Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Google Glass

Google Glass
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2013, 02:43 PM
 
Glass got hype man treatment from the Scobleizer on TWiT this weekend. I must admit I'm intrigued.

I think Google's in a bit of a corner here. Everybody, Google included, are focusing on the hardware. I've come to the realization the hardware is mostly inconsequential.

What this is actually about is leveraging the insane amount of data Google has on you, and everybody else.

Google doesn't want to focus on this, because it's past the "creepy line", as Eric Schmidt would say.

The more private and personal information you give Google, the better Glass will work for you. Full stop.

I don't think people are ready for a direct quid pro quo like this. It's one thing to scrape your email in exchange for free email, or to scrape information you share with your friends in exchange for being able to share with your friends. It's another to just flat-out ask for the goods in the name of improving your experience, but that's what Google needs to do (or have happen by another mechanism) for this to work.

Constantly available, predictive "search" would be pretty friggin awsome.

Discuss.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2013, 03:03 PM
 
I know you didn't mention this, but to everyone who thinks these things won't go anywhere because of the looking dumb factor

 
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; May 6, 2013 at 03:17 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2013, 03:04 PM
 
I already wear glasses. But unless I can wear Google Glass without it being obvious, there's no way I would wear such a thing.

For instance, a pair of sunglasses that has the sensor hidden by the darkened lenses would be innocuous, so I wouldn't feel like an idiot wearing them when outside.

But really, being at a restaurant or something, looking at the web on my phone, it just seems less ridiculous-looking than appearing to stare off into space because I'm surfing the web in Google Glass.

And no matter what, there's a lot more tech, battery-life, and resolution in my iPhone than in tech that's light enough to fit inside my glasses.

Final Dakar, you're right, but that's just the amount of tech required for a wireless microphone and speaker, not a complete web-enabled device.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2013, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Final Dakar, you're right, but that's just the amount of tech required for a wireless microphone and speaker, not a complete web-enabled device.
I don't follow. People will be more willing to be look silly for web access? Honestly I think google glass looks far less ridiculous that bluetooth headsets.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2013, 04:34 PM
 
The point isn't surfing. It's push.

It won't be any different from lizard-eying someone who walks by.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2013, 06:34 PM
 
For those who are tech/data-hungry, how often do these people actually spend time outside? i mean, you wouldn't be wearing this thing indoor.

i think it's a technology overkill; there are already so much crap happening around us nowadays, do we really need to superimpose an additional layer of information on top of everything to further distract ourselves from the reality? People are going to fxcking crash their cars and bikes playing with this nonsense.

the biggest problem i have with the Google Glass is that it's intrusive. i would imagine anyone wearing the device would NOT be accessing its functions 95% of the time. All these idling time it's just an annoying thing blocking your peripheral vision. And yes bystanders will either think you're an attention whore or outright creepy talking to yourself.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2013, 06:57 PM
 
So it sounds like no one here thinks that the augmented reality aspect is going to take off (the part where it overlays info on things you see in front of you)?

Edit: what I mean is it sounds like you expect people to use this to do what they did before, texting and reading facebook etc. Not for something completely different.

Edit: what is lizard eying?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2013, 07:12 PM
 
I think it could have some appeal. I think the limited arc is problematic. You don't want to have to move your head to tag something.

Lizard eye is when you're at dinner, and an attractive person walks by, and you give them a quick glance and return to what you're doing.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2013, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You don't want to have to move your head to tag something.
To tag a static, non-moving object (a lampost, a mailbox, a building etc), you need:

Some sort of location identifier with an unique ID (with GPS info and other data stored in the cloud) at EXTREMELY high precision; the Glass must be able to ID the object visually at a distance, something like constant rapid QR code scanning using the camera, OR by a proximity sensor when the Glass wearer is in very close range to the object.

To tag a person, high precision face-recognition would be the most straight-forward; assuming no stranger would be broadcasting their GPS to the public. I mean, how many of you are broadcasting your location to a white-list ala Find my Friends? I don't know about you but I ain't doing that sh!t.

Either way i think it's tricky.
( Last edited by Sealobo; May 6, 2013 at 08:43 PM. Reason: grammar)
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2013, 10:34 PM
 
You're right of course. Tagging wasn't quite the word I should have used.

