Anyone Can Buy Google Glass April 15 167
An anonymous reader writes "Starting at 9 a.m. ET on April 15 anyone in the US will be able to buy Google Glass for one day. From the article: 'This is the first time the device has been available to the general public. So far, the face-mounted computers have been sold only to Google "Explorers," the company's name for early adopters. At first only developers could buy Glass, but Google slowly expanded the program to include regular people. Some were hand-picked, others applied to be Explorers through Google contests by sharing what cool projects they would do if they had Glass.'"
No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm often an early adopter of technology, but I'm not interested in this type of product until it's far more unobtrusive and obvious. I can perhaps see a time when having a HUD built into my glasses might be useful, and sure there are times when I wish I could snap a picture of something more quickly than I can by pulling out my phone, but I'm not about to pay $1500 for what amounts to a barely beta product. I won't even go into my concerns about all the data Google already gets from us.
This one day sale stunt is just that, a stunt. They are testing the waters and trying to stimulate demand.
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple do nothing of the sort. It's Samsung that falsified their sales figures.
http://bgr.com/2014/04/11/2014... [bgr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have gone the opposite direction, rather than the lame Geordi LaForge effort, make it an ostentatious monocle, cyberpunk or even steampunk style. Offer a variety of skins to suit the early adopter market (mostly nerds) and bling that tech out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've looked at Nabu but I really don't see any value in it for me. I can get the same functionality from my smartphone if I want it, and I don't really.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go up to $300 but my toy budget is pretty big.
Re:No thanks (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm often an early adopter of technology, but I'm not interested in this type of product until it's far more unobtrusive and obvious.
I'm the exact opposite. I would be more likely to buy it if it was more obtrusive. More to the point, I see little function in a side monitor
while on the other hand allowing sunglasses with full overlay I think has alot more potential. For instance being able to enhance the
center line on the highway on dark rainy nights or show outlines of constellations at night. I can think of lots of cool uses for a full
wraparound wearable HUD but that's not what google glasses is.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS (Score:3, Interesting)
confused (Score:1)
Went to glass.com and gglass.com and have to say I am surprised for this product they purchased neither domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the speculators (Score:2)
How many of these land on ebay? Does Google have a way to prevent that? (not interested, so no I didn't read the bloody linked article)
Re: (Score:2)
Speculators already queued (Score:2)
How many of these land on ebay?
Anyone planning to sell them on eBay would presumably check the ebay prices first to see how much they can make.
As far as I can tell, Glass is not selling period. I offered a guy $20 to buy one but they didn't bite, so I guess people are not super desperate to discard them yet - but I don't think many in the open period will be buying to resell, there's just no market.
The real reason.... (Score:2)
"Oh crap, we're running low on cash! We need more monies! Quick, let people spend $1500 for some tech from us!"
Yeah, I'm interested, but at that cost (plus more for me since I wear regular glasses and need special frames and new lenses, etc) it's not really worth it. :|
Re: (Score:2)
What, Google has "enough money"? No one has "enough money"... ever.
Re: (Score:2)
I would make a sarcastic reply indicating that your sarcasm detector is in need of calibration, but I think that due to said miscalibration the point of it would be missed.....
Re: (Score:2)
Given that it's Google anyone with half an ounce of sense realizes that they practically have the ability to print money and would have read the initial comment as sarcasm/humor. However since you seem to think I'm somehow mentally deficient with regards to this I have to assume that you either missed the point or just feel like being a pedantic jerk.
Either way since the 15th is now passed it's largely a pointless discussion to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
I could buy that, but when they opened GMail for everyone it was kinda perm instead of the one-shot like this. I don't see it doing much other than possibly clipping things for a few days or maybe flooding the market for those invites to drop the price.
Either way..... "not sure if effective"
Cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Google glass seems like a really cool technology to me. It's weird that I have to qualify that statement with "and I mean this unironically."
Re: (Score:3)
10 years ago, I guess everyone here would have chimed in.
But, ya know, in the meantime we had NSA, Snowden and Web 3.0 (2.0 was "you make the content, we make the profit", 3.0 is now "you ARE the content, we sell your soul"), stuff like that tends to make wary.
