[shittyanalogy]

Including a camera also made it hard to see past the camera. The only think people would ever talk about is the camera, and argue about whether people should have a camera on their heads, wonder if they would want to use a camera that way, tell people to take it off because of the camera. If there was no camera, I wonder what aspects of it's technology would have been the focus of discussion. Then again if there was no camera, would it have even appealed to people in the first place?

[r00fus]

Me. I wanted something with a video heads-up like display (maybe with sound likely preferring BT/headphones). A radio, processor, memory, maybe a little storage ... but no camera.

Without the camera, the audio portion of the handsfree UI would be front and center - contextual visual updates based on geolocation, speech commands, you name it.

They tried too hard and didn't make a focused MVP, just a mess of stuff that might be cool.

[tluyben2]

One of the early big interviews about Glass featured Brin or Page (not exactly sure who of the two) telling that Glass is for taking POV pictures. And he talked about nothing else. While all tech guys (like me) where dreaming about augmented reality, or even just having some Android apps of choice in my view all the time while being able to walk around, all he focused on (and everyone since) was taking pictures. So it was intentional to not look past the camera I guess.

[ryanwanger]

Are you talking about this TED "presentation"? http://www.ted.com/talks/sergey_brin_why_google_glass?langua...

Don't bother watching it. TLDR; Sergey stands awkwardly on stage for 5 minutes, telling you how isolating it is to whip out your cellphone. With Glass you can keep your head up, something he cannot seem to demonstrate himself - choosing instead to come across as isolated from the audience, distracted, and unprepared. 2 million people have watched this for some reason.