Display: High resolution display is the equivalent of a 25 inch high definition screen from eight feet away.
Battery: One day of typical use. Some features, like video calls and video recording, are more battery intensive.
I don't think Google's Marketing department realizes what "tech specs" really means. When I talk about displays and batteries at bare minimum I want resolution and mAh.
I understand the need for translating it into something the average consumer could parse, but that doesn't belong under the heading "tech specs". This is a prototype device being marketed to the earliest of early adopters, and actual technical specifications are important to that crowd.
Actually, you want watt-hours, because mAh is also a meaningless measurement without knowing the voltage of the battery (and how that changes through the discharge cycle).
I've been a Glass Explorer since July. If you're debating getting one but have questions, feel free to ping me or reply here and I'll try to answer to the best of my ability. I've also volunteered to do Hangouts if you'd rather do face-to-face and I've chatted with some folks already. [0]
(I'm not a Google employee or otherwise affiliated.)
The Glass doesn't do much computation locally, so it can't do a good job of "building a profile about you". It requires a linked phone to do most of its magic (e.g. GPS navigation).
So, really, the question should be: "does it frighten you that you're constantly carrying around one of the most sophisticated, widespread monitoring devices ever invented, in the form of your smartphone?"
The answer to that is that I acknowledge these devices generate a lot of data, and I take some moderate steps to restrict how much data they actually get. My Nexus 5 runs a modified KitKat that turns off most of the tracking stuff, for example.
Doesn't farming processing out to the cloud make it do a _better_ job of "building a profile about you"? If the device could do local computation, it wouldn't need to be sent up to the mothership...
I'm not sure I was clear before. As far as I know, it is not "farming processing out to the cloud". The processing happens on the phone you're carrying.
In other words, if you already carry a smartphone, you are presumably not giving Google substantially more data than they would already have from your use of the smartphone. And, as I said, it seems like it's easier to control Google's access to data on your smartphone than on Glass (custom ROMs, etc.).
I haven't tried flashing my Glass yet with anything other than the stock ROM, but I know people have done this with success. So that route is open if you want to really lock it down.
It's tiny, but it's not pixelated. It's rather high-res for its size; you can't see the pixels.
> killer app?
For me at least, the killer functionality comes in the form of wink-to-take-a-picture. Especially when travelling, it's amazing to be able to take many pictures from your POV instantly without even having to really do anything. This leaves you with a huge amount of both significant and insignificant pictures that together tell a story.
How has the voice recognition in public spaces suited you over time? Based off my brief demo, it wasn't too great. I placed it at or just barely below the voice recognition on the Google Now & Siri app on my iPhone (neither of which are too impressive atm).
I don't even try to use voice when it's windy outside; it'll hardly get it right. I fault the hardware for that.
In terms of the commands, it's decent, could be better. I wish it had open-ended commands like Siri/Google Voice Search instead of being restricted to a list. Well, it sort-of does have open-ended commands by performing a "google" search. For example, in the past I've been able to say "OK Glass... Google... In five hour remind me to call Bill" and it would set a Google Now reminder. That specific feature has appeared and disappeared over time, I think they're still working on it.
My experience has been very good for colloquial English. Text messages I've sent where I've used a lot of jargon or proper names, that you wouldn't find in a dictionary, Glass understandably fails.
I shoot pool and even in a loud pool hall I can almost whisper my commands and Glass picks them up just fine. What is neat is that Auto Awesome will stitch together clips of my game, and at the end of the night I have a highlight of my match.
Glass's camera is really good at taking quick photos of things and people that tend to move before you can pull out your camera. This makes it a useful tool for capturing cute baby or cat moments as they happen.
> My understanding is that its not AR-like, but instead you kind of look down a tiny pixelized screen.
That's about right. I wouldn't say "tiny", though -- it's a very small form factor and it's unobtrusive, for sure, but it's not hard to shift your attention to it when you want to.
It's not really "pixelated", either. The resolution is 640x360, so the apparent pixel density is extremely high when it's on a small surface. I certainly can't distinguish individual pixels, for instance.
> What's the experience like?
The experience is a bit like having a virtual assistant that you can access without using your hands. Imagine having a slightly smarter version of Google Now without taking your phone out of your pocket, for example.