Re: (Score:1)
The Glass hate started a couple of months before the Snowden leaks, so I don't think that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, people don't like the idea to be under constant surveillance. IIRC there was even a lab experiment with rats that showed that we're not the only species who thinks so.
To little, too late. (Score:5, Interesting)
Translation: "This is how you advertise a product as elitist." or "Shh, mobile enabled VR & AR gear does not exist yet!" [vuzix.com]
Sorry, don't care Google. I'll just keep developing for the 3D VR and AR gear I already use daily with my smart-phone, rather than pay for the over-priced less capable system Google's selling. When Google finally gets around to pushing out a run of hardware that is publicly accessible then I might port some software I personally use in my business to the platform it if it's not completely shit, and there is a market share to warrant the expenditure. I'm not holding my breath for something that is little more than vapor-ware.
Besides, that initial rejection of 3rd party apps for glass really turned me off, it seems they got the message but it doesn't bode well. Will I be able to use Glass apps with the Oculus Rift, or MS or Sony's offering, or Vuzix or True Player Gear [trueplayergear.com], or the other umpteen hundred VR and AR headsets, many of which I've been using since the 90's when Quake and Descent came out, which STILL didn't attract a market? I don't think hardware should be tied to software, or that software should be tied to hardware needlessly. If that's the route Google wants then they can go fuck themselves. I already have AR and VR headsets for Android, and they work with iOS, Linux and Windows too.
Release a product or don't. This carrot dangling makes the Glass team seem like a bunch of incompetent self-important elitist sperglords.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be fair. I think Google are just trying to get their shit in everyone's faces so we don't get a repeat of the iPhone situation (possibly even with Apple). What did Apple do? They took ideas that everyone had been working on for decades, put it all together pretty nicely and the marketed the bejesus out of it. Jobs realised that the base tech had finally got to a point (or would by shipping) where it would all work together in useful ways. Being so dominant, he was able to make the process work without the r
Re: (Score:2)
The technology is there. It's just the market that isn't. If there was any worthwhile demand for this product, Google wouldn't have to do marketing stunts like one day sales.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll make a random prediction then - by 2020 smartphones will be a "thing of the past", or at least we'll be in the phase of massive growth of eyewear and decline of smartphones, like dumb vs smart today. It might take till 2024-5 but I seriously doubt it. Huge numbers of people already wear glasses, and the Hipsters (TM) even wear them with empty frames. Immersive AR will blow phones out of the water when we get rich 3D interfaces (Minority Report styles). We'll need to be able to concentrate on text/video
Re: (Score:2)
And I think your prediction will be wrong.
BTW "the Hipsters (TM) even wear them with empty frames"???
Is that really true? Sounds like some media nonsense story to me, rather than some real trend. Those of us who wear glasses would really rather not.
Re: (Score:2)
If the evil Beta monster hasn't killed /. then I'll see you back here in 6 years then :-).
I worked with a guy who came to work occasionally with empty frames. I was working (in Ops!) at a marketing agency though... I also have a Chinese friend who used to wear glasses with zero correction to look smarter (that is definitely a widely held belief). The desire to headbutt was strong with me... But ok, one or two examples does not a fashion make.
This has got to be the coolest music video in the world though htt [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, we all had stupid fashions when we were young. In my day it was New Romantics. Now that was far more pretentious and silly that the current youngsters can manage. :-)
Hey look what I bought (Score:5, Funny)
"Hey, look what I bought. I used my tax refu--"
And the next thing he knew, he woke up in an alley. His wallet, keys, phone and shoes were missing. For the life of him, he could not figure out why they didn't take his cool new toy.
Re: (Score:2)
And the next thing he knew, he woke up in an alley. His wallet, keys, phone and shoes were missing. For the life of him, he could not figure out why they didn't take his cool new toy.
It's a photo/video camera that might have been on, not even stupid crooks would leave that potential evidence behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they'd leave it behind alright. But it would coin a whole new meaning to Embedded Devices.
Who followed through? (Score:2)
So I wonder if any of these people actually did any of the "cool projects" they claimed, or did they just pose around, with their newly aquired status (or otherwise) symbols.
