24 replies to this topic

[FL4WL3SS]

Why is nobody talking about this?

[jayhoz]

Because they currently cost $1,500 and won't be available until 2014?

[smastroyin]

It was a pretty cool demo though.

[FL4WL3SS]

Because they currently cost $1,500 and won't be available until 2014?

Fair enough - but there is currently nothing like it on the market and the technology is pretty cool. Thought it might be worth discussing.

[drleather2001]

What the hell is the product? Camera-glasses?

[FL4WL3SS]

More info here:

[jayhoz]

Fair enough - but there is currently nothing like it on the market and the technology is pretty cool. Thought it might be worth discussing.

Definitely cool concept and I am eager to see it develop. Just offering a reason as to why no one was discussing it.

[Max Power]

Because you look like an asshole wearing it.

Also, I don't get what was impressive about that demo. It was a glasses-mounted camera, which isn't anything new. I suppose it's nice that they shoved all of a cell phone's guts into the oversized earpiece, but the interesting stuff is from the user's perspective. Watching the video doesn't show me anything.

[dirtynine]

The idea of a Google Glass headset that you could wear, that looked like nothing but normal eyeglasses (no plugs or obvious cameras) and overlayed realtime information on your view - amazing idea. That demo - just some dudes wearing mounted cameras. I don't understand what the demo had to do with the vision for the product at all.

[drleather2001]

Exactly. That demo was pointless.

I may eat my words in three years, but here's my prediction: a lot of people will buy this initially as early adopters, but most people will find it intrusive, cumbersome, and frankly dangerous (people wearing these while driving?).

More importantly, people who have prescription glasses won't be able to use it (can't focus on the readout, too expensive to get prescription versions) and people who don't have to wear glasses won't want to wear it.

Personally, it strikes me as a step too far in terms of merging technology with my everyday life.

[gtg807y]

And some people will buy it and wear it 24/7 and look like assholes. Just like they do with Bluetooth headsets.

[jayhoz]

I was just going to say the same thing. Google needs to spend the rest of their development dollars on how to prevent these from becoming the next douchebag flag.

[smastroyin]

The point of the demo and what made it useful is the millions of views that it got on youtube, the buzz through the industry. Also, it was fun. It wasn't to demo the final product to the tech curmudgeons of SoSH.

[FL4WL3SS]

I'm personally really intrigued by the product. I don't think it's intrusive at all; the design is such that only a part of your right eye is covered up and you focus on it the same way you'd look down at your radio when you're driving. That is to say, you can look past it most of the time with no problem and woudln't even realize it's there once you got used to it. Your entire left eye is uncovered.

I knew there'd be a crowd that would come in here and say how douchy it would look and that it's the new bluetooth earpiece. It may end up that way, but these things will be way more useful than a bluetooth earpiece and I didn't think the style was really that bad.

Mainly, though, I just want to watch movies at work while looking like I'm being productive.

[teddykgb]

At least they showed us why we should want these things. Me and all my friends can watch each other skydive and mountain bike on google hangouts that we don't have accounts for.

I think Sergey Brin has lost touch with what it is like to not be a billionaire. These devices already had a tough sell, they have to sell the concept that these things are so useful that you'd want to have them everywhere, so a demo walking down a street with all kinds of augmented reality stuff would have been intriguing. Their actual demo stunk of "look what we can afford to do" and didn't even differentiate it from products that are on the market today.

[jercra]

They've already done a mock up (google+ link) of how they will work with prescription glasses. I don't think Google will be the only designers here. Think of Android and how theyv'e gone about that, a Google branded version and then lots of other versions by lots of other designers. It would shock me if in 5-10 years you can't get Oakley branded Google Glasses.

I don't get the safety concerns or the functionality concerns. These will act as a heads up display with a no touch interface. In the car that means GPS directions without taking your eyes off the road. I get it that it people will be reading their emails and texts while driving but I suspect anyone who would do that is already doing that with their phone. Wouldn't a heads up display be better than that?

[FL4WL3SS]

At least they showed us why we should want these things. Me and all my friends can watch each other skydive and mountain bike on google hangouts that we don't have accounts for.

I think Sergey Brin has lost touch with what it is like to not be a billionaire. These devices already had a tough sell, they have to sell the concept that these things are so useful that you'd want to have them everywhere, so a demo walking down a street with all kinds of augmented reality stuff would have been intriguing. Their actual demo stunk of "look what we can afford to do" and didn't even differentiate it from products that are on the market today.

To be fair, I think this was just a "hey look at this cool demo" more than anything else. When the actually release the product to the world, I think you'll see a much more involved demo - we're still at least a year away from seeing this on the market, what's the advantage to showing their full hand now?

