"With Google Glass, it may look like you're listening to the person in front of you, but you could actually be watching a movie or looking up sports stats."

Unfortunately the problem is the opposite and more offensive. It's very obvious if you're having a conversation with someone while they're using Glass while looking at you from their eye movements, and it makes the user look really weird ignoring any fashion issues. I found the experience quite a bit more offensive than having someone reading emails on their laptop while you talked to them. Unlike the laptop case, with glass you get a very clear direct view of their eyes as they scan whatever glass is showing them, while there is the obvious false pretense of giving you their full attention.

I think one of the big problems with glass was that they picked the wrong sort of people to be early public users that then set the tone for the product. A process that ensured only super-enthusiastic users would bother applying is also the sort that would select for the least willing to notice how other people might find certain uses of it rude and annoying.

Totally agree. As awesome a technical achievement as Glass was, it was the product of 20 years of work from some very odd people (MIT's borgs) that literally wore desktop computers on their backs prototyping it, ignoring all social convention in the process. While their insights were valuable for their particular approach to wearable computing (HUD-based, data recall oriented, etc), that approach isn't the right approach for the mainstream, nor are they the right brand ambassadors.

Google's perennial issue is they're a technology factory that thinks they're a consumer company. The goto market strategy Glass should have adopted was in enterprise, where there are many valuable use cases like ones in this article, and Google could have refined it there. But Google isn't good at picking markets or any form of understanding marketing, so they decided that a bunch of geeks walking around cafes, bars, and restaurants was the right way to go. sigh

https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2012/07/15...

I guess he let all the comparisons to Tony Stark go to his head...

Isn't Snap currently proving that the market was right, but you need a different marketing copy?

> With Google Glass on, others around you have no idea if you're actually watching a movie or looking up sports stats rather than talking to them, which can lead to people being uncomfortable in your presence.

(And yes, to those "in the know", they will know you're not actively browsing the internet based on what you're saying and what weird eye movements you're not making.. But, they might still suspect you started that movie right before the conversation, or maybe you're getting live notifications from an in-progress game)

EDIT: However, I also totally agree with the issues around their selective public beta group..

It's taking quite a bit of willpower to stop myself from buying a pair, and I barely use Snapchat.

* Equipment with clear resale value has a tendency to "walk away". We worked hard to avoid using consumer electronics such as PCs or phones on the line. When we did need to use them, we had to establish strict policies and secure storage for when the equipment was not in use. Glass seems like it'd fall in this category.

* Even dedicated, laser-based, handheld barcode scanners could be finicky with part labels. Camera-based scanners were unusable due to poor accuracy and latency.

* Internet connectivity is poor or non-existent. WiFi coverage is usually terrible due to physical and electrical interference from factory equipment.

AR work instructions would be a dream--especially if the technology could flag errors. The environment just seems especially hostile for consumer-oriented technology such as Glass. I don't have firsthand experience with Glass, but I'm really surprised this company is reporting success with it.

It sounds like your acquaintances are targeting service technicians, not necessarily factory workers, so the above examples might not apply, but I'd imagine their targeted industry has its own ergonomic concerns.

Sorry to ramble at you. Just excited because it sounds cool.

It's actually pretty different than an Echo, which needs to pick out the user's commands via complex signal processing alone.

I couldn't find the landing page for prospective enterprise Glass customers, though there's Glass at Work partner list with companies which do have real contact address.

https://developers.google.com/glass/distribute/glass-at-work

$500.00USD. For an app. Interface that looks like the dev Googled all the images needed and used the first result. First line of the app store description is Do not buy this app unless you are a professional piano technician. Yet it's a highly powerful tool and professionals use it.

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/nz/app/tunelab-piano-tuner/id335568...

Meanwhile a single decent professional piano tuning app can sell for $500 (I don't know the sales numbers of course) with the most amateur-looking UI ever and a description that's a warning not to buy it.

