I’m a Google Glass skeptic and think it’ll be the next Apple Newton(andrewchen.co)
andrewchen.co
I’m a Google Glass skeptic and think it’ll be the next Apple Newton
http://andrewchen.co/2013/03/06/im-a-google-glass-skeptic-and-think-itll-be-the-next-apple-newton/
103 comments
I'm reminded of a recent Apple patent: the iWatch.
Both a watch and a screen on my glasses provide me with the convenience of an interface with my phone that is always visible.
I like the iWatch for most use-cases better: changing a track while walking, seeing if I should answer my phone while at dinner, reading an SMS at a party.
Google Glasses really excels in other use cases: directions while driving and GoPro video making. Other than that, I'm afraid it falls flat for the reasons listed in the article.
If I had to bet on a winner between iWatch and Glass, I'd choose iWatch. For Google to win out, they need to focus on situations in which augmented reality is most useful, sending text messages isn't it.
Both a watch and a screen on my glasses provide me with the convenience of an interface with my phone that is always visible.
I like the iWatch for most use-cases better: changing a track while walking, seeing if I should answer my phone while at dinner, reading an SMS at a party.
Google Glasses really excels in other use cases: directions while driving and GoPro video making. Other than that, I'm afraid it falls flat for the reasons listed in the article.
If I had to bet on a winner between iWatch and Glass, I'd choose iWatch. For Google to win out, they need to focus on situations in which augmented reality is most useful, sending text messages isn't it.
So Google Glass is really just useful when you're not interfacing with people. I can't get past the anti-social nature of the device - people already mistake my bluetooth headset for some sort of microphone that may be recording at all times - and that's unintentional as I just sometimes forget to take it off (it can rest on my collar) as it's still blinking and such.
Something that invasive up by the eyes would make me feel like a complete pariah.
Perhaps having on your "glass" would be equivalent to say, having a press hat - ie, you're on duty and publicizing the fact that someone could be googled at any moment or being recorded, etc.
Something that invasive up by the eyes would make me feel like a complete pariah.
Perhaps having on your "glass" would be equivalent to say, having a press hat - ie, you're on duty and publicizing the fact that someone could be googled at any moment or being recorded, etc.
here you are defending the watch but all the reasons he states apply to the watch as well.
>Most of these are basically simple things you can already do on your phone
Google glass has a trackpad on the side, for the cases you say are better on the watch, you don't even need to look down to accomplish with glass.
>Most of these are basically simple things you can already do on your phone
Google glass has a trackpad on the side, for the cases you say are better on the watch, you don't even need to look down to accomplish with glass.
I don't think I will be comfortable having a conversation with anyone wearing GG. I don't want to constantly wonder whether or not I'm being recorded, or information about me is being sent to a business or a government. I want to know whether or not the person I am talking to is reading/seeing/hearing something else at the moment as well. As much as I would love to work on GG, I don't think I can ever accept people using it around me. It should never be a "social" gadget. Use it on your own all you want though.
> The state of the art on voice input, frankly, really sucks on both Android and iOS. Have you tried to compose a message that wasn’t “ok” or “coming home” via voice? Especially in a noisy cafe or on the bus?
Just yesterday I had a long conversation via IM with my girlfriend using only Android's voice input while I was walking down loud, crowded NYC streets.
And the commands for Google Voice won't be much longer than "ok" or "coming home" anyway. Commands are literally "Ok, Glass, <short command>"
Just yesterday I had a long conversation via IM with my girlfriend using only Android's voice input while I was walking down loud, crowded NYC streets.
And the commands for Google Voice won't be much longer than "ok" or "coming home" anyway. Commands are literally "Ok, Glass, <short command>"
For me, it's a question of appropriateness, not accuracy. 19 times out of 20 I want to input text simply because I don't want to speak out commands around other people. Speaking those commands is not only socially awkward (which, maybe can change) but confusing to those around you (which really can't change). Even when the social awkwardness is slightly masked by doing it through hands-free/headphone-mic/phone-to-head, I still often don't want to broadcast to everyone around me what I want to text to a friend.
In terms of technology, what's not ready yet on voice control is a way to magically read into the user's gait. That is, I often find myself pausing to think when I type, but when I do that as I'm speaking a sentence, it's often interpreted as me being done with the voice input. Similarly, if I'm speaking out a chain of directions "text Ronald McDonald that I'll be at McDonald's in 10 minutes" there's often confusion between which portion of the voice input belongs to which command. This only gets worse as the commands get more complicated.
Bottom line: I don't necessarily agree with the author that voice input "really sucks" due to input accuracy, but I do think that any experience that relies solely on voice input for interactions (especially when it's designed to be used primarily in public spaces) will really suck.
In terms of technology, what's not ready yet on voice control is a way to magically read into the user's gait. That is, I often find myself pausing to think when I type, but when I do that as I'm speaking a sentence, it's often interpreted as me being done with the voice input. Similarly, if I'm speaking out a chain of directions "text Ronald McDonald that I'll be at McDonald's in 10 minutes" there's often confusion between which portion of the voice input belongs to which command. This only gets worse as the commands get more complicated.
