Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses Hardware

Google Glass Is Dead, Long Live Google Glass 141

DumbSwede writes BBC reports on the demise of Google Glass as we know it: Google Glass sales halted but firm says kit is not dead. One can only assume there will be dissatisfied early adopters and developers given Google's decision. Here is to hoping Google Glass 2.0 (assuming there is one) will be better received. The Verge expands a bit on the re-org that the linked BBC article mentions, as a result of which Google Glass moves from the Google X incubator to its own division: Google's announcing today Glass is "graduating" from the Google X experimental projects incubator to become its own independent division — a division that will report into Nest's Tony Fadell. Current Glass head Ivy Ross will retain day-to-day authority, but she'll report to Fadell. Nest itself will remain separate and independent, and Tony will still be in charge there as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Glass Is Dead, Long Live Google Glass

Comments Filter:
  • but they're better than New Coke.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      lol @ anyone who wasted $1500 to be a guinea pig for a now utterly worthless piece of vapourware

      • by JWSmythe ( 446288 ) <<jwsmythe> <at> <jwsmythe.com>> on Thursday January 15, 2015 @06:08PM (#48824571) Homepage Journal

        They wanted bragging rights to be the early adopters. I was interested enough to say "I'll get them when the price is about $50 to $100."

        There's one up for bidding on eBay, currently at $105.50. I didn't put my bid in, because that's beyond what I'm willing to pay for a toy that I'll stop using in a few days. I'll check back in a year, and see what's selling at $50.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 15, 2015 @06:10PM (#48824583)

        sigh, please use computer terminology correctly. this is slashdot.

        "vapourware" is software which has been advertised and marketed, or demonstrated with a prototype, and yet never fully completed or released.

        Google Glass is real, completed, and released.

        Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can use incorrect terms to describe it. Why not also call it a pizza, since it's not a pizza?

        • Google Glass is real, completed, and released.

          It's none of those things. If it was, Google certainly would not have stopped selling the developer prototype. They'd have ramped it up into full production.

          Google Glass is dead in the the form demoed. There's a chance they might come up with some different concept. But there's a bigger chance that this removal of the Glass team from the Google incubator is a first step to selling it off or closing it down.

  • or slashdot, for that matter. might as well just mod_redirect this shit to goatse or dice.com
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 15, 2015 @05:05PM (#48824001)

    I was hoping to see some of these devices replace specialized fork lift pc's and inventory management systems. I know that a lot of things like the Honeywell hand helds and LXE's are tried and true but the idea of leaving an inventory listing in the corner of someones eye and allow verbal updates sounded like a game changer for replacing some of our existing systems.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I won't miss them, and hopefully nobody else will either.

    • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

      Sadly, something like Glass will eventually become popular.

      People do want wearables, and at the very least, a device that could eventually give you a huge amount of screen real estate without a monitor.

      Once someone has perfected glasses that look like glasses but are monitors, you're going to end up with people taking their computers with them everywhere. If they can do it with contacts, it will be 100x worse. It'll be like having an FPS HUD in real life.

      It's a short step from there to having people integ

  • ...and it's sitting in a box in the corner, having failed to adequately meet the needs of any of our ideas to use it with our products. And we really tried too. Epic fail.
    • By your company and their failure to integrate it, or by Google?

      I guess I can pick up a pain on eBay soon for cheap...

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I guess I can pick up a pain on eBay soon for cheap...

        What's in the glass?

        Pain.

        Stop! I hold at your neck the Gom Jabbar, the high-handed enemy. This one tracks and monetizes only humans.

      • by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbarahudson.gmail@com> on Thursday January 15, 2015 @08:08PM (#48825505) Journal

        Or you can wait a year for Apple to release theirs. It'll be designed for hipsters. That means that it looks like an ordinary pair of mirrored shades, and can overlay either eye, or both if you want 3D without "shutters LCD glasses".

        You'll even be able to wear your sunglasses at night [youtube.com] ...

        And it will be "only" $799".

        • Or you can wait a year for Apple to release theirs. It'll be designed for hipsters. That means that it looks like an ordinary pair of mirrored shades, and can overlay either eye, or both if you want 3D without "shutters LCD glasses".

          Or we can wait for 5 years for Microsoft to release theirs, a monocle. and you'll be talking about the revolution in the markeplace, and the best thing ever.

          Mick Jagger will be coaxed out of his rest home to sing Paint it black as Microsoft Mono's spokesoldster.

          Version two will be one of those Groucho glasses, complete with nose and mustachio.