Additionally, like jercra said, they've already done that to some extent. Also, the video I posted doesn't show the entire presentation, there was a more in-depth presentation after the demo.

[teddykgb]

To be fair, I think this was just a "hey look at this cool demo" more than anything else. When the actually release the product to the world, I think you'll see a much more involved demo - we're still at least a year away from seeing this on the market, what's the advantage to showing their full hand now?

Additionally, like jercra said, they've already done that to some extent. Also, the video I posted doesn't show the entire presentation, there was a more in-depth presentation after the demo.

Of course, they don't have to solve their marketing and branding problems now-- but they can seek to not exacerbate them. These things are too close to being dismissed in the public eye before they even get to market (imo) which can be nearly insurmountable later. Given how much chatter has been about how dorky and useless these things are, it was probably important to not do something that might enhance that perception. I guess skydiving isn't dorky, but wanting to broadcast it to your friends online is, and it wasn't exactly the best way to begin to explain to your average person why they might want these things. So, yeah, they made a big splash and raised awareness, but they also communicated some things they're going to have to deal with later. And look, I own a pair of Recon Ski goggles, so i'm quite into this kind of technology and practically all over the use case they demonstrated. I just think they needed to be careful of marginalizing these things before they have a chance to really demonstrate how they really should be viewed.

In a lot of ways, I think these glasses may be a bit of a reincarnation of the segway. Which probably seems like a strange statement. But the Segway overplayed its hand from its inception, and people got caught up in how much of a technological marvel the device was over figuring out how it would find a home in the real world. These products have to exist in our day to day lives. As it turns out, the Segway did lead a revolution in shopping mall security. I'm sure the google goggles will find a niche of its own in that regard. But if Google wants to make these things prevalent, they need to start speaking the language of the common consumer.

[jercra]

But if Google wants to make these things prevalent, they need to start speaking the language of the common consumer.

I'm not sure that Google is capable of doing this. They are a company dominated by dorks doing dorky things. Android's success is not because Google made a big marketing push but because they let others do that for them. Moto, HTC and Samsung do all of the their marketing for Android. I expect this product to be marketed in roughly the same way. They need to get the dorks riled up first so that they have lots of very clever new apps that truly take advantage of a connected HUD when they come to market to lure the consumers in. Then imagine the support a device like this will get from an advertising perspective (every single thing in the world can become an interactive advertising platform) and I think you'll get an idea of how big of a marketing push these things will get from companies that are way better at it than Google.

[smastroyin]

But it was a keynote address. It seems pretty clear to me from the get go that it wasn't meant to be a demo of the day to day technology.

I think what you are going to have to see are useful AR apps in other formats that could then be applied to the technology. I have a couple of AR apps on the phone but they aren't great for demo purposes. You're not going to need google glass to find out where the cheapest gas is. IMO the hardware is way ahead of the software and this video makes that clear. But I think it's also something to show that the hardware works. It's durable, the signal was persistent, they didn't have a lot of glitches, things like that.

[teddykgb]

I'm not sure that Google is capable of doing this. They are a company dominated by dorks doing dorky things. Android's success is not because Google made a big marketing push but because they let others do that for them. Moto, HTC and Samsung do all of the their marketing for Android. I expect this product to be marketed in roughly the same way. They need to get the dorks riled up first so that they have lots of very clever new apps that truly take advantage of a connected HUD when they come to market to lure the consumers in. Then imagine the support a device like this will get from an advertising perspective (every single thing in the world can become an interactive advertising platform) and I think you'll get an idea of how big of a marketing push these things will get from companies that are way better at it than Google.

Sure, but I think you're underestimating the perfect storm that came together for Android and the infrastructure that was in place to push it.

When Android is launching, Apple is bullying ATT and battling Verizon and T-Mobile in the US, same story different names throughout the world. The carriers, who were entrenched and scared of Apple, had tremendous incentive to push Android devices onto its customers through marketing and incentives. And they did. And they did a great job of it to make it at least a viable platform. You layer in that all of this is happening in a time where everyone has a cell phone, the question is only "which one" and you've got a great incentive laden marketplace for the model you're describing to thrive. Everyone was a customer and the vast majority of incentive for the majority of those doing the selling was to push the Android product out of nerdom and into the populace at large.

