Feeds

back to article Google Glass: Would you pay a mere $299 to plop one on your brow?

A researcher at Taiwan's largest private market research firm is of the considered opinion that when Google Glass goes on sale to the public, it will be sold for the low, low price of $299. At a Taipei seminar on wearable devices, Jason Tsai of the Topology Research Institute told reporters of his estimate, based on the bill of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Nope

Would not buy them for three pounds.

Time to entertain the Luddite in me and get away from all this invasive tech.

18
6
Big Brother

Re: Nope

Good luck avoiding this tech....

2
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Nope

You might as well superglue a rubber cock to your forehead...

I'm not interested until they can be put into normal sunglasses so that you don't look like a complete dork wearing it...

22
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Nope

NOT wearing them will save you from abuse, intimidation and personal injury.

6
1
Bronze badge

Re: Nope

Tinfoil commandos who claim they will attack "Glasses" wearers are fun. They are either:

+ Little people hiding behind a keyboard in their parents basement

+ Lying on the pavement, screaming in pain after they attack the wrong glasses wearer and get a demonstration in self defense

Their stupidity is clearly shown by the fact that NOBODY gave a damn when I walked through various citiies with a DSLR on my chest (That can do movies AND WIFI streaming AND with a battery grip has better endurance) and a smartphone in my hand (that could show pictures/control the DSLR). Not to mention that unit has better capabilities. So if someone wants to spy on your totally uninteresting life - there are better tools than glasses and no one cares/sees them

8
18
Bronze badge
Meh

Re: Nope

But a walking around with a camera already sends out a social signal that everyone else can interpret.

You like to take photographs of stuff and that's fine.

Glasses are not for taking photographs - at least not because you "like to take photographs" - but they're a more ominous omni-tool.

Until they have some socially defined role to fill in the lives of the people wandering about be-spectacled there is going to be awkwardness.

Especially since they come from Google - #1 slurper (not counting the NSA) of personal information. I don't mind Google slurping data on people who use their products (although I'm always a little un-enthused when having to write to gmails), but with glasses they're going to wind up being able to slurp data on people who specifically do not use Google products.

I could see some form of glasses coming in handy. I would not want some that are connected to the web though. Give it a small card that I can load some map-info onto and record video and pictures onto, and let it remain offline. That might be a product I'd consider not having to try and hide from when I see it (or politely ask the person to stare elsewhere)

9
2
Bronze badge

Re: Nope

@Eguro

Yes, that "touri special" (Camera on chest, smartie in hand) sends out a signal that everyone can interpret. Just like the scene in "Machete" with the two guards discussing that "nobody sees/checks/doubts the Mexican".

In both cases the signal can be (and in case of Machete was :) ) wrong. It is easy to use that misconception against people and spy on them, broadcast live etc. with the touri special setup. Your camera and controller (smartphone) become invisible because they are "normal". You can even lug around and use a lot more and better observation/spy equipment that way without anyone complaining.

And that is a "less than 1000€ / do it yourself" setup. Now imagine a "real spy". Heck even the tech available legally through a short web search is a lot smaller and less obvious than glass.

2
4
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: edge_e Re: Nope

"Good luck avoiding this tech...." You seem to believe this tech is just so gosh-darn and unbelievably necessary that we just won't be able to survive without it. Sorry, this is not mobile phones 2.0, or the new wristwatch. Wearable tech has been around for decades, and even projector glasses are not new. Sorry if it bursts your hype-bubble but I simply don't see why even a tiny fraction of nerds will pay out for these, let alone average Joes. And that is not just my opinion, that's from talking to other nerds and IT folk who are the prime target market. If you want to pretend uptake is "inevitable" then please do supply some coherent reasoning to back up your belief.

6
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Nope

A guy had his own device ripped off his face in a McDonalds, so why do you expect that this tech will be tolerated?

1
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: Nope

@mmeier

You are right of course. There's plenty of gear available for covertly spying on folks.

I however believe that the word covertly tells us most of the story. The reason people could respond negatively to glasses would be that they don't actually like random people video-taping or photographing them - hence covertly.

