[samstave]

I came to post the same sentiment.

His approach will hopefully force developers to focus on useful utility rather than trivial novelty with the goal of extracting money from the first waves of users.

This should be upheld for two generations of the product. Figure out where glass can augment rather than distract and make those augmentation offerings so compelling that people will want to adopt glass.

[kybernetyk]

> His approach will hopefully force developers to focus on useful utility rather than trivial novelty with the goal of extracting money from the first waves of users.

Please explain to me how "you are not allowed to make money" will force me to create anything of real value to the end user?

In the best case you would end up with software that is the state of the linux desktop.

[nmcfarl]

And that's a really optimistic best case scenario. When developing Linux software you feel like you're giving something back to the community - here you are just working for Google for free.

[dualogy]

> His approach will hopefully force developers to focus on useful utility rather than trivial novelty with the goal of extracting money from the first waves of users.

Rephrased: "this approach forcefully prevents developers from making what people (sadly but quite apparently seem to) want". Aren't we here all about "making something people want" -- even if it turns out that the majority of people just end up "wanting" Angry Birds?

[samstave]

Why not try and see what you can develop within the boundaries of the constraints first. If you can't make anything useful within the constraints other than an attempt to copy angry birds or as a vector for ad displays, maybe your ideas just aren't that good.

[cinquemb]

I think they were getting at that "what(most) people want" is usually on the low end of the spectrum… in the same league of honey boo boo and reality tv, which aren't very useful if you ask me…

Also I don't really see this as a short coming if the glassess have access to the internet where a user wants to spend money on something. Sure its a website, but most apps anyways require the use of the internet (at least the data driven ones).

[samstave]

Maybe people who would develop on glass should attempt to build within these initial constraints first, then complain.

Both glass and FB home are first iteration products, by their Nth generations they will be likely be much different than they are now.

[cinquemb]

The difference being FB home is software (which FB is clearly trying to monetize on), and glass is hardware that google profits from its sale and cba about 3-party devs livelihoods.

I don't think people won't develop for glass, I just think that start ups and the like probably won't come out in full force because the lack of business incentives.

TBH, I feel like trying to build anything on glass now (that isn't a hobby for devs) is pretty much a phishing expedition for google to pick up in an acquisition at this point.

[samstave]

Great point. They will likely be looking to acquire small teams quickly and cheaply.

[tibbon]

I think the constraints are great and make sense, given the philosophy of Glass that it should stay out of the way, and just be there when you want it. Everything about it should enhance your life, not get in the way. Simplicity is the key here. This isn't a desktop computer, or a smart phone. :)