In the scenario you're envisioning, I don't think the competition or marketplace is there. There are lots of people who buy sunglasses or glasses, but the market there must be smaller than the market for phones. And there are no "carriers" for these instruments, so people aren't going to be going to stores and having salesmen pushing these onto people in the same way people get advice from their Verizon or ATT store reps, nor is there a business model in place for these people to protect. In short, these glasses are going to have to stand on their own and be much more forceful, in the sense that buying these will be an affirmative decision someone will have to make as opposed to the more inevitable choice that users were facing in the phone world. In a lot of ways, if we must compare these glasses to the phone market, this is much more like the original iPhone than anything else, in that it's a zag when everyone else is convinced the zig is the way to go. The product has to overwhelm the public into changing their conceptions of what to expect out of htis kind of product, to the point where they're making that affirmative choice to participate in a market they had previously only dabbled in. IN cell phones, users were suddenly interested in data plans that were previously only used by crackberry addicts paid for through work. In glasses it will have to be some similar transcendant moving of the mind share of the general public.

[jercra]

Sure, but I think you're underestimating the perfect storm that came together for Android and the infrastructure that was in place to push it.

When Android is launching, Apple is bullying ATT and battling Verizon and T-Mobile in the US, same story different names throughout the world. The carriers, who were entrenched and scared of Apple, had tremendous incentive to push Android devices onto its customers through marketing and incentives. And they did. And they did a great job of it to make it at least a viable platform. You layer in that all of this is happening in a time where everyone has a cell phone, the question is only "which one" and you've got a great incentive laden marketplace for the model you're describing to thrive. Everyone was a customer and the vast majority of incentive for the majority of those doing the selling was to push the Android product out of nerdom and into the populace at large.

In the scenario you're envisioning, I don't think the competition or marketplace is there. There are lots of people who buy sunglasses or glasses, but the market there must be smaller than the market for phones. And there are no "carriers" for these instruments, so people aren't going to be going to stores and having salesmen pushing these onto people in the same way people get advice from their Verizon or ATT store reps, nor is there a business model in place for these people to protect. In short, these glasses are going to have to stand on their own and be much more forceful, in the sense that buying these will be an affirmative decision someone will have to make as opposed to the more inevitable choice that users were facing in the phone world. In a lot of ways, if we must compare these glasses to the phone market, this is much more like the original iPhone than anything else, in that it's a zag when everyone else is convinced the zig is the way to go. The product has to overwhelm the public into changing their conceptions of what to expect out of htis kind of product, to the point where they're making that affirmative choice to participate in a market they had previously only dabbled in. IN cell phones, users were suddenly interested in data plans that were previously only used by crackberry addicts paid for through work. In glasses it will have to be some similar transcendant moving of the mind share of the general public.

Yes, you're right that there were other market forces that drove Android to success. I was just trying to say that it was not Google who did the marketing. And I really highly doubt that these will be as popular as cell phones.

Why do you think that these won't be branded and sold by carriers? They require a persistent data connection just as cell phones do today so I don't see why you wouldn't get Maui Jim+AT&T and Oakley+Verizon deals or package deals where you can add HUD data to your data plan.

Doesn't your last point exactly describe the tablet movement? Who had a tablet before the iPad? Who needed one (for that matter who still needs one)? I think that this type of technology will eventually lead to just the same type of decision made on cell phones when smart phones came out. Do I buy smart glasses or dumb glasses.

[zenter]

And some people will buy it and wear it 24/7 and look like assholes. Just like they do with Bluetooth headsets.

I was just going to say the same thing. Google needs to spend the rest of their development dollars on how to prevent these from becoming the next douchebag flag.

Given the percentage of Americans who have corrective lenses of some sort (I remember reading something like 65-70%) and the ever-shrinking nature of technology, I think we'll see a day where we won't notice if someone has Google Glass. Seeing how far we've come in pocket computing the last 5 years, I'd put the over-under at 2017.

[notfar]

The use cases for Google Glasses are all over the internet already, just look up augmented reality on youtube. Google Glasses might not be it, but at some point some company is going to totally nail heads up display and its going to be totally badass. Think of Google Glasses as one of those early incarnations of mp3 players that sucked ass.

[jercra]

The use cases for Google Glasses are all over the internet already, just look up augmented reality on youtube. Google Glasses might not be it, but at some point some company is going to totally nail heads up display and its going to be totally badass. Think of Google Glasses as one of those early incarnations of mp3 players that sucked ass.

I agree, and I do think it will be Google who leading the pack. Like Android, they will just build a platform that allows other companies to nail the HUD experience in different situations on the Glass platform to make everyone want to buy them. Once they have them the contextual advertising opportunity of AR glasses is through the roof and that's really Google's first and primary mission. It's a pretty strong motivation for them to succeed.

Edited by jercra, 08 July 2012 - 11:20 PM.