Bottom line: I don't necessarily agree with the author that voice input "really sucks" due to input accuracy, but I do think that any experience that relies solely on voice input for interactions (especially when it's designed to be used primarily in public spaces) will really suck.
Every time I've tried speaking to Siri through my headphones which have a built-in mic, I've always feel like a bit of a nob. I don't live in a crowded city however. Is this becoming more socially acceptable in large cities, or at least so commonplace that people ignore it? I feel like where I live people would probably assume someone walking down the street talking to themselves is schizophrenic.
I unconsciously talk to myself even without a phone in sight, so I'm used to looking like a nob in that sense. :)
But in this case, I was clearly talking into a phone even though I wasn't always holding it at my ear. And I think in most large American cities (certainly New York, at the very least) ignoring strange people on the street is about as natural as breathing.
But in this case, I was clearly talking into a phone even though I wasn't always holding it at my ear. And I think in most large American cities (certainly New York, at the very least) ignoring strange people on the street is about as natural as breathing.
People definitely talk on headphones and headsets like they are schizophrenic in san francisco, but I've never caught anyone giving voice commands that way.
comparing siri to google is the first misconception. Second people already do with bluetooth. Is it really different ?
People don't tend to walk around with Bluetooth earpieces here either (small city in New Zealand).
Every use case you mentioned was consumer oriented. I think where this product will excel is in manufacturing and logistics. Any function where you have to receive data then perform an action (or if you prefer: look at a screen then perform an action) will be much more efficient. Imagine if you could make factory workers even just 5% more efficient. That's $15 a day (assuming 3 shifts). The thing would pay for itself in less than a year. That's a conservative estimate, just a thought. I might be wrong, I haven't worked in manufacturing in 6 years.
I think you are spot on with analysis. Here is my take:
Apple will 're-invent' it in ten years time and market it to us all for $1500 as a luxury product that all Apple nuts will be a 'have to have' product. Google will then release Google Glass+ two years later, which is free, but advertises products and services to you based on where you are and what you look at constantly 24-7.
Wired will then publish an article that states how often men really look at women's breasts, because Google released anonymous data usage of Google Glass+ LiveStreetView (I claim the inventor's rights to this btw).
Microsoft will come late to the party with Microsoft 'Goggles', which confuses everyone, because although looks good, everyone thinks must be crap, because Microsoft released it. Steve Balmer finally retires. Everyone in Microsoft breaths a sigh of relief.
Nix guys are just laughing their heads off. They've had retinal implants for 5 years and record everything to their private clouds.
Insurers start to demand that all people wear a Glass Recorder for insurance purposes, and before you know it, all recordings legally have to be saved by the government to prevent terrorism.
Future looks rosy through those rose tinted spectacles... Count me out.
Apple will 're-invent' it in ten years time and market it to us all for $1500 as a luxury product that all Apple nuts will be a 'have to have' product. Google will then release Google Glass+ two years later, which is free, but advertises products and services to you based on where you are and what you look at constantly 24-7.
Wired will then publish an article that states how often men really look at women's breasts, because Google released anonymous data usage of Google Glass+ LiveStreetView (I claim the inventor's rights to this btw).
Microsoft will come late to the party with Microsoft 'Goggles', which confuses everyone, because although looks good, everyone thinks must be crap, because Microsoft released it. Steve Balmer finally retires. Everyone in Microsoft breaths a sigh of relief.
Nix guys are just laughing their heads off. They've had retinal implants for 5 years and record everything to their private clouds.
Insurers start to demand that all people wear a Glass Recorder for insurance purposes, and before you know it, all recordings legally have to be saved by the government to prevent terrorism.
Future looks rosy through those rose tinted spectacles... Count me out.
theres not one piece of advertising on Android devices, not credible.
I think he means it's going to be the next Google Nexus Q http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_Q
Haha, or the next Google Wave? Google TV? Google Buzz? Orkut?
For crying out loud, his entire article is predicated on the fact that the device costs $1500.
This is true of the developer version only. It is a prerelease at that price. The final version is not going to cost $1500.
This is true of the developer version only. It is a prerelease at that price. The final version is not going to cost $1500.
People seem to miss this point a lot when saying something about its current pricing.
No, he specifically states that even at $500 his opinion still applies.
I don't think Glass itself will be widely adopted, but it will get the ball rolling towards full-on, externally invisible, computer implants.