      • Calm down, google fanboi, it is within the realm of possibility that google makes a product that isn't very good. But I acknowledge your one-liner quick retort is noted down in the annals of useless responses.
  • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Thursday January 15, 2015 @05:11PM (#48824059)

    Glass never had a chance, not because of the privacy issues but because it just didn't actually have the processing power or battery life to do anything useful. Considering the guy who designed it has worn wearable computers for more than a decade, I expected better.

    • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @05:20PM (#48824141) Journal
      I've seen few applications that wouldn't be better or more conveniently served with either a GoPro or a Smart Watch. The one application that I would have jumped on was banned by Google: facial recognition. I'm seriously bad at remembering names and faces, and having a HUD showing people's names would be some help in overcoming this social handicap.
      • I'm seriously bad at remembering names and faces, and having a HUD showing people's names would be some help in overcoming this social handicap.

        Think about this. You're using it to find the person's name. THEY think you're looking up the name, address, phone number, Facebook page and other personal bits.

        So, you've changed from a mildly socially clumsy human to a scary gargoyle. I'm not sure this is going to get you further along the social chain.

        • I blame the always-online data raping society we live in. I always envisioned this device to work offline with a local database that I'd fill myself as I went along. In other words: with no information other than what I gathered myself. But one can hardly blame people to be wary of these devices when companies like Google and Facebook get into the game.
      • This was always the killer app for me as well.

        The other thing I would have wanted different was the display to have been a translucent overlay, rather than an opaque box in the top right.

    • by aralin ( 107264 )

      ... and that is why I go with Apple products. At least I know that Apple goes 100% behind the devices they release and they will be around in 5 years and supported. Otherwise you end up with Zune or Google Glass or some other of the plethora of wanna be products from wanna be device companies.

      • ... and that is why I go with Apple products. At least I know that Apple goes 100% behind the devices they release and they will be around in 5 years and supported.

        Apple is a horrible counterexample.

        Pippin. Newton. Macintosh TV. Lisa. Macintosh Portable. eMate. You could argue for both the Apple III, AppleLink, and eWorld to have places on this list as well. And that's not even mentioning the unreleased products that were killed internally, such as Copeland and project Star Trek (well known), and the less well known ones I probably can't mention without violating NDA.

        Also, the 5 years has shortened to about 3 years, or even less; the flip on requiring 64 bit EF

        • by aralin ( 107264 )

          All your counter examples are from before 1998, also known as the "Second Coming of Steve Jobs". It was a different company back then.

          • All your counter examples are from before 1998, also known as the "Second Coming of Steve Jobs". It was a different company back then.

            Let me know when there's a third coming of Steve Jobs; until then, the bean counters are in control of Apple now, and have been for several years.

            • Sorry, but the other poster is right. 1997/8 was essentially a reverse takeover of Apple by NeXT. Not just Jobs, but the rest of the XeXT management team also. And Jobs had plenty of time when he knew he was dying to put the company into a state where it would continue in a good direction. None of your examples come from the last 16 years, and there's no reason to think that current Apple would ever become anything like the mismanaged company of the late 80s early 90s.

              • Sorry, but the other poster is right. 1997/8 was essentially a reverse takeover of Apple by NeXT. Not just Jobs, but the rest of the XeXT management team also. And Jobs had plenty of time when he knew he was dying to put the company into a state where it would continue in a good direction. None of your examples come from the last 16 years, and there's no reason to think that current Apple would ever become anything like the mismanaged company of the late 80s early 90s.

                First of all, I went to work for Apple in 2003, at which point in time I signed an NDA, and can therefore not give examples subsequent to that which are not based on public knowledge, no matter how much you bait me in your desire to have me do so.

                Second of all, Apple had largely been taken over by Sun Microsystems management from 2008 onwards, as middle management was hired in to deal with the power vacuum being created by the (we all saw it) impending death of Steve Jobs. His hands were no longer firmly o

        • Pippin. Newton. Macintosh TV. Lisa. Macintosh Portable. eMate. You could argue for both the Apple III, AppleLink, and eWorld to have places on this list as well. And that's not even mentioning the unreleased products that were killed internally, such as Copeland and project Star Trek (well known), and the less well known ones I probably can't mention without violating NDA.

          First, who provides support for "products" that never actually become "products"? This removes all of your "unreleased products" (in engineering, we call those "canceled R&D projects"). Quite frankly, your inclusion of those non-products in your argument just makes you sound like you're grasping at straws (which you obviously are, as seen below).

          As for the others, Pippin was sold to Bandai; thus Apple had no further responsibility to support it; Macintosh TV: Fairly good idea for the time, but miniscu

    • Considering the guy who designed it has worn wearable computers for more than a decade, I expected better.