Now sure, you might take a picture of a giant church and I might happen to be in front of said church. That's not a problem for most. The problem arises when you and (let's say) 5% of people are (more or less) randomly taking pictures/videos and sending those of to God knows where. Suddenly it becomes hard to know where or when I wont be recorded, who might wind up with said recordings, and what reason there is for those recordings being kept except "money for Google".

And yes - the gov (especially UK gov) is recording lots and lots on CCTV. This might be over the top - and surely is a conversation that could/should be had. The CCTV however at least has other reasons than some corporation making money off of innocent bystanders (lack of better term?).

Like I said - a non-internet version would be much more appreciated, at least by me.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: edge_e Nope

@Matt Bryant

I presume he meant "Good luck avoiding it.."

As in even if you don't buy one you're still being filmed/recorded by the people you pass each day who HAVE bought one. That's what I took it to mean, not that we won't be able to resist, but that enough people will buy them that walking around your average town/city you'll pass in front of a fair few.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: edge_e Nope

I think he just likes being angry about things.

0
0
Silver badge

Until you can control what data goes where; I'm not interested at any price. The HUD would be useful; but handing over info about *everything* you're doing doesn't seem right to me. Also it needs a 'recording' light so you don't get randomly beaten up if you're just sitting there reading.

8
1

Fair credit to you, but for anyone with an android phone, using gmail and with location services enabled, I don't see much more information heading in Google's direction.

Certainly a sub $300 price point will be a lot more palatable for the masses, and may well spur rapid adoption. I think it could be exciting to see what apps developers can come up with - much like in like the first few years of iOS.

The price point will also set a bar for other wearable tech. Apple will of course charge some sort of premium, but it will be viewed against the cost of Google Glass and will possibly limit what they can get away with (assuming the mentioned price is accurate).

0
0
Anonymous Coward

"Until you can control what data goes where"

Google are The Borg. That's never going to happen...

3
1
Silver badge

"Until you can control what data goes where"

Google are The Borg. That's never going to happen..

That's exactly what I mean - you can't run a device that personal without controlling it. Android would not suffice. You need some "Get the fuck off my lawn" flavour of linux or something that does the job but doesn't leak.

1
0
Silver badge

Fair credit to you, but for anyone with an android phone, using gmail and with location services enabled, I don't see much more information heading in Google's direction.

That's three assumptions.

0
0
Bronze badge

no way

Even if you PAID me $299 I wouldn't wear it.

15
1
JDX
Gold badge

Re: no way

How interesting. I'm sure some people baulked at the idea of carrying a phone with them all the time too.

The whole "it looks dorky" argument is really pretty dumb. In large metropolitan centres like London/New York/LA/Tokyo, people wear far weirder things every day. It looks dumb people walking around with masks on their faces but they still do it. Half the T-shirts with slogans on look dumb. Punk haircuts, tattoos on faces and most body piercings strike me as idiotic but people don't really care what I think.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: no way

How interesting. I'm sure some people baulked at the idea of carrying a phone with them all the time too.

I don't think that was ever the case, or maybe for some vanishingly small value of "some".

Baulked at some of the people waffling obnoxiously into those early bricks perhaps, but then that's still the case.

0
2
Silver badge

Sounds Reasonable

A $300 price tag for this fashion statement is far more reasonable than $1200. Getting the price down to the sunglasses range like this will eliminate the guilt associated with laughing at individuals because whole groups of people will be looking silly, not just a lone nerd.

2
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: Sounds Reasonable

Always thinking of others, I share the feeling. But nightmares can come true! What happens if YOU are the lone nerd!!! Given the current appreciation of privacy and style, that reality could come to be. With you laughing lonely, they would lock you up for being a lunatic because you show some sort of emotion.

0
0
Bronze badge

@Don Jefe - Re: Sounds Reasonable

Wrote :- "A $300 price tag for this fashion statement "

But is isn't a fashion statement, never will be. It's a statement that you are a dork.