These implants will not wait for your input to feed you information (although they will certainly have that ability too). Instead they will serve information as your environment and conversations demand. Having a conversation where someone asks "So how did WWI start anyways?", the answer will appear in front of you. Upon arriving at your local ski hill and telling your friends "Ok let me to take a leak first and then we'll hit the slopes" your invisible assistant would instantly give you directions to the bathroom and queue up he directions to the ski-lifts. This will be cool on an individual basis, but imagine if everyone had their "invisi-Glass". While having a conversation with someone your implants would sync up, showing both of you information as it relates to your dialogue. While basically eliminating awkward pauses, it will also act as a kind of NFT (Near Field Telepathy)
These implants will not wait for your input to feed you information (although they will certainly have that ability too). Instead they will serve information as your environment and conversations demand. Having a conversation where someone asks "So how did WWI start anyways?", the answer will appear in front of you. Upon arriving at your local ski hill and telling your friends "Ok let me to take a leak first and then we'll hit the slopes" your invisible assistant would instantly give you directions to the bathroom and queue up he directions to the ski-lifts. This will be cool on an individual basis, but imagine if everyone had their "invisi-Glass". While having a conversation with someone your implants would sync up, showing both of you information as it relates to your dialogue. While basically eliminating awkward pauses, it will also act as a kind of NFT (Near Field Telepathy)
The implant will be supported by advertising. You will see banner ads in your field of vision continuously. And as another bit of advertising, it will broadcast this out loud if you ever meet someone without an implant: "We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
Why would you advertise to the Borg? I think they make very poor consumers.
Here’s my list of what people are doing on Google Glass:
(12 boring things)
The point is you don't have to look away from where you are or make the people you're with feel ignored just to do a simple thing like checking the time. Glancing at a clock on the wall is less disruptive to a conversation than digging your phone out of your pocket.
(12 boring things)
The point is you don't have to look away from where you are or make the people you're with feel ignored just to do a simple thing like checking the time. Glancing at a clock on the wall is less disruptive to a conversation than digging your phone out of your pocket.
That is precisely why, when I am sitting across from someone wearing Google Glass, I will feel ignored all the time.
Well, I mean, that's your hang up, it's not the fault of the wearer. Your eyes have to go up and to the right to see the screen. It's clear you are looking at it to observers, in the same way it'll be clear when you are glancing your watch or looking at the clock on the wall.
I think this is a subtle but very overlooked point. Geeks are projecting "augmented reality goggles" onto Glass, as if they are going to be feeding you some ongoing internal backchannel of information as you are in the middle of a conversation with someone. Really, it will be much like if there is a TV behind the person. Its rude to be staring off to a TV in the corner of the room when someone is talking to you, and so it will be rude to be staring at your Glass screen when someone is too.
What else could you do with Glass (besides check the time) during a conversation that wouldn't be disruptive?
You could take a photo or video while maintaining eye contact. I think not looking down and having both hands free is a huge step up for any action, even if it's just checking the weather. It makes the information ambient instead of something you have to go searching for.
I can't think of a practical example of when I'd want to take a video or photo during a conversation.
Humorous example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UjcqCx1Bvg
Humorous example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UjcqCx1Bvg
With the exception of the time, you need to use a voice command for everything else (as far as I can tell)... so i'm not sure being less disruptive is the primary use case.
There is a touch pad on the side and it could possibly support some gesture based input.
Also not very unobtrusive... "Don't mind me, I'm definitely paying attention to you, while rubbing my temple furiously"
how is it different from currently looking at a phone or watch ? Just take them off if you don't want someone to feel uncomfortable.
It's not, that's my point. OP was saying this is revolutionary because it's less obtrusive then checking your phone and I'm saying it's equally or more obtrusive.
I think its less obtrusive for the user, as they don't have to look down or can pretty much use it within their same field of vision vs a phone or watch. In terms of being obtrusive to a person that you're conversing with, thats subjective. I wouldn't care, but others may.
But it's not like the time is permanently shown on the screen (and thank goodness). Most actions have to be triggered by tapping the glasses, then speaking. They're pretty disruptive.
Yeah, now you can feasibly pretend to be engaged while reading Twitter.
No. You just have to point a video camera at someone and potentially record their conversation. Do people have such poor social skills and lack of empathy to understand why Google Glass will make many people really uncomfortable ?
[deleted]
Do people have such poor social skills and lack of active life that they've never been around people wearing GoPro's?
You get over it. Really, really quickly.
The focus on the video camera....welcome to the modern world. Video cameras are everywhere, and if that is such a profound focus of people's concern, you might want to fly around the planet a few times to turn back time because it is unavoidable.
You get over it. Really, really quickly.
The focus on the video camera....welcome to the modern world. Video cameras are everywhere, and if that is such a profound focus of people's concern, you might want to fly around the planet a few times to turn back time because it is unavoidable.
I'm willing to bet you don't so much "get over it" as you adjust to it.
Do people want to adjust every aspect of their lives to deal with people recording them on video at all times?
Do people want to adjust every aspect of their lives to deal with people recording them on video at all times?
Do people want to adjust every aspect of their lives to deal with people recording them on video at all time
People should because in many ways this is already happening. Go to a social gathering, or a public event, and you are being recorded, probably from multiple vantage points, through the duration.
But let's say that we're talking about a friend -- assuming that they wanted to record you (the simple existence of a camera aside), they are recording their experience that happens to include you. Selfish notions that one has a bubble of exclusion seems quaint and a little odd.
I just don't think it's such a big deal. At all. Do you get paranoid and panicky whenever anyone pulls out a smartphone, with which they could ostensibly be recording you? For that matter their keychain, or countless other products, can actually be video recording devices.