      That's because he's had over 10 years to get accustomed to and accept the limitations of the devices. It was just about making something and hoping other people could make it useful, it was half a solution looking for the other half and then for a problem to actually solve.

      • On the contrary, his devices had a lot fewer limitations! Sure, they were bulkier, but he had a real input device (chording keyboard) and longer lasting batteries (not to mention the ability to change batteries).

        Not to mention, the main "killer app" he used to use (IIRC, custom Emacs macros for note-taking and looking up stuff) is nowhere to be found on Glass.

    • by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

      The current Glass XE hardware had potential, before they deployed KitKat on it and killed its battery life.

      The hardware would've been great if refreshed with a more suitable CPU such as a Snapdragon 400 (The Cortex-A7 is a highly power efficient CPU, which is why most Snapdragon 400-based phones get great battery life, and in fact it has been used by all Android Wear devices except the Moto 360, which gets panned for poor battery life even after Moto made great improvements in that regard, it's still poor c

      • Oh good... now all they need is a Twiddler2 and a software stack that doesn't upload your entire life (and the lives of everyone around you) to be data-mined and then it'll not suck.

  • I doubt this technology is going anywhere anytime soon. Whether Google or someone else, this tech will persist.
    Its release has at least sparked all sort of debate about the expectations and limits of privacy, not to mention raising the warning for the ubiquitous surveillance that will soon exist.
    Expect to see FISA subpoenas in the future for people's Google Glass (or successor) data so the government can keep tabs on everything.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @05:11PM (#48824063)

    The best direction for Glass now would be to pair with Segway, you could call the combined company NiCHé.

  • by Russ1642 ( 1087959 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @05:14PM (#48824083)

    Until it's on a store shelf it isn't for sale. It was never advertized as a consumer product. It wasn't even promoted. To get it you had to go out of your way to even find out where you were supposed to get the damn thing.

    • Until it's on a store shelf it isn't for sale.

      If I see a $1500 charge on my credit card, it's for sale.

      If there is an online retail shopping site, it's for sale. Glass Explore [google.com]

      • They never got it out of 'testing'. Chromecast is selling from Best Buy. Why isn't Google Glass sitting right next to it? Oh, it's because it's hardly even a beta product.

    • Until it's on a store shelf it isn't for sale. It was never advertized as a consumer product. It wasn't even promoted. To get it you had to go out of your way to even find out where you were supposed to get the damn thing.

      Yes, it's very well hidden, on the "devices" page in the Google Play store: https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com], right below the Nest devices and right above Chromebooks.

      • But you have to 1 - already know that something called Google Glass exists. 2 - know what the hell it is. 3 - be willing to shell out a fortune for an in-development toy. Each of those is the complete opposite of how to successfully sell consumer electronics. Google always meant for this iteration of the product to be for testing only. For example, they weren't even selling it in Canada.

        • But you have to 1 - already know that something called Google Glass exists.

          Either that or notice it while perusing the other devices Google has for sale.

          2 - know what the hell it is.

          Either that or read the description on the Play site.

          3 - be willing to shell out a fortune for an in-development toy.

          Granted on the fortune. $1500 is expensive.

  • Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Elledan ( 582730 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @05:14PM (#48824091) Homepage
    Best way to judge how successful a new technology is going to be is to look at how many clones stream out of China. Haven't seen a single Google Glass clone so far. Cloners may be cheap, but they're not crazy :)
  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @05:21PM (#48824151)

    One of the things that I always thought about Google Glass was this -- it has a billion good uses for work, but is stupid and creepy when you start walking around in public with it. It's creepy in more than one way - there's the "everyone thinks you're a stalker" thing, the weird head gestures you need to make to control it, the talking to yourself, and also the "Google now knows exactly what my eyes are tracking in any given image" kind of creepy. I'm not a millenial, so I probably sound like an old coot, but Google already knows enough about us - phones, search, Gmail, etc.

    Now, that all goes out the window when you're talking about work use. With all these cloud data centers hosting thousands of racks of servers, maintenance techs would be able to get real time info. Warehouses would be able to show human forklift drivers where stuff is. Aircraft and car mechanics would be able to get manuals without having to print/read paper job cards. Stuff like that is very useful - walking around with them in public is a different story.

    Maybe Google is realizing this and tailoring future devices for certain applications.

    • the "Google now knows exactly what my eyes are tracking in any given image" kind of creepy. I'm not a millenial, so I probably sound like an old coot, but Google already knows enough about us - phones, search, Gmail, etc.

      And that creepy stuff is why I'm not going to buy an eyepiece computer from Google. Or from Apple, or from Facebook (even Oculus), or from Microsoft. I'm already concerned with how much Google knows about me. I'm not giving them any more.