6
2
JDX
Gold badge

Re: @Don Jefe - Sounds Reasonable

Because obviously people on an IT forum are the ones we'd ask what constitutes fashion.

4
0
FAIL

"it will be sold for the low, low price of $299"

It may well be offered for that.

But will it be sold?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Most people who wear glasses would pay NOT to wear them.

Geordi La Forge - beam me up.

4
1
Silver badge
Stop

Really?

I find hard to believe that the hordes of people who still wear glasses are so unhappy about them, considering how contact lenses and laser surgeries are cheap and available. There are people whose eyes cannot be fixed by these, but they are a small minority.

Personally, I prefer to have glasses than contacts, and I did not bother with laser surgery so far, even though my slight near-sightedness would be easily fixed.

5
3
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: AC

"Most people who wear glasses would pay NOT to wear them...." Worse for Google, most of the people that do wear glasses daily and would therefore be a target market CANNOT become Glassholes because they cannot wear prescription lenses and Google Glass sets at the same time, not unless they switch to contacts. And then there is also developments in LEDs set into contacts (http://io9.com/5861725/engineers-have-created-an-led-display-you-can-wear-like-a-contact-lens), which - when they develop to a marketable product - will remove the main problem of being a Glasshole, the dorky headset.

2
0
Bronze badge

@Ratfox - Re: Really?

Wrote :- "I find hard to believe that the hordes of people who still wear glasses are so unhappy about them"

Yes, but they are the people who already wear glasses. Getting people who don't need tham to start wearing them unless they really need to is different matter. Don't you remember when you first needed them? I thought it was the end of the world.

These days I wear contacts and do not know how anybody can stand glasses when contacts are an option. A minute each morning to put them in, and like a miracle my sight is perfect with no clobber around my head, peripheral vision and all. They are even cheaper.

"Personally, I prefer to have glasses than contacts"

Does not sounds like you do much practical work. I'm currently digging a cable trench in the hot weather. Glasses would be constantly obscuring with dripping sweat (sorry about the detail) and sliding off when I look down. Ever worked under a car with glasses ? - constantly being ripped off your face by exhaust brackets etc. And in the rain ...

3
1
Bronze badge

Re: @Ratfox - Really?

@Nuke

I am one of those persons who dislike contacts. Tried them a few times, disliked the feeling, disliked the installation process. Back to good quality glasses. And a "sport glass" for certain work.

Now granted, last time I dug trenches we where using Badgers instead of shovels :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Pionierpanzer_Dachs_%282008%29.jpg

0
3
Silver badge
Thumb Up

>Most people who wear glasses would pay NOT to wear them.

We have the winner.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Really?

A lot of people cannot wear contacts (I can't, I wear tri-focals) and surgery does not fix everything, let alone being able to afford it.

By the end of the day, the back of ears are sore and so is the bridge of my nose. Not to mention the pain in the ass of keeping them clean every 5 minutes.

Pay to wear glasses I don't absolutely need? Oh HELL NO!

1
0
JDX
Gold badge

>>Most people who wear glasses would pay NOT to wear them.

Clearly they wouldn't, otherwise LASIK would be far more common. Any professional working person can afford laser treatment if they really want to... I did because I really was prepared to pay not to wear glasses, but most people are not.

1
2
Silver badge

I think the whole "ablating the surface of your eyeball with a high wattage pulse laser" thing probably turns a few people off.

4
0

Yes, a $300 turd is far more reasonable than a $1200 turd, but it's still a turd.

7
2
Silver badge

Still sounds like a lot of money

I'm sure there are cheaper ways of looking like a prick.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Still sounds like a lot of money

> I'm sure there are cheaper ways of looking like a prick.

Like clutching to a smartphone or wearing a Bluetooth earpiece? Or crossing on red while reading e-mails? I'd rather wear a HUD a keep a tiny screen-less Nexus 0 in my pocket :)

6
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Still sounds like a lot of money

Two words: Black Turtleneck.

Cheap and rather prickish.

5
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Still sounds like a lot of money

And more expensive ways of looking like a bigger pick. Holding an iPhone for example.