Considering that most games get lost in the heap and sell basically nothing, maybe looking to see if there's some niche tool you could make instead isn't a bad idea.

Also just quickly recording things. Terminal block wiring inside the case of a VSD or other equipment (so when later you think 'oh wait, what was wired in to X5' you don't have to isolate the damn panel again to get in and check). Mark up drawings and take a photo to document it. Take a photo of that scribbled-over page of the manual that the client's been using for 10 years to configure their product and that's not recorded anywhere.

I wanted my Glass to help me with my business flow (namely, being on call at work), but it wasn't built to do things like... Connect to a non-Gmail account. And Google's requirement of uploading every photo I took meant I couldn't securely take work photos with it.

I have one of my best pictures of my chinchilla because of it though... Only way I've ever been able to hold something with two hands and take a picture.

https://www.vuzix.com/

Their products are full Android devices, as best i can tell.

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=snapchat%20spectacl...

I'm not sure Google had a plan at all:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=google%20glass&tbs=...

Does anybody know if there are any "inconspicuous" AR glasses (meaning that they look like e.g. sunglasses and not like the Borg)? Preferably full visual field?

And are there any glasses that work on holographic / light field principles? (AFAIK Hololens doesn't, despite the name!) A few years ago at university, I looked into computer generated holograms. We generated holograms of simple objects on the CPU, printed them out, and shone a laser throught them. Viewing them at a slight angle (so you wouldn't be blinded), you could see the object floating in space - as if the hologram was a window. Back then, we thought maybe you could use a GPU to generate the holographic pattern, and a LCD matrix to display it - but the technology was not there yet. Now you have shader GPUs, and high-DPI LCDs, I feel it's almost just a matter of combining the pieces and you'd have immersive glasses, or a holographic screen.

You can't wear Microsoft Hololens outside of your office, far from your desktop.

Also I'm saying that, but it's a bit silly to entertain this discussion as they are two completely unrelated products. Mircosoft Hololens is AR as in Augmented Reality while Glass is a UI floating on your face.

This is not true. Hololens is untethered and there's nothing preventing you from using it anywhere. Well, nothing except the fact that it's bulkier and heavier than Glass and obscures your face too much for use in social situations.

The real reason why AR isn't better than Glass for this kind of thing is that AR tracking and recognition of objects is not good enough for real applications yet. On Glass as reported in the article you have to scan a code to identify an object you're holding. In people's imaginations, an AR device would magically recognize the object and overlay useful informational displays on it as you turn it in your hands. In reality Hololens is not even close to being able to do this, so you would be reduced to scanning codes just like on Glass.

The technology is here. It's ready. And it's already in use.

For me it was more impressive than glass which when I tried it mainly had me wondering why the photos were so much fuzzier than you could take with you phone.

Yes you can assuming wifi is in range. The Hololens is great. There is no cable. The battery life is reasonable. The field of view is awful but usable. We have been using one at the office and I'm very impressed with how accurately and quickly it maps out a space.

I don't think they are so different. In fact anything glass can do hololens will do better.

They are entirely different.

Hololens is an entirely new beast.

Comparing them because both can play youtube is every journalist's mistake and uneducated journalists created that mistake.

Hololens can not be used outside in a bright day light.

Hololens can be used any where. WiFI is not needed all time for Hololens. WiFi is needed only for the APPs which needs them as in some APPs in phones. You can connect the Hololens to wifi(hotspot) in any smartphone.

Google marketed Glass as AR but it turned out to be just a Floating UI. That is why it failed imo. Hololens is what we were promised for a relatively similar price point.

The fact that you need to spell out the difference between full AR and glass also seems to show how poorly Microsoft has communicated the potential of AR.

It's not a 'one size fits all' situation.

It looks like typical Hen-Egg-Problem where you first have to build it in order for them to come (slowly). Then you have to wait it out until the actually useful applications arise from the dust.