People should because in many ways this is already happening. Go to a social gathering, or a public event, and you are being recorded, probably from multiple vantage points, through the duration.
But let's say that we're talking about a friend -- assuming that they wanted to record you (the simple existence of a camera aside), they are recording their experience that happens to include you. Selfish notions that one has a bubble of exclusion seems quaint and a little odd.
I just don't think it's such a big deal. At all. Do you get paranoid and panicky whenever anyone pulls out a smartphone, with which they could ostensibly be recording you? For that matter their keychain, or countless other products, can actually be video recording devices.
"...they are recording their experience that happens to include you. Selfish notions that one has a bubble of exclusion seems quaint and a little odd."
This does not match my experience of personal interaction at all.
I suspect that viewpoint is in a very tiny minority.
This does not match my experience of personal interaction at all.
I suspect that viewpoint is in a very tiny minority.
> Go to a social gathering, or a public event, and you are being recorded, probably from multiple vantage points, through the duration.
As I'm not a celebrity and most of these events are dinner parties, that would be a huge surprise to me - most of my friends do not record video at all.
As I'm not a celebrity and most of these events are dinner parties, that would be a huge surprise to me - most of my friends do not record video at all.
The backlash will be considerable. Surveillance/counter-surveillance against wearable computing devices will probably be the next big arms race between hackers and the tech that allows it to happen.
Nice downplay but most people are going to serious problems with people streaming them on the internet. Wearable cameras are great tools for extreme sports, porn and undercover shows but to try to market them socially acceptable articles of clothing is downright insane.
I remember when smartphones first got cameras -- there was a mass hysteria by the usual suspects that this was a tool by which all of our bathroom moments would be invaded.
Then smartphones got video capabilities, and again...tool for pedophiles and creepers.
It's the same garbage with every advance of technology, usually by people with an agenda.
Then smartphones got video capabilities, and again...tool for pedophiles and creepers.
It's the same garbage with every advance of technology, usually by people with an agenda.
All of those issues exist already. The main distinction is that wearable computers 1) have an even easier form factor to expedite surveillance and 2) the whole "continuous connection to the cloud" fear of footage and data being uploaded. Certainly the latter issue can also apply to smartphones, but this is more literally in your face.
Most people have not met anyone using a GoPro. It's good to know that it's easy to get used to though.
They are ubiquitous in snowsport environments - every time I go skiing I see a dozen of the things. I've thought about getting one myself, to use as the equivalent of a Russian dashcam for my motorcycle commute. It doesn't feel the same as the Google Glass would, though, where the person just wears it all the time. That seems creepy.
Depending on the state, it could be illegal to record a conversation without the explicit consent of the person being recorded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#All-p...
Telephone laws are completely irrelevant to this.
On the contrary http://www.securitycameraking.com/securityinfo/2009/08/legal...
In both one party and all party consent situations, audio can still be recorded. The governing law with regards to recording audio is Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 119 of the US Code. As with most laws, trying to read and understand it is a daunting task. But it all comes down to one definition in this code. Section 2510 Paragraph 2 states:
“oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication.
So, this essentially means that, if a person expects their conversation to be private, then it is illegal to record it. So, it is up to you to ensure that they don’t have any expectation of privacy
In both one party and all party consent situations, audio can still be recorded. The governing law with regards to recording audio is Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 119 of the US Code. As with most laws, trying to read and understand it is a daunting task. But it all comes down to one definition in this code. Section 2510 Paragraph 2 states:
“oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication.
So, this essentially means that, if a person expects their conversation to be private, then it is illegal to record it. So, it is up to you to ensure that they don’t have any expectation of privacy
On the contrary
Google Glasses are not surveillance devices. They are not surreptitious. By the notions of all party consent, every smartphone video capture (which includes audio, and often includes the conversations of other people) would see people thrown in jail. Is that happening?
By any rational measure a big camera on the side of your head tells everyone that they are being recorded. No one will ever see any legal issues for this and that is a gigantic red herring.
Google Glasses are not surveillance devices. They are not surreptitious. By the notions of all party consent, every smartphone video capture (which includes audio, and often includes the conversations of other people) would see people thrown in jail. Is that happening?
By any rational measure a big camera on the side of your head tells everyone that they are being recorded. No one will ever see any legal issues for this and that is a gigantic red herring.
They're really common in the mountains when snowboarding, etc. I suspect if I saw one in a populated place, that'd be a very different story.
I've not once ever seen a person wearing a GoPro and I consider myself pretty active. And I can't fathom why anybody would be wearing one in an office, cafe, social or non-outdoor environment. And sorry but you wouldn't have a deeply personal or business conversation with someone who had a GoPro strapped to their head, right ?
I've not once ever seen a person wearing a GoPro and I consider myself pretty active
I see them everywhere. Perhaps it is regional.
To your other comment, the vast majority of life is not "deeply personal" or confidental business conversations. Most of life is entirely banal. Which is, I think, how people derive different opinions on this: I don't think I am particularly interesting in the various settings where people capture me, so I just don't care. Others imagine some grand conspiracy where everyone is desperate to watch them, and thus are sure that everyone is spying on them.