0
1
Gold badge
Happy

Re: Still sounds like a lot of money

"I'm sure there are cheaper ways of looking like a prick."

In the words of Armstrong and Miller.

"Ponytail!"

0
0
Silver badge

I'll be surprised if it goes beyond geekdom

Compare with smartphones. They've existed for over a decade, since well before the iPhone became the first smartphone that non-geeks wanted to own (I don't count Blackberry because its non-geek owners didn't use it as a smartphone, but merely as a phone that let them access their email on the go and/or send text messages for free)

I really don't see Google Glass becoming something that regular people want to own, like how they do an iPhone or Galaxy. Could they sell a few million if it becomes a hot geek toy? Sure. But expect regular folk to look at wearers funny in the same way they probably did back a decade ago at people using a Nokia Communicator to ssh into their home server.

Glass doesn't have any killer app that will make a regular person want to own one. Perhaps that will change, but if so it won't be the 1.0 version, it will be some future version, perhaps not made by Google at all, that crosses that divide.

2
0
Silver badge

Price not the problem

Personally I wouldn't pay for the Google Glass, not would I wear it. What is most worrying though, is that there will be some twats that will pay and I want to know how to avoid being "recorded" by them.

I never really cared about this thing called "privacy", but recently I feel that is becoming very important.

Google is becoming synonymous with everything that I hate about "commercialism"....

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Price not the problem

"Personally I wouldn't pay for the Google Glass, not would I wear it"

At least not until they bring out an IR filter mod. to see through women's clothing.....

http://www.omg-facts.com/Sex/In-1998-Sony-Accidently-Sold-700-000-Cam/465

1
2
Bronze badge
Joke

Re: Price not the problem

" I wouldn't pay for the Google Glass, not would I wear it" At least not until they ... see through women's clothing....."

How about an app to assess her build and pick a matching nude model from a database to superimpose? Would need an option not to go below size 8 or above 16, or whatever your taste.

1
1

It won't take off at least not in the next 5 years

Google Glass is a brilliant idea and a fantastic progression of existing technology and ideas, but it won't go mainstream. Not at least for five years.

Sure it looks fantastic and breathtaking when you've got people wearing it skydiving into the conference centre while broadcasting it on Google hangouts or someone going around a BMX course or just walking around the beaches of California... If you are in London are you going to wear them on the tube? You'd have to be awfully naive to wear them on public transport and in certain places.

Beauty of a mobile phone is you are holding it or you can put it away in an inside pocket or whatever. Damn sight harder to take anyway than some glasses which are resting on their lugs...

Apple and Samsung seem to be taking the watch route at least you can hide that with a sleeve.

1
4
Silver badge

But will I be able to use it?

Look, I have this problem called presbyopia. It comes with age and I need ever increasing magnification in my glasses to see anything "up close" (or get longer arms as my father used to say). Given that the device is mere fractions of an inch from my aged eyeball, can I really see it or will I get a fuzzy image that is useless.

Time will tell, but right now is the +2.25 glasses at Costco!

2
0
Silver badge

Re: But will I be able to use it?

Nobody can see things fractions of an inch from their eyeballs. The optics are set to make it seem like a screen 3 meters away, so that is fine for you.

Indeed, better than me, for with my myopia, I cannot see the display well, it seems too far away.

2
0
Thumb Down

Re: But will I be able to use it?

And if like me you have astigmatism (and presbyopia but that's old age) you are screwed with this type of display. I suppose the software could distort the image to match my prescription...

Excuse me, I need to pop round to the patent office.

Phil.

0
0
Bronze badge

eh??

christ, It's not like you have to have it stapled to your head FFS.

I have a pair of MOD Lives. Pretty similar spec wise.

I wrote software for them to allow me to use them flying my paraglider and paramotor - speed, alti, wind speed, etc.

Google glass offers similar benefits for certain applications/activities.

No one is forcing you to wear it 24 hours a day.

5
1

Apparently around San Francisco, the term used for those wearing these is "glassholes."

4
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.