Hacker News Reader

Comment by douglaswlance | Hacker News Reader

Google Glass is just a tiny notification window. It's not what 99% of people think it is. I'm not sure where the communication broke down, but it seems a ton of people heard about Google Glass and thought it was going to be an AR headset that they'd wear all the time. It's just not that useful. It's worse than mounting an Apple Watch to your head.

View on HN

Google's marketing videos showed things like a full Google Map for directions (example: https://youtu.be/ErpNpR3XYUw?t=45s). I'm not surprised people got confused.

Yes, my point, precisely. Thank you.

Glass is the logical zenith of the smart watch. Having to give up a hand to look at your wrist almost defeats the purpose of having the mirrored notifications. It's not the AR revolution the media hyped it up to be, but I'd bet money that's where wearables go as the tech gets better and people forget about the whole affair.

Thanks for your reply. I believe it must've been from their promo video. I'm happy that the question came across correctly and the people who have responded so far took this into consideration and glossed over what you've pointed out (if it's indeed the case).

"Google Glass is just a tiny notification window."

Birth control for your face. I think is where it broke down.

Edit: I know, I know.... you worked on the project and you need to down vote.

Is it really any different to people walking around with the first Windows CE ipaq and htc phones, and huge nokia communicator querty flip ones literally more than 20 years ago?

I applaud Microsoft, Google, and anyone who tries to invent part of our future, even if they fail. Microsoft's tablet windows were amazing, they were bulky and ux was pretty bad, but at least they tried. And Google did the same with Glass.

Constructive criticism is always welcome and results in discussions that might help people who are or will be driving similar technologies.

There is really no reason to call it "birth control for your face".

Nobody strapped their ipaq to their face.

I still have my iPad somewhere. If they'd made a VR mount for it I'd have absolutely had it strapped to my face.

You seem like the kind of person that called kids with glasses "4-eyes" in elementary school. Glass didn't look that bad, calm down.

Glass failed because it was a pain in the ass to develop for, hard to store/take off (no hinges), and weak tech (battery, video processing, voice control).

I think Glass also failed because our society isn't sure how it feels about random people walking around with an always-on camera pointed at them.

I never understood that narrative. Glass's camera was never "always on" (the puny battery would never have been able to mange that) and even if it was, glass is the last tool anyone would use to take unconsenting video. Turns out staring at someone with your head perfectly still is uncomfortable for all parties involved and most people aren't worth burning your battery for.

Given that you can buy button cams for a tenth of the price, the fact that CCTV cams dominate public spaces in most everywhere people had these concerns, and it's far more comfortable, economical, and practical to record video on a cell phone anyway the privacy panic over glass seems to have been mostly constructed for page views.

It's easier to take a creepshot photo/video on a Glass-style device than it is to whip out your phone and take one, especially where third-party onlookers are concerned.

Sure, button cams exist, but the fact that they're concealable whereas Glass was pretty obvious means folks react more to the Glass. There's also more plausible deniability if you get caught with one.

"Always on" versus "always potentially on" is a very fine hair to split, and I doubt anyone who didn't actually own one knew what the battery was/wasn't capable of.

Out of curiosity, have you actually used Glass or interacted with some one that was using one? In my experience the only place these sorts of concerns came from were tech journalists looking for clicks and tech people clicking. General population just thought it was cool (and this is deep american south), and anyone that owned the thing enjoyed the novelty.

I just find it ironic that 15 years ago we were having the exact same pearl clutching about cell phone cameras (which are now totally fine apparently).[0]

https://www.wired.com/2003/02/new-privacy-menace-cell-phones...

Also expensive

Why the assumption that the opposite sex is repulsed by "nerdy"? I honestly don't understand it.

One of the big reasons my wife and I are compatible is because we accept and appreciate the things that the other enjoys.

If you honestly believe it's "birth control for your face", have you considered that if you enjoy "nerdy" things like Google Glass, you're basically advertising a false version of yourself? Is it really a good thing if your partner's approval of you is conditioned upon suppressing who you are?

I'm glad I found someone who loves me for who I am, not the person I'm pretending to be to attract a mate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com