ITT: How and why this failed

>>57097037
It was never ment for the general public anon.

>>57097037
price most likeyl

>>57097037
>botnet glasses
i'm glad they did

>>57097042
Of course it was. People get mad at surveillance devices unless they're widespread.

>>57097037
>expensive
>serves no real purpose
>huge stigma attached to wearing them in public

Better question: Why would they ever succeed?

no one wants to be recorded 24/7

cctv is bad enough as it is

also they were exclusively worn by grade A cuntfaggots, to let you know how bad that is, other grade A cuntfaggots include:
>vegans
>militant cyclists
>nu-males
>macfags

Did it actually do anything other than take pictures and give directions?

>>57097105

yeah, you could view porn on it

>>57097105

AR games and >>57097108

>>57097105
it recorded and uploaded everything you saw to google's cloud where it would be passed through face recognition software and then stored in a giant NSA database

>>57097037
Because they didn't use jews for marketing

All they had to do was pay a few top-100 music stars to slip them into their music videos and talk about them on social media and they would have picked up enough steam to get rolling.

Whenever you make a product cool for young girls to buy and young... uhh... unruly, urban youths of unreported ethnicity to steal them then you've got enough publicity to go big.

>>57097072
Nobody cares about surveillance.

File: 1468719432486.jpg (44KB, 446x413px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 446x413px

>>57097121

>>57097128

Google is not Apple

Google majorly relies on word of mouth marketing

>>57097133
You honestly have to be in denial to believe that it wasn't invented as a reason to put a camera on everyone's face.

>>57097145

but it failed. useful for government technologies like smartphones always succeed, even if they success must be forced.

this died out pretty quickly, which just points out it was a random commercial endeavour

File: 1472584045159.jpg (117KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1280x720px

>>57097140
Google relies on being a megalith in the cyber world.

If it wants to create products like apple and have idiots buy them and make them trendy then they need to insert them into D.J. Watermelon's music video where he rolls up in his expensive car and does his tribal dance as the female pavement apes shake their booty

Because the idea of people walking around qith a camera strapped to their heads is unsetteling at best

>>57097241
>If it wants to create products like apple and have idiots buy them

It doesnt

>>57097241
who hurt you anon?

>>57097230
>useful for government technologies like smartphones always succeed

That's not true. Smartphones succeeded, honestly, in large part due to Apple making them trendy.
They were also a huge convenience. Having a camera, web browser, music player, and GPS in your pocket was unprecedented. They existed before the iPhone, and Apple made them desirable.

Key escrow was a government technology that was completely discarded by the commercial realm.

The Google Glass was neither convenient or trendy, so it never caught on. It didn't do anything your smartphone couldn't, and made you look like a huge doofus in the process.

>>57097070
>Better question: Why would they ever succeed?

As an excellent tool for researchers when documenting.

>>57097318

While there were smartphones before the iPhone, I think the iPhones real selling point was it's massive touch screen display that didn't need a stylus to work properly.

Glass' real problem was the fact that it was not a straight up improvement of normal glasses. It added more weight, it wasn't balanced properly and it made you look like a complete moron if you wore them in public. Had they been able to make glass look and be as easy to wear as a pair of ordinary glasses I think it would have been very successful.

My take on Google Glass is that it was too bulky, too expensive, and made out of hardware too dated to be useful. If they made one again, and it was half the size, three times as powerful, and, say, $300, I think we might see a very different outcome.

Consider the following: a sizable portion of the world population already requires corrective eyewear of some kind. Men's frames in particular that aren't virginity protectors already cost several hundred dollars, and those *just* correct your vision. Think about that: they're already expensive, people already have to wear them, and they do almost nothing. Why not make them more useful?

"But they don't do anything your phone doesn't do!" you might say. Well, strictly speaking, that's true. But that hasn't stopped wearables from being a relatively vibrant product category. I'm not sure how and why you'd make the case that a hypothetical "release version" of Google Glass would do any worse than any given smartwatch.

>>57097067

It wasn't a surveillance device, dipshit. The camera was low-quality relative to those found in smartphones, continuous use of the camera would deplete the battery in about 40 minutes, and keeping the camera in use persistently was extremely conspicuous without modifications.

It was a HUD with a tiny, low-quality GoPro on it.

>>57097072

At best, someone with Google Glass can record you for about 30 minutes before they run out of battery, and, unless they've modified their device, their doing so will be indicated by a blinking green light and a hand held against their frame.