I see them everywhere. Perhaps it is regional.
To your other comment, the vast majority of life is not "deeply personal" or confidental business conversations. Most of life is entirely banal. Which is, I think, how people derive different opinions on this: I don't think I am particularly interesting in the various settings where people capture me, so I just don't care. Others imagine some grand conspiracy where everyone is desperate to watch them, and thus are sure that everyone is spying on them.
In regards to the author's skepticism with using voice input, we had a bit of a theory running in a HN previous thread that Glass will measure sound vibrations of your skull to accurately work out what you're saying.
Similar tech has been used in some headsets for years to create a fairly accurate speaker that, when I used it at least, was whisper sensitive. From what I remember nobody knew if the tech was 'reversible' in the sense it could be used as a mic but I guess it's theoretically possible.
I hope this, or another suitably accurate replacement, is used in Glass. I'll be really disappointed otherwise.
Similar tech has been used in some headsets for years to create a fairly accurate speaker that, when I used it at least, was whisper sensitive. From what I remember nobody knew if the tech was 'reversible' in the sense it could be used as a mic but I guess it's theoretically possible.
I hope this, or another suitably accurate replacement, is used in Glass. I'll be really disappointed otherwise.
The Newton was a hilariously heavy and clunky device that made you look like you were gunning for a position in Starfleet. In that era, nobody had a PDA except Newton people and even notebook computers were cripplingly expensive, so having one made you part of a fairly elite group.
At the time, the Newton was ridiculed for it's less than accurate handwriting recognition. It was a touch-stone for comedy, where shows like Saturday Night Live and The Simpsons would find endless potential.
Google Glass should be so lucky as to have this kind of presence.
If anything, it's destined to be the Nintendo VirtualBoy.
At the time, the Newton was ridiculed for it's less than accurate handwriting recognition. It was a touch-stone for comedy, where shows like Saturday Night Live and The Simpsons would find endless potential.
Google Glass should be so lucky as to have this kind of presence.
If anything, it's destined to be the Nintendo VirtualBoy.
it has a touchpad, theres no need to voice everything.
The killer app segment for Google Glass is augmented reality - which is quite awkward on cell phones but natural on devices like Glass. It's also an application segment that hasn't received much mainstream attention. Check out some of the stuff companies like Metaio have been doing: http://www.metaio.com/
(I'm not affiliated with Metaio, nor am I currently developing any augmented reality applications)
(I'm not affiliated with Metaio, nor am I currently developing any augmented reality applications)
> Most of these are basically simple things you can already do on your phone- checking the weather
Ha! I'm very, very excited about Glass for the weather opportunities, actually. The data collection that Glass will offer with regards to the weather is going to be incredible. With a simple app that pings outside Glass wearers, I'll be able to automatically gather incredible amounts of valuable weather data.
I'm doing this on phones right now, too, of course [1]. But Glass opens up whole new doors that the author of this post is completely missing. Author, if you're reading this: You're making the assumption that nobody will innovate, nobody will build anything new that would provide unique value to the device. You're wrong.
[1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbu...
Ha! I'm very, very excited about Glass for the weather opportunities, actually. The data collection that Glass will offer with regards to the weather is going to be incredible. With a simple app that pings outside Glass wearers, I'll be able to automatically gather incredible amounts of valuable weather data.
I'm doing this on phones right now, too, of course [1]. But Glass opens up whole new doors that the author of this post is completely missing. Author, if you're reading this: You're making the assumption that nobody will innovate, nobody will build anything new that would provide unique value to the device. You're wrong.
[1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ca.cumulonimbu...
How would this work, assuming Glass doesn't have a air-pressure sensor? That's the main thing you are using now, right? Would you ask people to take pics of the sky? What does Glass add that currently isn't possible WRT gathering data? Serious question.
Those are excellent questions. I obviously hope Glass has a barometer but I highly doubt it will, since it is likely going to use phones to handle GPS and similar operations. So assuming it doesn't have one:
> Would you ask people to take pics of the sky?
Yeah, maybe. I'll add more to that below.
> What does Glass add that currently isn't possible WRT gathering data?
Since we don't know the hardware specs in very much detail, the only functionality that we know for sure that will be helpful is the camera. The key difference between this camera and a phone camera is that this one is on the user's head. Asking users to take sky photos is likely much less intrusive through Glass than through a phone. But asking them to do this isn't really our style:
The original Glass demo video showed the wearer just looking at the sky in order to have weather information delivered [1]. I was imagining something like this for pressureNET. If I could hook into that same operation, I'd be able to automatically take a photo of the sky whenever the user intentionally looks up.
Imagine millions of people every day looking at the sky. So. Much. Data.
And of course, this is only using the camera that we know is there. We'll have to learn more about how Glass actually works and what developers will be allowed to access in terms of background functionality.
[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6W4CCU9M4
> Would you ask people to take pics of the sky?
Yeah, maybe. I'll add more to that below.