      That said, I would gladly buy an eyepiece computer, b

      • by Anonymous Coward

        That said, I would gladly buy an eyepiece computer, but it would have to be from a company that does not do data-mining at all. I'd actually be fine with one that doesn't even have mobile internet, and works as a self-contained computer.

        There is zero reason for such a device to exist with modern technology. There is no way to cram enough computing power and battery into a device that small to do anything more interesting than print "hey, aren't you cool?" on your eyeball in flashing lights. Hell, even the fictional Borg were capable in networked configuration.

      • I'd actually be fine with one that doesn't even have mobile internet, and works as a self-contained computer.

        It needs to be able to connect to a phone or hotspot, but it doesn't need its own cellular radio for reasons which should be obvious, but anyway the biggest one is that you want to keep using it when the cellular standards are upgraded because it will be spendy. Even small MiniPCI cards are a bit bulky for a wearable.

        I'd like an eyepiece computer very much, but it needs to be an eyetap. I won't suffer parallax and look like a dork. One or t'other, thankyouverymuch.

      • the "Google now knows exactly what my eyes are tracking in any given image" kind of creepy. I'm not a millenial, so I probably sound like an old coot, but Google already knows enough about us - phones, search, Gmail, etc.

        And that creepy stuff is why I'm not going to buy an eyepiece computer from Google. Or from Apple, or from Facebook (even Oculus), or from Microsoft. I'm already concerned with how much Google knows about me. I'm not giving them any more.

        That said, I would gladly buy an eyepiece computer, but it would have to be from a company that does not do data-mining at all. I'd actually be fine with one that doesn't even have mobile internet, and works as a self-contained computer.

        apple doesn't do data mining.

  • Screw them (Score:3, Interesting)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @05:28PM (#48824201)
    When Google, a company built on the concept of invading individual privacy, suddenly got all self-righteous and rejected my "What's the VIC's net worth?" facial recognition app, I knew the glasses were not going to succeed. You can't turn your back on your developers that way!
  • by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @05:34PM (#48824237) Journal
    It's a neat concept and all but it doesn't really add enough value vs just carrying my phone to justify the outlay. Especially for something experimental that isn't going to have much support and that I can only imagine has an incredibly awkward interface.
    • Lots of people pay outrageous prices for stuff. People with lots of disposable income. If you were pulling in solid 7 figures (or higher), the cost of Google glass would be insignificant, less than the cost of a lunch out to someone with an average salary. Buying a private jet vs flying international first class seems like not that much of an upgrade, considering you get to the same place either way, and you get a comfortable ride regardless, but jet ownership and usage is increasing, even through you'll pr

  • adios Explorers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kencurry ( 471519 ) on Thursday January 15, 2015 @06:00PM (#48824487)
    Got my official "see you later, dude" email today. quick takes:

    The Good:
    Display was quite good.
    No visual acuity problems for far-sighted eyes
    Good for hands free access to your phone

    The Bad:
    Terrible battery life
    Poor public image
    "Google vs. Apple" crappy tactics i.e., poor iPhone integration [We are trying to break new ground, why do we need that sh*t involved?]
    • by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

      Interesting, I'm in the Explorers program but haven't gotten that email yet.

      Surprised they even bothered to send that to you.

      I agree with most of your assessment, except they've done even worse as far as iOS integration with Android Wear, and to be honest, I believe many of the iPhone integration issues were iOS limitations, not choices Google made. iOS has always been shit for "nonstandard" Bluetooth devices - for example, most Bluetooth OBD adapters don't work with iOS since iOS doesn't support Bluetooth

  • (sigh) long live this headline format [slashdot.org].
  • Google is now working on a version of Glass that won't get you punched in the face when you wear it in public.
  • How much will Google charge for their next test product that fails? $3,000? $5,000? . . . .
  • If Google really wants to succeed with the technorati, they need to come out with monocle, pince-nez and quizzing glasses models. Plus protective goggles for the lumberdandies.
  • "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of Glassholes suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, and this not by the usual biweekly punch in the face by a creeped out passer-by"

  • by 200_success ( 623160 ) on Friday January 16, 2015 @03:36AM (#48827575)
    Public interest would have been higher if they had picked a more appropriate name, like Googly Eyes.
  • I have been a GG user for about 10 months. I just received my 5th replacement GG. Google's engineers were never able to fix the thin-film mirror on the optical cube. Under certain environmental conditions the mirror would start to bubble, rendering GG useless. The replacement process was "Google-centric" and not very customer oriented, particularly for users with GG prescription glasses. The Google team never really understood what it means to be in the eye-wearable business. I still believe in the GG conc

There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.

Working...