Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×
Google Technology

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anyone Can Buy Google Glass April 15

Comments Filter:
  • No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dreamchaser (49529) on Sunday April 13, 2014 @12:50PM (#46740559) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by houstonbofh (602064) on Sunday April 13, 2014 @12:58PM (#46740623)
      It also crams the numbers of everyone with an interest into "first day sales" figures. Be ready for the April 17th "Google sells a bazillion Google Glass in one day!" articles.
    • 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.

    • by Ash-Fox (726320)

      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.

      Do you see yourself adopting the Nabu [razerzone.com] and if not, why?

      • 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.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      It should cost $100 maximum. $1500 for something that isn't even as good as my phone is ridiculous and only a complete idiot would buy one.
    • Re:No thanks (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Wycliffe (116160) on Sunday April 13, 2014 @03:44PM (#46741807) Homepage

      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)

    by Rhymoid (3568547) on Sunday April 13, 2014 @12:52PM (#46740581)
    1. You can "buy" Google Glass for one day only.
    2. Anyone can "buy" Google Glass, provided that they live in the United States of America.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Went to glass.com and gglass.com and have to say I am surprised for this product they purchased neither domain.

    • You should have gone with glass.google.com, since google.com is the only domain any sane person would expect to find google products.
  • 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)

    • I don't know if they care; but a uniquely serialized and network connected device running Google's software doesn't really change hands unless suitably disarmed. "Oh, software is licensed not sold, license agreement not transferable, remote wipe. Do enjoy the hardware you purchased."
    • 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.

  • "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. :|

  • Cool (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kruach aum (1934852) on Sunday April 13, 2014 @01:15PM (#46740767)

    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."

    • 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.

      • The Glass hate started a couple of months before the Snowden leaks, so I don't think that's it.

        • 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)

    by VortexCortex (1117377) <(moc.edargorter- ... ) (xetroCxetroV)> on Sunday April 13, 2014 @01:18PM (#46740805)

    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.

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      Google Glass is not AR. Also, the apps I would use aren't available, and I'm not skilled enough to make them (and every app I'd thought up uses only the internal-facing camera). So it holds no utility to me, even if it is interesting.
    • 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

      • 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.

        • 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

          • 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.

            • 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]

              • 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. :-)

  • by istartedi (132515) on Sunday April 13, 2014 @01:34PM (#46740931) Journal

    "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.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      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.

  • ... others applied to be Explorers through Google contests by sharing what cool projects they would do if they had Glass

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Being an anonymous coward is bad enough but I don't want to be a glasshole.

  • by Khyber (864651) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Sunday April 13, 2014 @02:19PM (#46741227) Homepage Journal

    This Masonic exclusivity bullshit is the exact reason I got turned off of Glass in the first place.

    • by mspohr (589790)

      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.

      • by Goody (23843)

        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.

        • by mspohr (589790)

          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

          • 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.

      • > I see that you are using a gmail account.

        Yeah, me too. Didn't pay 1500 bucks for it, though...

      • 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

    • Yes but I said that about gmail too and now 8 out of ten people have it.

      • 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

  • by Moof123 (1292134)

    Just meh.

  • 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.

  • Cut out the middleman! Pay me $1499 and I'll punch you in the face direct from the source.
  • "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."

  • ... that /. is still mostly a local US site. "Anyone" of course refers to "anyone in the US".
  • Reading the reviews from developers who bought and used Google Glass, most of them say the same thing - it's not ready. You need an Android phone, and it's sort of an awkward extension of the phone. There aren't any killer apps for it because the APIs are not ready (it's mostly just popping text messages on the glass). I don't have Google Glass, but that's what I gleamed from the descriptions. The major reasons to get it seem to be for: 1) developers to get a head start on developer (on the belief that
  • 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.

    • 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.

  • by JustNiz (692889) on Sunday April 13, 2014 @09:20PM (#46743597)

    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

  • Filled in all the spaces (not phone, not required) hit sign me up and nothing happened. I'd expected to be taken to another page or some acknowledgment.
  • 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.

  • You may or may not find its limitations annoying. The two I found annoying are the short battery life 9two hours if using the camera) and relatively slow internet speeds. I expect them these to improve in the NEXT version.

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

365 Days of drinking Lo-Cal beer. = 1 Lite-year

Working...