> What do you like about it?
The POV recordings are super cool. I can show people what I'm working on close up and provide step-by-step directions. Normally you would need a specialized camera rig and a GoPro for that. But using it this way feels so much more natural. I helped a nontechnical friend upgrade a laptop by showing him where to unscrew and open things.
I could see a lot of applications along these lines -- e.g. imagine a Khan Academy but for car repair, filmed from a Glass.
> Is there a killer app yet?
I haven't seen a compelling reason that would make it worth $1,500 for the average consumer. I'm optimistic, though.
This is sort of meta, but I believe Glass is at least partially an experiment to discover how Glass should be used. Send it out to the most diehard people, and let them figure out how to use it and write their own apps -- then take note of that and build a business around it. "Build it and they will come" is usually a terrible strategy imo, but there are definitely a lot of developers looking at interesting ways of using it.
> Would you prefer this built into more fashionable frames?
I wear glasses and I find contacts a little uncomfortable, so the first generation of Glass was only a novelty for me: They were impossible to put on if you were also wearing your regular prescription frames.
The new generation, with prescription lenses available, made things a lot easier. Because I'm wearing it as a purely functional item, I care less about how it looks, but I can see why people would want more attractive versions. It still doesn't feel very sleek.
You can think of Glass like an android screen that is always with you. If you tilt your head up or tap the touchpad on the side, it will turn on and you can interact with your voice. The display itself reflects right into the back your eye, and after a few hours of use, it becomes somewhat addictive and you'll miss it when you take it off.
My favorite thing to use Glass for is driving directions. It is about on par with the Google Navigation on Android and isn't distracting once you get use to it. Want to see the next turn? Slightly tilt your head up and it appears in your vision, otherwise, navigation will read you turn by turn directions.
Don't forget that Glass is Android, so if you are doing development on the Android platform, you don't have to do a lot of extra training to begin moving your apps to Glass.
jxf is far more qualified to answer your question than I, but I did a quick write-up on Hubski from when Google took Glass on tour: http://hubski.com/pub?id=117777
That was just a quick, unvarnished reaction to putting Glass on and using it for a short time.
Maybe jxf can critique my initial experience and speak to how it might have evolved after using it over an extended period of time.
I've been a Glass Explorer since December, so I can provide my experience as well.
I don't know that Glass has transformed my daily routine so much as it has given me other options. Most of what a I do with Glass could be accomplished with other devices, but with Glass some things are more convenient or less distracting. Navigation and Hangouts/SMS being the two most significant features. The fact that I can listen to a message and respond to it completely through text-to-speech and voice recognition is tremendous and I rarely need to use the monitor for most tasks.
I don't have prescription lenses, but as I understand with those models, it is part of the frame and not something you can detach. I have the sunglasses visor, and that is easy to add and remove as long as you have removed them from your head.
The battery has always charged quickly for me, but with my usage I can get through the day without needing to recharge. Therefore I'm recharging over night and it has never been a problem. I do have an external battery pack that I carry with me and if I'm going to be wearing Glass in excess of my typical usage, I find I can recharge Glass while I'm wearing the device but I have to sacrifice using the ear buds as they occupy the same micro USB port.
Wi-Fi works but usually I'm tethered to my phone over Bluetooth. I have T-Mobile and good coverage in my area, so I've not had a lot of issues with slow data and can't comment on that.
I think if you want to feel like your getting your value out of it, you would want to fully embrace it. If you have that sort of disposable income, it isn't even a question. If the price makes you any hesitant, you might not feel you are getting a good ROI.
I'm not undervaluing the development opportunities. For $1,500, you can also get an idea of its capabilities and tinker with your own Android apps. The prospect of doing that in a green field (the way iOS felt 6 years ago) again is worth the cash.
I wouldn't say that Glass has been transformative for me in an everyday way. It's just enabled new kinds of interactions that I wouldn't have thought about before.
To take one example, I feel that I'm much more likely to use Glass to film myself doing something when I want to show someone else how to do it. I've used it at a whiteboard quite a number of times and I've found that to be extremely helpful, especially when I'm sharing my ideas or work with others remotely.
