REALLY should have mentioned the Hololens. It may fail too but the specs of it give it a 50/50 chance of being useful in the real world. Only time will tell but MS is spending lots on RandD in the meantime.
Although the history of events here is accurate, it doesn't complete the full picture. Google did have a number of PR missteps with Glass, but they didn't pull Glass from consumers for those reasons. They pulled Glass from consumers because they received the feedback they needed, and because enterprise interest kept growing. Google began to recognize where the opportunities lay for Glass and has redirected their efforts and attentions towards the enterprise.
25
Absolutely no interest in wearing Google Glass or interacting with anyone who is wearing them. Is it not enough that nearly every other interaction today is in constant competition with everyone's cell phone? Could it be possible that people simply don't need one more thing to intrude upon being human? I'm not adverse to technology, writing this from my IPad with my Iphone a mere 5 inches away. Short of being a brain surgeon or a nuclear physisist, I struggle to understand why I would want Google Glass. It seems at this point to be the newest level of social affection and deserving of ridecule.
85
Karen sorry but no.
There is only a shade of difference between the way people stare at their cellphones in public these days and the way one would use digital glasses.
I hear your complaints about tech, but I dont think those complaints are the complaints of the majority, for better or worse.
There is only a shade of difference between the way people stare at their cellphones in public these days and the way one would use digital glasses.
I hear your complaints about tech, but I dont think those complaints are the complaints of the majority, for better or worse.
With all due respect, I am guessing you might have said the same thing about iphones 10 years ago....as I did....and now I don't go more than minutes without interacting with mine. Until it is redesigned and more user-friendly, none of us can even imagine what sort of benefits it will provide, and therefore it is way premature to be sure you would not want one in the future....or even depend on one.
1
I saw no use for a $1500 toy. Was King has no clothes from day 1 for me.
31
They still don't seem to understand that Google glass will be a historical punchline.
It's interesting to see Mr. Brin so hoisted on his own petard. From my vantage point, a great such engine selling ad space does not mean folks like Mr. Brin are competent at doing anything else.
It's interesting to see Mr. Brin so hoisted on his own petard. From my vantage point, a great such engine selling ad space does not mean folks like Mr. Brin are competent at doing anything else.
31