This is cool and all, and I'm glad the concept didn't totally die, but will consumers ever see this type of wearable tech again? Some people shelled out over $1k when Google initially offered glass prototypes, only to be left with unmaintained devices.
I honestly though Glass would have done better if it had no recording capabilities built-in. It would have substantially reduced the creepiness factor.
It's sad that no one has come in and tried to tackle the heads-up wearable market. Sony has some glasses that looked terrible, and I guess the battery life issues are still too big for many manufacturers to overcome?
> Some people shelled out over $1k when Google initially offered glass prototypes, only to be left with unmaintained devices.
Are they completely unmaintained? There was a story here recently how it just got an update for the first time in a few years[1]. I'm not sure if that was a fluke, or a renewed commitment...
> will consumers ever see this type of wearable tech again?
Sure. When many thousands of these devices have been produced on a growing economy of scale, when there are multiple options available from various vendors at various price points, when ordinary cellular network speeds and capacities are closer to the wifi in these businesses, when there's education, experience and toolchains for building apps that run on them, and the hardware has been battle-hardened, I'm sure they'll make more sense for consumers.
Computers were first affordable to businesses only - first as mainframes, then as PCs, then again as laptops, and once more as tablets. Consumers didn't buy the first cellular telephones and car phones, businesspeople did. CNC milling machines and rapid prototyping machines were once reserved for specialized, high-technology machine shops, now hobbyists can put a CNC router or 3D printer in their workshop. You used to have to go to a dealer with an expensive computer console when your check engine light came on, now a $10 OBDII reader can read and clear codes for you.
> I guess the battery life issues are still too big for many manufacturers to overcome?
They probably will be a problem for a long time. Unfortunately, battery capacity seems like one of those areas where we're not simply too low on the technology pyramid, it's just a question of raw physics. I would love to see this problem sidestepped by the compromise of making the batteries on these devices easily swappable. Even if they only got 6-8 hours of battery life, I'd happily unclip the battery on the earpiece at lunch or when I get home, swapping in the freshly charged one from my bag. What I don't want is an undersized battery that's glued in and decays down to 60% capacity after 18 months.
> I honestly though(t) Glass would have done better if it had no recording capabilities built-in. It would have substantially reduced the creepiness factor.
Outside of the tech community this is a distinction I imagine few would make - most people upon seeing a camera are going to not unreasonably assume it can record. I still see large numbers of people taping over their laptop webcams even when they are turned off.
I think the simpler explanation is that strapping a camera to your face is simply inappropriate or off-putting in some social settings for many people.
It isn't just outside of tech that people cover their webcams. Mark Zuckerberg does it[1]. EFF sells webcam covers[2]. James Comey does it (although maybe he's not exactly tech)[3]. I've seen articles claiming Snowden does it, but I can't find a good source, that might just be rumors.
I probably should have been clearer - I have no issue with the practice of covering webcams, it's simply a great example of how "camera conscious" many people are.
> I think the simpler explanation is that strapping a camera to your face is simply inappropriate or off-putting in some social settings, at least with today's typical social norms.
Didn't help that the only people who did/could/would buy the first glass prototypes were nerds who apparently started using them in bars and clubs. That solidified its image as "creepy".
Contrast it with Spectacles, a product designed to record as much as possible. But since it was marketed/targeted towards "cool" people, it never got the creepy trait.
The typical use case for Spectacles, at least as I see it, is a little different though. Spectacles is much more like a Go Pro, in that I will be out doing some kind of activity I want to share with friends. People also typically don't wear sunglasses indoors, my expectation of privacy is very different outdoors vs indoors.
The approach with Google Glass was very different, where Google were arguably prototyping a device intended to be worn all the time, including indoors and in scenarios were people typically would not normally expect to be photographed or filmed.
I've no idea, but in central California I often see at least one person wearing them any time I go near a busy beach, which is most weekends. If the article below is to be believed, approx 60,000 pairs in Q1. Given the enormous disparity in price between the two I'd assume they are outselling Glass as well.
> I still see large numbers of people taping over their laptop webcams even when they are turned off.
Good. That isn't a demonstration of technical illiteracy. There have been plenty of vulnerabilities shown in webcams and microphones, and even the indicator LEDs can be disabled remotely
I honestly though Glass would have done better if it had no recording capabilities built-in. It would have substantially reduced the creepiness factor.
It's sad that no one has come in and tried to tackle the heads-up wearable market. Sony has some glasses that looked terrible, and I guess the battery life issues are still too big for many manufacturers to overcome?