Hacker News Reader

Comment by lbotos | Hacker News Reader

I've also heard the idea of glass was about demoing AND getting the public conversation started about wearables so that when they have a product ready, the dialogue has been running.

View on HN

That's even worse! Now the dialog centers around creepy voyeurism. Google has single-handedly salted the market so nobody can enter it. It will take a decade at least before somebody tries again.

After the Glass fiasco, I'll be thinking twice before buying/taking Google's variant of FUD seriously. That was a waste of over 1.5K for me. Too bad there is no accountability (oh wait ... all the Google fans would just say I should have known it was unproven tech and I was an explorer .. blah blah blah).

I haven't been dissuaded from buying all unproven tech gear thankfully! Preordered the Apple Watch (as I have had wonderful experiences with the iPad on launch day and the iPhone) ... very satisfied with it.

I'm on the fence about HoloLens. While I have full faith in Apple and zero in Google, Microsoft is in the middle. The tech is extremely compelling but I Microsoft is known for incremental improvements .. I'd rather not get stuck with gen 1/demo hardware when a lot better stuff may be around the corner.

Isn't that an awfully expensive way to generate public interest?

I see his point though, just like the Oculus has reignited interest in VR simply by being under development, Glass could have done the same thing for wearables. There's maybe a dozen consumer level VR projects out in the world right now, and the same could have been said for Glass.

Just imagine how cool it is going to be if this product is combined together with Oculus VR. It will be a (video) game-changer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com