Do you want this to succeed, our would you rather do without wearables in the future?
Putting a computer and display on a person's face will never work for general-purpose, public usage. That doesn't rule out specific/niche use cases though.
Smartwatches will be the first massively successful wearable computers.
>>46912795
I only want a Pokecom
>>46912795
I wore one once, tried it out for a little bit.
It's kind of gimmicky. Very gimmicky, actually, the Glass doesn't have any functionality that the Nexus itself doesn't have already, the difference is that slightly less functionality is on your face. It's pretty neat, but I wouldn't pay more than $100 for it.
I have a feeling that the general public isnt going to bite
They're working on putting electronics in contacts ATM they have a pair that ll zoom in on what you're looking at when you wink and back out when you blink
I would appreciate being able to record whenever.
I'm thinking I wouldnt touch any of these unless they were open source and not owned by a suspicious company like google. But if everyone else had botnet ones then everything that I do might well be recorded by everyone around me.
Its way too geeky looking. Wearables are never gonna catch on until amoled flex screens become a thing. that exists outside tech shows.
>>46912942
Was this in an movie anon?
Physics doesn't support having a zoom lens on a contact lens, and digital zoom is less useful than squinting.
>>46912795
Of course I want sweet wearable tech you yurocuck
>>46912836
>a computer and display on a person's face will never work for general-purpose
I believe it would, but glass is actually an eye mounted camera, not just a display so it doesn't just work as a TV would.
It's a surveilance device so the world can see you, not a screen so you can see the world. There's a difference.
is there a point to the camera other than just for taking pictures/video? It would make more sense to turn it around onto your eye, then you could interact with it w/o a phone/voice commands.
I have one and really enjoy it. I don't like the idea of losing support because I intend to use it until a viable replacement comes out.
>>46912976
You know what else was considered geeky? Too much time on the internet
But there are people spending a lot of time on fb now so it isn't really considered geeky anymore
>>46912795
sure I just want to walk down the street with $1500 worth of mugger bait on my face. Hey everyone I am rich enough to wear this shit, come and shoot me and break my face open and steal my fucking gold
If it had the lens as a screen instead of the little block. and if it cost only a few hundred bongs then I might buy it so I can watch movies and TV shows whilst doing other things. I'm exceptional at multi tasking so I would likely be watching something nearly the whole day. Reading would also be a plus.
i already died two times
stop waking up dead
>>46913541
Facebook users typically interact with people they know in real life, not faceless, pseudonymous e-pals in niche IRC channels. That's why Facebook isn't considered geeky.
>>46913807
How does that relate to wearables bring geeky or not? You're just being pedantic
You can use a wearable to interact to people you know IRL
>>46913846
Wearables as a whole are not geeky, but strapping a fucking eye-computer-camera to your face loudly proclaims to others that you don't know the first thing about face-to-face socializing.
>>46913353
Are you retarded?
The camera on Glass was arguably the least usable thing about it. It was subpar, even by phone standards, and it can't record video for very long without running down the battery.
>>46913891
Saying that loudly proclaims to /g/ that you have no sense of vision for the future. Lots of things that weren't normal are now, especially when useful. What happens when Glass gains the ability to translate any road sign on-the-fly, read hovering AR notes left by other users, superimpose a GPS line on your road or walking path? What happens when it's actually a useful thing?
All you people pushing back against wearables really have your heads in the past.
I hope we can skip straight to DARPA's optical implants. Although glasses would be better for repairs and being able to simply take them off in case of exploits.
>>46912976
>Its way too geeky looking
Non-tech people ask me about mine all the time, there really isn't anything geeky about it.
>>46912795
Fuck no.
After I saw my firend wearing a dress with that thing om I never want tk wear it again.
>>46914353
hi qt
>>46912795
Fuck Humanoid spycams running around, gathering informatio for Skynet
>>46913541
>>46914353
>muh entitlement cuz I have superior social life than /g/
>ridiculing people for being on the computer too much
>being on /g/
>getting slightly offended because someone had an opinion
Get you and your dyke looking ass out of here, you probably listen to slam poetry while you sleep, bitch.
>>46914402
>>46914425
I'm >>46913541
Did you reply to the wrong person or are you this fucking retarded that you didn't see the point of my post
>>46914353
You ever gotten kicked out of an establishment because of those glasses?
Google supposedly canned the project because of the glasshole phenomenon
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-ends-sales-of-google-glass-2015-1
>>46912795
vaporware.
Just let it die in peace, Google stopped selling them on their stores.
>>46913891
>unless majority has it, then you are weird one for not having one
I hope that HUD or even augmented reality soon becomes available to general public.
I'm all for having things like a programmable, customizeable internal HUD that's visible to you and no one else, but just think how obnoxious it would be to talk to someone and his eye is flickering around all over the place looking at shit you can't see, especially if it's actually on his face.
>>46914444
Just think about the facts.
Google now has
>Phones (which contains your contacts, your pictures/photos, conversations)
>Browser (which interests do you have?)
>Chromecast (what do you watch?)
>google.com (everything you ever search. oh you googled bomb? >terrorist<)
>Soon self driving Cars
>Drones with cams
>Glasses with cams
>Chromebooks (bc a browser alone isn't goog enough)
>and whatnot
I'm not pretending to not using Google, in fact i do use google search, Chromium and own an Android device (a Nexus too), but don't you see that this is happenng right now? A multi billiion dollar company thriving to monopolize the world - it's just a blink to domination.
>>46914480
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/new-google-glass-boss-to-reset-project-start-over-from-scratch/
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/1/7312687/google-glass-will-return-in-2015-with-intel-inside-says-wsj
Man, fact-checking /g/ is a full-time job. You guys really don't care what's true, do you?
Pipboy when?