> What does Glass add that currently isn't possible WRT gathering data?
Since we don't know the hardware specs in very much detail, the only functionality that we know for sure that will be helpful is the camera. The key difference between this camera and a phone camera is that this one is on the user's head. Asking users to take sky photos is likely much less intrusive through Glass than through a phone. But asking them to do this isn't really our style:
The original Glass demo video showed the wearer just looking at the sky in order to have weather information delivered [1]. I was imagining something like this for pressureNET. If I could hook into that same operation, I'd be able to automatically take a photo of the sky whenever the user intentionally looks up.
Imagine millions of people every day looking at the sky. So. Much. Data.
And of course, this is only using the camera that we know is there. We'll have to learn more about how Glass actually works and what developers will be allowed to access in terms of background functionality.
[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6W4CCU9M4
CrowdEyes (or alternative, EyeBay or GlassBay). Crowd-sourced public surveillance auction platform. It's legal to take pictures in public, right?
After installing CrowdEyes on your Google Glass, your Glass will automatically take pictures every so often, or whenever you think you saw something interesting. Those get aggregated and categorized.
As a client of CrowdEyes you can then say: I'd like to be 25 cents to see pictures people have taken of the sky today in my town. Or, I'll pay 50 cents to see what the lines are outside some hip new restaurant right now.
Or as a jealous wife, I'll pay $15 to run facial recognition on pictures taken with Glass in a 3-block area around the house of a suspected mistress.
As a law enforcement officer, I'll request (for free) all pictures taken of of my suspect. Or maybe multiple vantage points of some crime that was committed. Or if someone is out there and running, maybe I can request all Glass within the suspect area to be on real-time lookout for the suspect. Think about that "Ambert Alert" system times 1000.
As a marketing manager at some Big Brand , I can find some perhaps anonymized informationa bout who's using my products (easiest with things that have logos, can you make a watermark in clothes that would not be noticable but visible when analysing a high resolution photo?)
As a reporter, I can get hundreds of shots of some event and pick the best.
As the TV report on the new Glass-24 channel, I can get multiple real-time streams from some disaster happening.
After installing CrowdEyes on your Google Glass, your Glass will automatically take pictures every so often, or whenever you think you saw something interesting. Those get aggregated and categorized.
As a client of CrowdEyes you can then say: I'd like to be 25 cents to see pictures people have taken of the sky today in my town. Or, I'll pay 50 cents to see what the lines are outside some hip new restaurant right now.
Or as a jealous wife, I'll pay $15 to run facial recognition on pictures taken with Glass in a 3-block area around the house of a suspected mistress.
As a law enforcement officer, I'll request (for free) all pictures taken of of my suspect. Or maybe multiple vantage points of some crime that was committed. Or if someone is out there and running, maybe I can request all Glass within the suspect area to be on real-time lookout for the suspect. Think about that "Ambert Alert" system times 1000.
As a marketing manager at some Big Brand , I can find some perhaps anonymized informationa bout who's using my products (easiest with things that have logos, can you make a watermark in clothes that would not be noticable but visible when analysing a high resolution photo?)
As a reporter, I can get hundreds of shots of some event and pick the best.
As the TV report on the new Glass-24 channel, I can get multiple real-time streams from some disaster happening.
Thanks for explaining! That sounds like a great idea. From what I read, Glass does have Wifi & GPS, but no cell connectivity.
Millions of pics of the sky sounds like a great challenge to process. OTOH, even without processing it would be cool: Show me a recent pic of the sky in location X. Privacy might be an issue tho.
* Google maps for the interiors of buildings.
* Recording. Glasses make it difficult to tell if someone is recording, making the act socially acceptable in many places it would otherwise not be.
* Recording. Glasses make it difficult to tell if someone is recording, making the act socially acceptable in many places it would otherwise not be.
My bet is that Google Glasses wearers will be ostracized because news will quickly spread that wearers could be filming you without your knowledge.
Think of the children.
Think of the children.
I think the only way an executive or VIP would use Google Glass in primarily social situations would be to have a personal assistant who is wearing one.
If someone is in a highly technical situation, where the primary focus isn't other people, but technology or architecture, then I could see a lot of applications for augmented reality through such a device.
I can envision teams of several to a dozen people in a virtual reality supporting one or two people wearing Google Glass in the field or on a business trip. The fields of vision of the Glass wearers would be shown as "screens" floating in a virtual reality, so that the support staff wouldn't get nauseated from having their vision entrained to the POV of the field Glass wearers.
If someone is in a highly technical situation, where the primary focus isn't other people, but technology or architecture, then I could see a lot of applications for augmented reality through such a device.
I can envision teams of several to a dozen people in a virtual reality supporting one or two people wearing Google Glass in the field or on a business trip. The fields of vision of the Glass wearers would be shown as "screens" floating in a virtual reality, so that the support staff wouldn't get nauseated from having their vision entrained to the POV of the field Glass wearers.