Before Glass, I probably would take a picture of the whiteboard and email it with some thoughts.
> Is it easy to decouple Glass from prescription glasses?
On the initial version of Glass, you couldn't really wear Glass and your own prescription glasses at the same time. It just wasn't comfortable. This was a huge drawback for me since I wear glasses, so the first version was sort of a bust.
The v2 Explorer model supports custom lenses, and those lenses are very easy to add or remove. They fit snugly into a tight metal/plastic brace embedded into the top frame. It's very easy to remove or swap them. However, the lenses are expensive (iirc $400) and it's unclear to me whether they're covered by health insurance.
> How long is the typical battery life in your experience? How long does it take to recharge?
Battery life is pretty abysmal. It's maybe ~120 minutes of active use, tops. I'm using "active use" here to mean swiping, recording, taking pictures, etc. It will last for a whole day if you just occasionally wake it up to ask for directions, take a recording, et cetera.
It charges pretty quickly, but I haven't actually timed it. I'd guess 0% ⇒ 100% can be done in a couple of hours or less.
> Has slow internet connectivity been an issue (via cellphone or Wifi)?
Not that I've found. Slow Internet doesn't affect any Glass more than it does your cellphone. You can still take pictures, record data, et cetera.
> Would you recommend Glass to someone who likes tech, but doesn't feel the need to be married to it?
I think you definitely have to be a gadget nerd to pay $1,500 for this and feel like it was a good idea. The novelty wears off fast (which is partially a good thing since it's a testament to the engineering design that it feels so natural).
If you're not going to actually carry Glass around and wear it a few times a week, you're not going to get much value out of it. It's kind of pointless to put it on at home. I should mention that I walk a lot (almost everywhere: work, the gym, the grocery store, etc.) and usually don't drive unless I'm leaving my city.
FWIW, one more data point on this: I haven't tried using Glass while working out. I always leave it at home when I go to the gym, mostly because I just assumed that getting my sweat all over it isn't great for its longevity. It doesn't feel very rugged (but I've accidentally sat on it quite a few times with no apparent harm).
What's it been like wearing it in public? Any interesting interactions with curious people? Any vocal hatred directed your way? I noticed you live in Virginia, so I'm especially curious!
> Any interesting interactions with curious people?
All the time! Some people have never heard of Glass and think I'm wearing a surgical implant of some kind. One woman at the grocery store thought I was blind and that Glass was helping me see via the camera.
Kids, especially, are the best. There's a lot of "wow, I'm living in the future!" or "that's so cool!" reactions, especially if their parents let them try it on.
> Any vocal hatred directed your way?
I've never had any vocal hatred, other than some occasionally derisive or skeptical looks. It's hard to blame people since wearing Glass does still look somewhat silly, even to me.
That said, Charlottesville is a pretty easygoing city, and I have the random genetic luck of being a white male, so I'm not surprised that other people who aren't in my situation might have encountered hostility.
> What's it been like wearing it in public?
I don't wear it every day or carry it around as frequently as I do, say, my phone. For example, I leave my Glass at home whenever I plan to go to the gym, because I'm worried about leaving it in my car or in the gym cubbyholes (we don't have lockers).
When I do wear it, I usually forget I'm wearing it until I want to use something on it (e.g. check my mail while I'm waiting in line somewhere, read the news, etc.). It's very unobtrusive.
You should expect hostility if you walk around pointing a camcorder at everyone all day without their consent, because in that case you deserve hostility.
Similar sentiments were expressed with equal fervor at the introduction of various communications devices. The hatred of someone just talking on a cell phone was astounding when such devices began ubiquity, moreso when "hands-free" devices made a debut (someone walking down the street talking at normal volume to nobody apparent was very strange). Still causes tension.
I don't mean to play devils advocate, but that doesn't seem like a valid counter. One of these novel technologies simply changes the expected modes and observed behaviors of people in "typical social scenarios" and naturally, as you point out, put a lot of people off center.
The latter allows you to actively interact with others around you, even if only through the passive act of stored video, which IMHO is more than just a change in social protocol.
I think once people understand how these devices are useful, social norms will begin to emerge, just as they have for other technologies.