While the smartphone has established its place in everyday life (after years and years of trying and mostly failing with similar approaches), the glass probably will be a tool for a thousand niche applications mostly in the corporate world who need a finished solution before they start acting.

http://www.thepoisonreview.com/2016/03/19/tpr-podcast-episod...

Obviously it needed to be de-googlified to make it HIPAA compliant

Doc uses it to save 1.5 hours a day apparently https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/09/27...

"Google Glass has the potential of giving us a new perspective on telemedicine. However, the use of this device presents several problems, especially involving data security, patient privacy and HIPAA compliance."

"Using Google Glass, the consultants were also able to send and receive high-quality pictures of EKGs, pill bottles, etc."

"Although it is possible to send and receive photos using cell phones, computers, and tablets, Dr. Chai made the point that such technology is not HIPAA compliant."

So, they used it to Skype with their attendings, and it has the same compliance issues as ... normal cell phones, computers, and tablets - which absolutely are HIPAA compliant, if you're using secured hardware provided by the hospital (like all the laptops and blackberries used by insurance company employees carrying around identifiable patient data). Hospitals cheap out, though, and make you BYO - which is not a problem I envision Google Glass being a solution to.

Going to the cited publications didn't show any additional benefits.

[1] After a little searching, I may be remembering reading about the 1996 Boeing conference: https://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/timeline.html, or it could be any of the other late-90s systems listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_head-mounted_display that got press at the time.

Edit: Looking at another page, I may actually be remembering something from computer magazines back while I was in college or shortly after - the Private Eye from Reflection Technology (1989) (https://glassdevelopment.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/hmd-histor...) - which would fit, because that plus the Twiddler chorded keyboard became part of the MIT Wearable Computer stuff and I remember wanting one of those keyboards.....

We already have people who have Bluetooth speakers, no reason to also not have a tiny screen near the eyes.

(And making a trustworthy indicator that only shows if a recording is actually being created is basically impossible, so "camera running" is the only thing they could show)

Another option and even more trustworthy would have been a camera cover that was usable & durable and clearly & visibly expressed the status of the camera.

And the recording capabilities of the device were way overstated. Not just because of battery life, but heat. Trying to record video with it felt like putting yourself at risk of setting one side of your face on fire.

In fact, considering recent concerns with exploding batteries and the size of Glass and how hot it could get, perhaps the biggest marvel is that Google avoided even one Glass exploding.

The mere idea that someone could covertly record with Glass is silly, and there's tons of cheaper, far sneakier ways to film someone.

I get what you're saying, that average persons didn't know what the device could or couldn't do, but I don't think that's a justification to add a light that makes no sense to include.

The purpose is clear, that being if the camera is recording.

Frankly i see little use for the likes of AR and VR in civilian life. Hell even the smartphone of today is something of a bleak shadow of the business tool it once was, thanks to every OEM trying to cater to consumers that barely message and access social media.

- A killer feature for me would be (pedestrian) navigation. Highlight the road I have to take with a subtle color. That would even work on a very low-res display. Or at the train station, highlight the part of the train were my reserved seat is.

- If you have a higher-res screen, you could add additional information to the walls of places, like restaurant ratings etc.. Making it look just like a physical sign is key.

- One thing that is controversial, but would be huge for me, is face recognition. I sometimes have a hard time remembering what face belongs to what name. A option to show name tags for people I've seen before would be really convenient.

- How about an app that shows plans when fixing a bike or a car? Or one that tracks where you left your screws? If you have a very good camera, it might be able to even find screws you lost :-)

- Of course AR/VR games could also be a huge thing. Time will tell if that really catches on or not.

   I am not surprised Google Glass was a product way ahead if it's time. It can still be useful in closed environment like a factory floor. To be really successful in the consumer market it needed an AI capable of identifying every object it sees which we haven't reached yet. I am personally of the opinion that augmented reality is the future of computers rather than virtual reality. People keep pointing towards privacy as the reason it was not successful which is I feel is wrong. They don't have the tech yet of making it truly useful in the consumer market.