I *can* buy it but why would I? (Score:1, Informative)
Being an anonymous coward is bad enough but I don't want to be a glasshole.
And this is why I won't get Glass (Score:3, Informative)
This Masonic exclusivity bullshit is the exact reason I got turned off of Glass in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Google (and many other companies) do this with their beta products... you know... because they are "beta" and they want to limit the number of users to something they can handle.
For instance, Gmail was limited access at first and you had to be invited to join. I see that you are using a gmail account.
Re: (Score:3)
Making people pay $1500 to be their beta tester is a bit ballsy, though. Of course if you have customers who are dumb enough to pay for a half-baked and potentially buggy beta product that will be superseded by a new model in six months, have at it.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't seem to have any problem finding customers at that price.
I personally am not interested. I just don't see myself walking around wearing this thing. Not sure what I would do with it. It seems really nerdy and creepy. However, if I had a specific application in mind... something like recording surgery, automobile repair (or service and repair in many industries) then I could see it.
I do have a Google Chromecast which is really a beta device and has been a disappointment due to very limited function
Re: (Score:2)
They don't seem to have any problem finding customers at that price.
Of course they do. That's why the marketing scam of only going on sale for one day, rather than on proper release like any normal product. They know if they release glass for real, it'll be as dead as Microsoft Kin.
gmail (Score:2)
> I see that you are using a gmail account.
Yeah, me too. Didn't pay 1500 bucks for it, though...
Re: (Score:2)
No, many other companies don't do this. Only Google. And your example being another Google product only confirms this.
Other companies have real beta periods for products. Where they give the product without charge to a number of people to use so the bugs can be ironed out before a release a few months later.
But using the word "beta" to get out of responsibility for all problems in a publicly released product for years on end, or to mask the lack of demand for a product, Those are quintessentially Google tri
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but I said that about gmail too and now 8 out of ten people have it.
Re: (Score:2)
8 out of 10? How did you come to that conclusion? It's possible that there are that many accounts in existence. The vast majority being dormant. After all, Google thrusts one upon you for using previously independence services such as YouTube. And of course they are useful as throwaway accounts for signing up to things without getting spam.
But 8 out of 10 actually email addresses in use? No chance. Take a look at any email lists you have access to, or any well CCed emails. A tiny fraction of real in-use e
Meh (Score:2)
Just meh.
Testing...testing...testing...1...2...3 (Score:2)
Sounds like Google is testing the waters of demand for glass. It would be interesting to see the actual number of glass units sold. My guess it they are using this as an indicator if they should continue to push glass in its current form, abandon the project or make a big change.
I have an idea (Score:2)
Psychological trick (Score:2)
"I worked day and night on my taxes. Now that they're done I'm going to give myself the gift of Google Glasses. I deserve it."
Good to know... (Score:1)
Less than you expect (Score:1)
Anyone can buy Google Glasses right now, cheap. (Score:3)
Anyone can buy Google Glasses right now [ebay.com] on eBay. The going rate is about $1100. Google Glass "invitations" have been for sale on eBay for months. The going rate is about $50.
As an "exclusive launch", this is a flop. There have been XBox and Sony PSn launches where pre-order prices exceeded list price. Google Glasses are already selling at a discount before the launch. This thing is overpriced. It needs to launch at $995, and that will only hold until Samsung starts shipping.
Re: (Score:3)
Price isn't even the main sticking point with me. I recently paid someone a lot of money to burn off bits of my eyes with a laser precisely so I wouldn't have to wear glasses... and it was the best money I've ever spent. There's no way I'm paying another grand to get glasses back no matter how cool they are.
Triumph of marketing hype (Score:4, Funny)
wow I'm amazed that so many people are sooo desperate to pay a staggering $1500 just for a beta version of a head mounted camera that freaks other people out and makes you look like a twat. I think I'll save $1500 and just duct tape my phone to my forehead.ï
Signed up - I think (Score:2)
Why April 15th? (Score:2)
because in the US, April 15th is when income tax return forms are due. On that day many people find out if they are getting a refund of taxes withheld from their paychecks in the previous year. That refund money is often spent on TVs, appliances, etc., and now Google Glass.
test drive one if you can (Score:2)
Re:And there was much rejoicing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Meet me at Molotov's! (Score:2)
I'm sure you'll have something interesting, worth recording!