The problem I'm getting at is only a postage stamp off to your right is getting augmented (whatever that augmentation may be). I think genuinely useful head-mounted AR needs to cover more of your field-of-view.


An interesting note from the Scoble interrogation. They (at the moment) only plan to have a right eye model. Big mistake IMO.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 12:28 AM
 
Glass is an interesting concept and it has a lot of potential. That being said... It is a little disconcerting to realize how much personal information will be freely given to personalize the user experience.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 09:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
So it sounds like no one here thinks that the augmented reality aspect is going to take off (the part where it overlays info on things you see in front of you)?
I'd say it has serious potential. Haven't seen much of it though.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I feel like cars could have been implementing HUDs on their windshields for a while now, but for some reason it didn't catch on. Imagine with GPS implementation.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 09:45 AM
 
I already wear glasses and I would prefer not to. Why would anyone want to wear glasses is beyond me. I also thing Google Glass is creepy. It should be banned in certain situations.
{{{ mindwaves }}}
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'd say it has serious potential. Haven't seen much of it though.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I feel like cars could have been implementing HUDs on their windshields for a while now, but for some reason it didn't catch on. Imagine with GPS implementation.
The risks of distracting a driver seem like more of a mine-field than the risks of distracting a pedestrian. Maybe that's just perception, but perception alone could be enough to explain the reluctance of the marketplace
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 04:41 PM
 
My thought is there's no data important enough to occupy the real estate.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by mindwaves View Post
I already wear glasses and I would prefer not to. Why would anyone want to wear glasses is beyond me. I also thing Google Glass is creepy. It should be banned in certain situations.
Think about it. It's exactly the same. The benefit outweighs the cost.

You wear glasses for the benefit (I assume) of sight. I wear sunglasses so I don't get a splitting headache. Someone wears Glass because they want Google push, or photos and videos of their kids, or something yet to be invented.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Intertube
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2013, 10:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Think about it. It's exactly the same. The benefit outweighs the cost.

You wear glasses for the benefit (I assume) of sight. I wear sunglasses so I don't get a splitting headache. Someone wears Glass because they want Google push, or photos and videos of their kids, or something yet to be invented.
not a good analogy; without glasses you can't see shit. without sunglasses you get headache. in both cases you act passively to a predicament.

Nothing incentivize you in a negative way to put on Glass; you still have a smart phone in your pocket readily for being taken out to perform everything. And when you're done you can just put it away.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 12:00 AM
 
Exactly. I NEED glasses. I wear them 24/7 except when I am sleeping.
{{{ mindwaves }}}
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 05:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Sealobo View Post
Nothing incentivize you in a negative way to put on Glass; you still have a smart phone in your pocket readily for being taken out to perform everything. And when you're done you can just put it away.
Sure there is. I've got a cig in one hand and I'm flipping people off with the other.

More seriously, no one seems to get this push aspect yet. What good is my phone pushing shit into my pocket?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 07:45 AM
 
I'll say it again. The hardware is only of consequence in terms of the goal: a direct-drive connection between you and Google's pile of data.

That's not a phone.

Google has flat-out said they want to give you search results before you realize you need them. If you don't realize yet there's a result in your pocket, you don't take out the phone.

How much it matters remains to be seen, but this is absolutely unlike anything else. You're not going to get far trying to stuff this into a current model.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The risks of distracting a driver seem like more of a mine-field than the risks of distracting a pedestrian. Maybe that's just perception, but perception alone could be enough to explain the reluctance of the marketplace
The general idea on the HUD was that it would be less distracting because the driver wouldn't have to look down to get information. Further, how would GPS infor be any less distracting than a regular GPS device?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 10:16 AM
 
The thing is, I'm not sure it's less distracting.

I mean, it's obviously so in one sense. You're not looking away. But what about all the time you don't need the data and it's sitting there anyway.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2013, 10:41 AM
 
I don't think they are going to take off at all.

I think they'll quickly become a national punchline, and be completely socially awkward.

Maybe 10 years from now an evolution of this product that actually does useful things will take off, but it's going to be a while.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2