For instance, the car-phone. Well, now the cell phone. Generally, we understand now that driving while on the cell phone is not a good thing to do. It took 10-15 years of slow driving, cops thinking people were drunk but instead just talking, and fatal accidents before we began to understand the link and creating laws.
And it goes the other way. In the 80's and 90's, beepers were not allowed in schools because "that's what drug dealers used to sell drugs." Virtually every teenager has a smartphone, capable of way more communication than a 1 or 2 way beeper did. They - probably still enforce the beeper rule today even though drug deals happen on cell phones way more than beepers these days.
Actually getting to my point, Glass wearers that wear them into Strip Clubs, high class or pretentious bars, or other private gatherings where it has grabbed headlines for being a problem are learning this the hard way. Google's enemies would pay for bad Glass press all day every day. And I'm sure they do.
Wearing Glass today is stepping into uncharted territory. You have to be more sensitive to the capabilities of the device simply due to the environment and people's expectations (You are wearing an NSA face drone!). My guess is, if you understand what and why you are wearing it and you use some judgement it won't get you into trouble.
Glass isn't recording all the time. Just as the camera on your phone isn't recording all the time...
Of course it is possible with the right application installed that you could accomplish that for either device it isn't typical.
Just as with your cell phone, you need to be respectful of others. If someone doesn't want me to film them with Glass, I don't. It has never been a problem for me and frankly once I've spoken with others and explained how Glass works, it isn't a problem for others around me.
No one cares if you are carrying a camcorder around, they care if you aren't respecting their privacy and are recording. That is a social problem and not a new technological problem introduced by Glass.
Considering the price you pay shows that you're interested and willing to invest serious time into it, I'd imagine that the next version of this will cost more as well.
Exactly what's holding me back. I'd love to try them out, but this is the same thing that was sold to some people last spring. There's no way it won't be replaced soon.
So, what kind of software was developed during the original explorer program? Outside of a head mounted camera, what other use-cases has Glass shown itself useful for?
This sort of use, having a lot of context-specific information to do a job, is the best category of use that I can think of. It seems to me that others who need to move around, see specific information, and need their hands free, like mechanics, would also benefit.
I haven't found it useful with any software to the point that I can justify buying it as a practical device, but it has been a lot of fun to experiment with. I wore it on a 100K run a month ago, and while I didn't have enough time to write software to do what I originally wanted to do (put what I was looking at on a website every minute or so, and enable friends to hassle me during the run), it made taking pictures a lot easier.
Does anyone else feel like they could have done a much better job integrating the "glass" portion into the frames?
I understand wanting to be able to replace change the frames and lenses, which is cool. And perhaps it needs to be able to be adjusted depending on the users eye position.
But I still feel like it looks like an MVP, despite being worked on now for at least a few years and with the massive resources of Google. It also doesn't seem like the design of the outside portion of the device would necessarily conflict with development of the internal api and software.
I can't help but feel like if Apple, for example, had put out this technology it would look a lot better, even if it took longer to get to market. And I am not an Apple fanboy by any stretch of the imagination.
I also feel like they are underestimating the importance of the "look" of the device. I get that it is targeted to techies, and that as people get used to new technologies styles / opinions change. But I am pretty confident that if these devices do succeed and become mainstream, the end result will not look like a pair of glasses with a USB drive stuck on the side.
It's possible they are keeping the form factor the same so it is obvious what they are to outsiders. There has been some backlash against the things, which would likely be higher if it was even more covert. I'm sure once these are more mainstream they will become much more stylish and discrete.
I think one of the more interesting things about the Glass product is the full customer support that Google provides. Now, I admit to having just one data point: a friend who is older and slightly handicapped, who found Glass to be somewhat practical. She said the the support from Google was very good, to the point where they would initiate communication.
Isn't this level of support something new for Google? It is true that developer support via usenet (Google Groups), etc. is pretty good, but the customer support for Glass seems like a new thing.
Display: High resolution display is the equivalent of a 25 inch high definition screen from eight feet away.
Battery: One day of typical use. Some features, like video calls and video recording, are more battery intensive.
I don't think Google's Marketing department realizes what "tech specs" really means. When I talk about displays and batteries at bare minimum I want resolution and mAh.