It is true that list sucks, but as soon as you start to think about a possible SDK, both laymen and professionals can start imagining really neat stuff. In a phone call with a friend we realized after citing a litany of good ideas that really what it came down to was that it would allow for a heads up display of everything. Don't know where to go? It will help. Need to find gluten free foods, activate that app and just hold up the items you're looking at. Cooking and need your hands free? Great! Increment through the recipes steps with simple voice commands.(I know the article mentions voice sucking, but I've actually been quite happy with Google's transcription and for simple commands like 'Next' it will be doubly fine.)
I'm actually a big believer in Glass. In my mind getting the average person to use them is actually simpler than it was to get them to use a cell phone. Everybody has sunglasses and they're used to wearing them (even indoors). With phones it was a complete new paradigm. People weren't used to carrying a phone with them and most didn't feel they needed to, and we saw how that went. As for pricing and design, 6 years ago phones were expensive bricks and look how far they've come. I feel the same about wearable computing and glasses especially.
Everybody had sunglasses and they're used to wearing them (even indoors)
A quick quiz of the people in my office shows that:
0% were wearing sunglasses inside at the time of asking
~7% said they wear sunglasses inside on a regular basis
~25% said they do not own sunglasses
I don't dispute the other points you make, but on this issue it seems you are a bit bubbled/optimistic.
A quick quiz of the people in my office shows that:
0% were wearing sunglasses inside at the time of asking
~7% said they wear sunglasses inside on a regular basis
~25% said they do not own sunglasses
I don't dispute the other points you make, but on this issue it seems you are a bit bubbled/optimistic.
But you're talking about why people would accept them, not why they'd want them. Right now I don't see any killer application for them, but I'm sure that will change in time.
Sunglases are for blocking excesive light, not for displaying distracting informatino all the time.
Having spent a few pennies getting LASIK done, I can't wait we wear Google Glass for that retro-look.
One thing he didn't mention which I think fits in the same category is "how does it feel to look into a tiny screen above one eye?". In the demo videos it's shown as this all encompassing, easy to see, no squint required HUD. Is it really like that?
If its a good experience, I can see voice control, lack of apps, price, etc, all being overcome.
If it's a sucky experience, I think it's doomed
If its a good experience, I can see voice control, lack of apps, price, etc, all being overcome.
If it's a sucky experience, I think it's doomed
I'm partially color blind and have made an app for personal use that lets me confirm whether or not a color is what I think it is. I will develop something like that for Google Glass as well whenever I get my hands on it. So, there are definitely use cases out there that aren't covered by the 12 point in that list in the article.
#ifihadglass: I would use it to remember my life. I will wear it for a full day once to each different job, and each new house, and to significant events. Reminiscing will be sweeter, and my kids and grandkids can get a sense of who I was and how I lived my life.
Does the author think cellphones would let me do this?
Does the author think cellphones would let me do this?
Even I when I got a geekgasm the first time (and second, and third...) I saw Glass, you have to keep in mind that there might be unintended social implications[1] with such a device.
[1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/ Black Mirror: The Entire History of You
[1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/ Black Mirror: The Entire History of You
More pertinently, do you think everyone in your life would let you do this?
Good question. I think everyone in my house and on my commute would have no choice, and the people at work would be cool with it if I did it for a day. I don't need the whole day for it to be useful as a record of my life--just a short summary of my day would be cool.
I have similar leanings.
I may own Glass v1 and develop for it as a hobby, but I doubt I will have it replace any functionality which I currently rely on other devices for.
However, I'm incredibly excited about the technology and what it means for the future of personal / wearable computing.
I may own Glass v1 and develop for it as a hobby, but I doubt I will have it replace any functionality which I currently rely on other devices for.
However, I'm incredibly excited about the technology and what it means for the future of personal / wearable computing.
Rather thank think Google glasses is going to replace your phone, you should think of it as complementary.
Might be incredibly useful for the police, military, and anyone else who needs a heads up display for messaging and information capture. For the rest of us, no. Just no.
You will never see me hanging out with anyone who has a camera pointed at my face at all times.
You will never see me hanging out with anyone who has a camera pointed at my face at all times.
Google Glass has a processor. Processors give out heat. Google Glass will lead to sweaty eyebrows -- eww. How do you solve the heat issue when Google Glass is transmitting/querying images? Transistor sizing dissipates more and more heat.
This is definitely a problem, but I think it's an easier one to solve than the unknown effects of radiation (assuming some version of Glass has a 3G/4G antenna built in). If holding a cellphone to my ear makes me nervous, what makes you think I'm going to wear Glass around all day?
In case anyone else was wondering what the heck the Apple Newton was/is -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)
Maybe so. Sometimes an item like Google Glass comes to light and then dies but there are things that are learned or ideas seeded from it that makes it well worth the effort.
I think Glass plus a smartwatch is the way to go.
This way the Glass can be controlled from the watch using touch and voice commands.
This way the Glass can be controlled from the watch using touch and voice commands.
I've tweeted a bunch of times about how stupid I think Google Glass is, and I don't know anybody in real life who will admit to wanting one. But it sure seems to be exciting the people most vocal on the Internet.
