[kevinconroy]

People said the same thing about the huge, bulky cell phones that came out in the 1980s. Who would want to carry around a phone with them all the time? And one that large? It'll never catch on!

Some folks said the same thing about the iPad. Who needs a tablet when I've got a laptop and a smartphone?

What strikes me is that this person is lambasting a product that he hasn't tried first hand. He hasn't lived with it for a week to see how it benefits or hinders his life. It's fine if you don't want one (I don't have a smartphone by choice), but realize that just because you don't want the latest new fangled gadget doesn't mean that it won't have mass market appeal.

[blowski]

Yep, post could be summarised as: "I currently don't want one. Therefore, nobody will ever want one. Anybody that says they do want one is a fanboy."

[canttestthis]

Agreed. Much of the post is subjective or flat out untrue.

"Puke. I find Glass to be ugly, impractical and completely ridiculous."

And I find Glass to be elegant, useful, and futuristic. So where does that leave us?

And then this:

"they simply don't know what it means to make products that make people happy."

Are you serious?

[netcan]

Certainty in the reverse direction (Google Glass will change the world!) is just as silly, though maybe a little less curmudgeony.

Reality is that our first impression of a new technology is pretty much a coolness measure. Some things look cool and everyone who sees it wants it but are not ultimately useful or impactful (eg segway). Its really hard to tell how important some new technology is.

[joonix]

"My opinion is fact!"

[jpwagner]

People said the same thing about the huge, bulky cell phones that came out in the 1980s.

Wait, bulky cell phones did not catch on. Cell phones became ubiquitous once they became practical. Go back in time and introduce a modern cell phone (assume the infrastructure to support it) and it would be a huge success.

Maybe the next incarnation of enhanced reality will be huge, but the argument is that this incarnation will not.

[youngtaff]

But would you get to the modern cellphone without the bulky ones?

Also did the bulky ones not catch on because they were bulky, or because they were expensive or ...?

[kevinconroy]

Exactly. This is version 1 of a entirely new product. Of course it will evolve and iterate. Imagine if they can reduce it to a contact lens or build it into completely normal looking (Warby Parker) glasses.

[jamestc]

While I agree with the general point of your post, I think that before resorting to the stock "old man yells at cloud" joke it's worth acknowledging that as a society we've been throwing ourselves at more and more technology fairly mindlessly, letting it take up vast amounts of our time, letting our children use it and develop their minds around it, and restructuring our lives/thinking around it.

So I think we ought to welcome channels of criticism/contemplation rather than just continuing the cycle mindlessly. I get that he hasn't used the product, but at the same time I get where he's coming from. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we necessarily should. It's a worthwhile thought whether or not you agree with his particular criticisms.

[jsnell]

Fair enough, but this is not a thoughtful contemplation. He's essentially criticizing the product because it's not being released by Apple.

[calinet6]

They also said this kind of stuff about Videophones, and those actually did die.

[nmcfarl]

Sorta - I find I spend an increasing proportion of my workday in Google Hangouts. (And of my holidays on FaceTime calls....)

[driverdan]

The implementation died but the idea is everywhere. Skype, FaceTime, Hangout, etc. I have a daily video call on Hangout and last night had a speaker for a meetup talk over Skype. We're using "videophones" all the time.

[ben1040]

Maybe they died, if we're talking about fixed station video phones that tried to emulate what George Jetson had. Those were DOA for decades.

Or maybe technology (better bandwidth, front facing cameras in laptops & mobile devices) just caught up with our realization that the concept is more useful when one or both parties are not at their desks or at home.

[czr80]

People also said that the Segway was going to revolutionize the world.

[riggins]

People said the same thing about the huge, bulky cell phones that came out in the 1980s.

that's a strawman. The primary claim is that Google's implementation is lame.

The primary claim in not that 'Glass-type' hardware is lame.

[campnic]

The entire article doesn't contain compelling support for the argument you say he is making. Its a bunch of hand waving about how google gets bored after the engineering. That may be so, but he provides no tactile examples of how this is the case.

I can see your point about how he's attempting to argue the implementation is lame, but its also easy to construe his argument as 'glass-type' hardware is lame. This is an issue with the authors presentation, not with the OPs argument.

[riggins]

agree to disagree.

I started to extract and quote the parts of the article saying the problem is Google's implementation but it was close to being the entire article.

[bobsy]

I think he makes a good point about having to talk into your glasses.

Like many over-positive posts though this seems overly-negative. I don't get how someone can have such strong opinions about something they haven't touched or used.

The biggest challenge I see for Glass is practical uses. If I am walking down a country lane does Glass do anything? It would be cool to be able to look at a tree and say "whats this?" and it is identified. Similarly being prompted at a fork. "Left will take you past a waterfall. Right will keep you in the forest"

Realistically though I don't expect any functionality like this will exist outside the city, at least to begin with. Best sellers are practical products for practical people. I am not completely sold this is anything more than a niche item at the moment.

[ZeroGravitas]

I believe you can already get phone apps that will identify trees and bugs so I don't see any reason why that couldn't be ported to glass.

Similarly, even the demo video shows driving directions and both Google and others provide hiking trail, cycling directions (even offline ones, which you might need in such circumstances).

Personally, I'm interested because I'm a cyclist. I think they'll be in the front lines with anyone else who needs their hands free once the price comes down.

[alistairSH]

"People said the same thing about the huge, bulky cell phones that came out in the 1980s."

And, I can count the number of people I knew with those early, bulky cell phones on my fingers and toes. It wasn't until the smaller, cheaper cell phones of the 90s that everybody had one.

Will Google Glass lead to something useful? Perhaps. But, will it be a game-changer today? I doubt it.

And he's correct about speech interfaces. So far, all of the readily available consumer versions are horrible.

[nooneelse]

> It wasn't until the smaller, cheaper cell phones of the 90s that everybody had one.

Why think that was about the size and not more about the price? Every kid I knew who watched Saved by the Bell wanted a mobile phone, they just weren't in the "get it for Xmas or birthday" price range.

[missing_cipher]

This is the trend with pretty much every "x IS y" article.