Re: (Score:1)
How about we not call this one before it's even tossed. And how about we quit acting like this is the end of privacy and not CCTVs or the NSA.
Re: (Score:1)
And how about we quit acting like this is the end of privacy and not CCTVs or the NSA.
Google Glass may not bring about the end of privacy, but it's part of the problem. This is proprietary garbage, so you don't even know what it's doing. Anyone who buys it is a damn fool.
Re: (Score:3)
Google Glass may not bring about the end of privacy, but it's part of the problem. This is proprietary garbage, so you don't even know what it's doing. Anyone who buys it is a damn fool.
You aren't a damn fool just because you've bought one. Buying one just means you are curious and somewhat affluent. The "damn fool" part only kicks in if the thing is on and being worn while, say, doing Internet banking. As a teacher, I could see this being very beneficial to something like distance instruction, as it would be much more liberating than either teaching on a single whiteboard or depending on a third party camera person.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that depends. If Glass is cheaper than buying the relevant parts themselves and if taking them apart is doable by the average tinkerer...
Re: (Score:2)
And how about we quit acting like this is the end of privacy and not CCTVs or the NSA.
So, ignore it and maybe it will go away? I don't think that's going to be effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What IS going to be effective? I'd argue that nothing done in relation to google glass, getting upset about it or being cool with it, will revive privacy.
I'd say businesses banning the device on their premises is a good start. Admittedly, I'm not full of ideas - but I'm sure complacency is not the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
And how about we quit acting like this is the end of privacy and not CCTVs or the NSA.
That's weird. I didn't realize because X and Y are worse on a continuum of bad things, it means Z is somehow A-OK!
I hate the NSA and it's intrusions. I hate CCTV and the casual police state. Oh, and I hate Google Glass and its commercialization of the surveillance state.
See? Is that so hard?
Re: (Score:1)
I hate Google Glass and its commercialization of the surveillance state.
And I hate shoes and their commercialization of the surveillance state.
See, just because someone states an opinion as fact doesn't make it true. You hate progress and tech. Go feed you horse and work on your wooden buggie.
Re:And there was much rejoicing (Score:5, Insightful)
I am old enough to remember the same sorts of arguments against PCs. They were toys for the elite yuppies, and would never be useful for the poorer people.
You are just jealous. Why all the hate?
Re: (Score:2)
I am old enough to remember the same sorts of arguments against PCs. They were toys for the elite yuppies, and would never be useful for the poorer people.
I'm old enough to remember that isn't true. Nobody argued against h PC. AT first very few people even knew what they were. When I got my first computer I told my boss, and he just didn't understand how a person could own their own computer.
Then gradually affordable home computers came along, and parents bought them for their kids.
Then in time people got PCs on their desks at work, and eventually decided it'd be good to have one at home.
Mobile phones, sure THEY went through the ridiculed "yuppie" stage. But not PCs.
Re: (Score:1)
You are just jealous. Why all the hate?
What an i jealous of? Looking like a hipster douche? Nah, not really.
Then leave them alone. They aren't asking to be harassed or insulted.
You could be wearing a jacket with hidden cameras or have it full of spiders or bees. I don't know and I don't care. No reason to get yourself involved with others over things you don't know or want to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're clearly pretending to remember things you weren't around for, or having false memories. There was no such anti-yuppy sentiment regarding PCs. Plenty of other hate for yuppies, but not PC related. It didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Your baby can read" appears to be something that didn't work, and the creators quickly went out of business. That would be worth mocking.
And yes, that was regional, I never saw the product, not the mocking. Whereas PCs were sold round the world, right from the early days.
Completely different from the PC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Catering to real people (Score:2)
Apple caters to the stylish, the people that matter, people who won't care about the presence/absence of a physical keyboard since they have never owned a smartphone before.
I don't know about the stylish, since that never applied to me. But it did cater to people who mattered - real people.