I know for a fact this won't see mainstream adoption, that's obvious. But whether Google will sell enough to the excitable people with no fashion sense to make a v2? That's hard to predict.
I know for a fact this won't see mainstream adoption, that's obvious. But whether Google will sell enough to the excitable people with no fashion sense to make a v2? That's hard to predict.
Why would anyone not "want" one? I think the vast majority of my friends would think it was a cool toy to have when working on stuff.
I agree that most people wouldn't be excited about wearing it all the time or paying the initial cost.
I agree that most people wouldn't be excited about wearing it all the time or paying the initial cost.
What happens when they look the same as sunglasses or normal glasses? Fashion sense won't be as much of an issue.
That's a distinct possibility, though I'm not sure that walking around talking to yourself will ever be cool.
The question isn't really with use cases, it's about practicality. Having instant access to what you do most of the time with a smartphone is practical. People certainly will appreciate that; it doesn't matter if the use cases are limited in nature.
Of course, the price is too high for what it offers right now, but it's kind of like the Pixel: a vision of the future that can be attained relatively easily for anyone with the dough. It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices. The Newton wasn't like this -- PDAs were already being developed at the time. So far, we've seen nothing like Glass. It's a milestone.
So it will take time, and it is a paradox to have two devices that do the same thing connected to each other, but Glass is only going to spur a big change.
The Newton did not.
Of course, the price is too high for what it offers right now, but it's kind of like the Pixel: a vision of the future that can be attained relatively easily for anyone with the dough. It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices. The Newton wasn't like this -- PDAs were already being developed at the time. So far, we've seen nothing like Glass. It's a milestone.
So it will take time, and it is a paradox to have two devices that do the same thing connected to each other, but Glass is only going to spur a big change.
The Newton did not.
> The Newton wasn't like this -- PDAs were already being developed at the time.
That'd be a hard argument to make, given that the term "PDA" was coined to specifically describe the Newton.
The only tablet-style computer of consequence prior to the Newton was the DOS-based GRiDPad (1989). Before that it was all "palmtops", that is, crummy keyboard devices, mostly running DOS.
> It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices.
I think the Newton had a enormous influence on other mobile devices, but not really because it was a tablet, nor because it had a stylus and handwriting recognition. Rather, the Newton's influence came first from its dedicated operating system and graphical interface custom designed around its usage model, rather than cobbled together on DOS. The Newton devised a number of UI concepts in use on smartphones today. Second, the Newton featured a nice application development environment which sat on top of a dynamically-bound programming language running on a portable virtual machine (NewtonScript), which was pretty much a first for devices of this kind. NewtonScript had a major influence on the development of Java, while Naughton and Gosling were mulling over Oak. Third, the Newton was promoted as being a wireless communications device and its OS was developed to be easy for mobile communication to get baked in. Unfortunately, that didn't pan out so well for Apple.
That'd be a hard argument to make, given that the term "PDA" was coined to specifically describe the Newton.
The only tablet-style computer of consequence prior to the Newton was the DOS-based GRiDPad (1989). Before that it was all "palmtops", that is, crummy keyboard devices, mostly running DOS.
> It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices.
I think the Newton had a enormous influence on other mobile devices, but not really because it was a tablet, nor because it had a stylus and handwriting recognition. Rather, the Newton's influence came first from its dedicated operating system and graphical interface custom designed around its usage model, rather than cobbled together on DOS. The Newton devised a number of UI concepts in use on smartphones today. Second, the Newton featured a nice application development environment which sat on top of a dynamically-bound programming language running on a portable virtual machine (NewtonScript), which was pretty much a first for devices of this kind. NewtonScript had a major influence on the development of Java, while Naughton and Gosling were mulling over Oak. Third, the Newton was promoted as being a wireless communications device and its OS was developed to be easy for mobile communication to get baked in. Unfortunately, that didn't pan out so well for Apple.
How quickly time passes ^_^ The Newton was a major influence on the PalmPilot, particularly as the platform where Graffiti was developed. Granted, that line of product is functionally extinct as of the smartphone, but it had a good run.
The Pixel is nothing more than a featureless MacBook with a fixed web browser. If you think that is the future then you're in for a rude shock.
And you seem to be obsessed with the future and less concerned with reality. People don't need to check email, weather, time, ask questions so frequently that they need a fixed device on their head.
And you seem to be obsessed with the future and less concerned with reality. People don't need to check email, weather, time, ask questions so frequently that they need a fixed device on their head.
20 years ago, a skeptic might have said, "People don't make phone calls often enough to need to carry around phones with them."
The technology can affect usage patterns as well as the reverse.
The technology can affect usage patterns as well as the reverse.
You may see the device as "nothing more than a featureless MacBook with a fixed web browser", but I see a future of computing -- a thin client with an ultra-crisp display and great industrial design.
Like it or not, the cloud is the future. The Pixel is a glimpse of that.
Like it or not, the cloud is the future. The Pixel is a glimpse of that.
I'm certainly skeptical about how successful Glass will be in the next year or two, but not about the wearable, low-profile device market altogether.