>>57097121

No, it didn't, you retard. That wasn't even feasible to do.

>>57097145

No, *you* have to be retarded to believe that everything Google does is an NSA conspiracy. It was made as a heads-up display, and an experimental one at that. Its price was deliberately inflated to keep out non-developers, and the camera was literally the most technologically underwhelming piece of the entire headset.

>>57097471
The first edition was literally just that.

It's sewing the seeds for years later when everyone has one on their face.

>>57097466
It will probably be a while before technology is able to make a pair of smart glasses that are comparable in size and weight to normal ones.

If it has a good frame design, it might catch on. The other big sticker is insurance coverage.
While it's true that a lot of the glasses with decent frames cost a cool dollar, most of that cost is absorbed by the insurance company. The end wearer rarely pays the full price.

File: s-l1600[1].jpg (55KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x800px

Who needs them when I can inconspicuously rock a pair of these bad boys for 10 bucks.

>>57097072
Cctv is bad until it captures the nigger that mugged you and raped your boyfriend in front of you.
Then again you're probably into that shit.

They failed because they're a niche item. They marketed it as being for certain things. Like the way they initially showed it off was having a dude skydive to the roof, hop on a bike and do a bunch of tricks and shit and blah blah... They tried too hard to make it a head mounted, internet enabled, gopro

>>57097536

>It will probably be a while before technology is able to make a pair of smart glasses that are comparable in size and weight to normal ones.

Agreed, but I don't think we're talking more than maybe ten years. Once components are small enough, you can fit most of them into the plastic frame and spread it out evently across the designed rather than bunch it all up on on side.

if they made a new set today I think the projector in glass would simply be replaced by clear OLED panels on the lenses.

>>57097560
Tres fucking cool. I can see me hanging at the mall attracting hot chicks and following them on the escalator for some upskirt footage.

File: IMG_2617.png (888KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 750x1334px

See this thread, and this happens. Holy shit.

>>57097471
>Its price was deliberately inflated to keep out non-developers
what is the point of that?

WE HAVE AN AMAZING NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL REVOLUTIONIZE THE WORLD

NOBODY EXCEPT DEVELOPERS, WHO WON'T EVEN USE OUR DEVICE, CAN AFFORD IT

smart

>>57097594
Batteries will probably be the biggest hindrance.

>>57097600

Maybe they didn't want absolutely everybody buying it yet. Maybe they wanted to see what developers did with it before they committed. Maybe it was a small-batch product made out of left-over three-year-old smartphone parts, and it was infeasible to make mass-market quantities of them.

>>57097536

Two things:

A) Google actually managed to work out deals with at least some insurance companies. Glass was covered, just like regular glasses were.

B) I don't know what insurance you have, but you should thank your lucky fucking stars for it. Neither of my last three insurance plans covered more than about $150/year for corrective eyewear. Note that this meant that you had to choose between glasses and contacts, and, if you chose contacts, it would only pay for 6 months' worth of them.

>>57097515

Yeah, it's a long-game conspiracy, which explains why they priced almost everybody out of the market, did absolutely dick-all to fight all the negative publicity and FUD-mongers, and then dropped the idea like a hot potato after about a year, while continuing to manufacture them on the side for enterprises where AR interfaces are helpful. That's *totally* what a conspiracy looks like.

Also, >sewing

>>57097596

Go to sleep, Donald, you have a big day tomorrow.

>>57097600

It wasn't amazing though. it was just a prototype they developed to see if literally anyone could find a use for it.

>>57097684
google went so far as to work out deals with insurance companies, but it was a "small-batch product made out of left-over three-year-old smartphone parts"?

I think you either greatly overestimate how easy it would be to work out "deals" with American insurance companies, or greatly underestimate the difficulty of making this product

Once augmented reality really gets going combined with an Apple-tier marketing campaign, I can see these things making a comeback in a few years.

>>57097140
>Google majorly relies on word of mouth marketing
lol

Google is an advertisement company. They make the majority of their income through ads. They do not rely on "word of mouth marketing".

>>57097632

It might be, but both batteries and hardware power efficiency are improving literally every year. The reason we don't see it having a great effect in smartphones is almost entirely because developers simply make more demanding apps and hardware.

I also think it's possible that we'll eventually find a way to wirelessly charge batteries over longer diistances, think yards, and this technology will be incorporated into a lot of technology like routers.

>>57097037
besides MUH surveillance and MUH botnet, these didnt had any led that tells you wether is recording or not.