For you see, for real people the small physical keyboards SUCKED. They had very tiny hit areas, were sometimes hard to press. They took up a lot of space which meant tiny screens, and if you started typing anything n
Re: (Score:2)
With a slide-out keyboard like the Sidekick had you can have a screen-sized keyboard AND a full-sized screen that isn't half-filled with a virtual keyboard that effectively makes the visible screen area smaller anyway. I just don't understand why we slide-outs aren't made anymore. They're superior to both the other options, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
With a slide-out keyboard like the Sidekick had you can have a screen-sized keyboard
Even on those the numbers sucked. You cannot fundamentally change the fact converting the whole screen to a number pad dynamically is vastly superior to tiny little number keys, especially as the bulk of the population ages.
And it added a lot of bulk to the phone.
If you want the same effect now just carry a compact portable bluetooth keyboard. The fact that pretty much no-one does is a testament to most people hating tiny
A fight with a bunch of Chowdaheads in Glass (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I cannot wait to see people who kick the shift out of glassholes facing legal consequences for thinking that they somehow have a right to enforce what they believe on others through violence.
And honestly, you may be waiting a while! For there are surely legal consequences for such things, but the police and judges are human and tend to view unexciting assault and battery cases as exactly that.
I mean, seriously, how many people as a percentage actually serve jail time for bar fights? Not many, and there are some serious injuries from those. And let's not forget extenuation - if Peter gets up in the face of the elderly mother of Paul and starts screaming at her for road rage and Paul punches hi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has proclaimed any such right. Just two things: that people will suffer violence for wearing Google Glass. And that many of us will be amused when that happens.
Pretentious, self-righteous pricks getting punched is just one of those funny things to see.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that the people who are doing the punching are no less pretentious *or* self-righteous.... like they have made it their own self-appointed duty to, under threat of physical violence, try to make other people see the world as they do, and have a similar set of priorities and values.
This is different from people killing in the name of religion how, exactly?
And what kind of world is it that you live in that this sort of thing is actually amusing?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that the people who are doing the punching are no less pretentious *or* self-righteous.... like they have made it their own self-appointed duty to, under threat of physical violence, try to make other people see the world as they do, and have a similar set of priorities and values.
No, they are just pissed off by someone thrusting a camera in their face, or not paying attention to the person they are conversing with when they should be.
This is different from people killing in the name of religion how, exactly?
In every way possible. You are beginning to sound hysterical.
And what kind of world is it that you live in that this sort of thing is actually amusing?
This one. For example, Buzz Aldrin punching this jackass is quite funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Some people just deserve a punch.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that people don't have every right to be pissed off about having their privacy invaded.... I'm saying that when violence is *ever* the defaut response to simply being angry about something that is not physically threatening in any way, shape, or form, then there is already a problem with the emotional maturity of that particular person.
I'd be inclined to not include Buzz Aldrin in that category because the person that he assaulted was physically stalking him, and deliberately creating a si
Re: (Score:2)
Also... I'm hysterical how, exactly? Because I compare the threat of so-called "acceptable" violence today that would caused by what ultimately amounts to a mere a difference in beliefs (one person places more value on their privacy than another person places on the same person's privacy) to an example of violence in history over what also fundamentally amounted to a mere difference in beliefs?
You've moderated it now. Before it was "people killing in the name of religion". Which certainly is different to throwing a punch at someone who's getting in your face. To the point that if you think they are the same, you are being hysterical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
both are violent acts perpetuated solely by a difference in belief.
Belief? You're casting the Google Glass user as someone religious?
No, Glass users aren't risking being punched in the face for believing in Glass or believing in Google or whatever. But for being in people's face with a recording device where it isn't wanted, or for showing disrespect by putting a computer screen in-between their eyes and the eyes of the person they are conversing with. It's about rude and inconsiderate behaviour not belief.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can ask them to stop... or you can go somewhere that the owner can tell the glasshole to get lost or be charged with trespassing.
When violence becomes the "only recourse" to something that is not, by itself, physically threatening in any way, one may want to consider whether or not there is something already seriously wrong with their own world view.
It's absolutely no different than those who have gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of religion.
Re: (Score:2)