I have seen people fighting each other because they suspected they were recorded by a smartphone user, glass was that taken to the next level.

The price didnt helped, the userbase were massive cunts mostly. Glass was the perfect example on how disconnected google leadership is from marketing, privacy concerns, etc.

I can see these being used on factories, or other controlled environments. If there was even a chance that people accepted these, google burned it out by its stupid marketing shenanigans and obtuse pride.

>>57097318
>That's not true. Smartphones succeeded, honestly, in large part due to Apple making them trendy.
Thats stretching it too much. get your feet on the ground macfag.
>>57097471
>At best, someone with Google Glass can record you for about 30 minutes before they run out of battery, and, unless they've modified their device, their doing so will be indicated by a blinking green light and a hand held against their frame.
If so, google made a piss poor job explaining this.

> Its price was deliberately inflated to keep out non-developers

Again google made a piss poor job. They should gave those by invitation only. There are numerous examples of common people wearing these, that is no developers.

Google campaigns at its best, like the youtube heroes. They really need to hire someone to manage these, its hard to believe a money with that kind of power can get their act together.

>>57097140
>Google majorly relies on word of mouth marketing

k

>>57097745

Google's products and services aren't marketed with adverts is what he's saying. I mean have you ever seen an advert for YouTube, Maps, Search? They don't run around telling people to use any service they provide, if the service is actually good people will use it and share it with their friends.

>>57097716

It is a fact that insurance companies covered Google Glass. It is also a fact that Google Glass was a small-batch product made out of left-over three-year-old smartphone parts. I'm not sure how and why those two facts reconcile, but they are both objectively correct statements.

>>57097762

>If so, google made a piss poor job explaining this.

No, people like /g/ just did a really fucking bad job of reading. Literally every review, first-impression, and hands-on writeup of Google Glass mentioned the extremely mediocre battery life making prolonged video recording all but impossible, and it was made very clear how persistent recording worked: by holding down the shutter button.

>They should gave those by invitation only.

They *did* give them by invitation only, for most of the Glass beta's lifespan. The "regular people" wearing them were usually journalists, bloggers, or developers, and those kinds of people aren't really "regular people", despite resembling them outwardly.

You really shouldn't talk about things you weren't around for. Do your homework.

>>57097814
>It is also a fact that Google Glass was a small-batch product made out of left-over three-year-old smartphone parts.

I'm interested in seeing a source for this "fact", so far the only statement posted regarding this starts with "what if"

>>57097684
Tricare my man.

I dread the day I have to go health insurance shopping.

>>57097762
>Thats stretching it too much. get your feet on the ground macfag.

I would say that smartphones exist as we know them due to Apple.
Think prior to the iPhone. "Smartphones" were phone enabled PDAs, largely Palms and Blackberrys. Business devices for the most part.
The iPhone made PDAs obsolete, and created the big, on-screen keyboard paradigm we know and love today.

>>57097822

https://www.engadget.com/2013/04/26/google-glass-runs-on-OMAP-4430/

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/technology/google-glass-to-be-covered-by-vision-care-insurer-vsp.html?_r=0

>>57097745

I meant for their mass products not their major source of revenue

>>57098026
cool, thanks.

>>57097434
Or anyone needing access to technical charts. Having the chart always up so you never have to look away from what your doing.

File: 1468637027005.jpg (26KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 259x194px

>>57097471
>No, *you* have to be retarded to believe that everything Google does is an NSA conspiracy.

No, he's not retarded, he's just wrong.
You're the one being a braindead retard and missing the actual concern.

The point isn't about whether or not there's a "conspiracy" tied to these glasses, but about the actual potential for surveillance and control once such devices are widespread and as much part of the societal fabric as cars, railroads, phones and electricity are.
We're talking about long term consequences, several decades from now.

>>57097471
>The camera was low-quality relative to those found in smartphones, continuous use of the camera would deplete the battery in about 40 minutes, and keeping the camera in use persistently was extremely conspicuous without modifications.
Fucking... I wanted one for Urban exploration, you know, using both hands instead of one while holding a camera. But after reading that, it killed it.

>>57098224

you dont undertsand tech

>>57098759
Then make me understand tech.

>>57098774

the fact that ur still here checking for replies ONE HOUR LATER makes me feel sorry 4 u

>>57098794
Yeh

Too expensive and looks ugly.

>>57097037
>how
no one bought it
>why
it's useless and too expansive