Google Glass Owners: Don’t Waste Your Money — Yet

Google’s face computer is intriguing, but it’s still a terrible buy, say its earliest adopters.

Google Glass isn't a good buy yet, users say.
National Journal
Alex Brown and Laura Ryan
April 21, 2014, 5:18 a.m.

If you missed your chance to buy Google Glass on Tues­day, it’s prob­ably for the best, ac­cord­ing to the product’s earli­est users.

Google opened the gates to its face-moun­ted com­puter for a 24-hour win­dow last week, and an eager pub­lic snapped up every mod­el. Hate it or love it, every­one is curi­ous.

But the Google Glass “ex­plorers” — a se­lect group who got the first few thou­sand mod­els — have a mes­sage for people who want to join their tech-savvy in-crowd: Wait.

“There’s no rush,” said Noble Ack­er­son, ex­plorer and de­veloper of the LynxFit app. “[Fu­ture it­er­a­tions are] prob­ably go­ing to be cheap­er and a lot bet­ter than this beta product.”

It’s not that Glass isn’t in­nov­at­ive or prom­ising — it just de­liv­ers lim­ited util­ity for its $1,500 price tag. “It con­tin­ues to frus­trate me be­cause it’s so un­fin­ished,” said tech­no­logy blog­ger Robert Scoble. “It’s a very ex­pens­ive price for what it does right now.”

Users com­plained that the dearth of ap­plic­a­tions — both from Google and third-party de­velopers — means that Glass just isn’t all that use­ful yet. Some were frus­trated about the re­cent de­cision to scrap the video-call­ing fea­ture. A Google de­veloper con­fer­ence in June will show­case new soft­ware — and provide a test of Glass’s mass mar­ket vi­ab­il­ity, Scoble said.

For now, the gen­er­al con­sensus among the ex­plorers Na­tion­al Journ­al talked with is that Glass just isn’t prac­tic­al for the av­er­age use.

“When people are look­ing at buy­ing Glass, they need to un­der­stand it’s a concept,” said Larry Dom­ine, who teaches at Mil­wau­kee Area Tech­nic­al Col­lege. “It’s really at the de­vel­op­ment stage.” Ad­ded Larry Walsh, who runs the IT news and ana­lys­is site Chan­nel­nom­ics: “It’s just not a very in­tu­it­ive or us­able device.”

Ack­er­son, who just cel­eb­rated his one-year an­niversary as an ex­plorer, be­lieves Glass’s ac­cept­ance will de­pend on its util­ity. “The gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion won’t get used to Glass un­til they find a use for it,” he said.

And the slow rol­lout of Glass, says Ack­er­son, fuels an “aura of ex­clus­iv­ity” and “echo cham­ber” of cri­ti­cism from people who haven’t even worn the device. To help sa­ti­ate the curi­os­ity of the many who don’t have a pair of Glass, he star­ted the So­ci­ety of Glass En­thu­si­asts, which now has more than 3,000 mem­bers, to help edu­cate the pub­lic about the product.

On the oth­er hand, Daniel Castro, a seni­or ana­lyst at the In­form­a­tion Tech­no­logy and In­nov­a­tion Found­a­tion in Wash­ing­ton, be­lieves that Google’s gradu­al rol­lout is a smart move be­cause it al­lows for a tri­al-and-er­ror peri­od with a small group of people en­thu­si­ast­ic about Glass’s suc­cess.

Among the most com­mon la­ments is Glass’s bat­tery life, which Google says is im­proved in its latest up­date. Users also said they hoped to see bet­ter apps for nav­ig­a­tion, en­vir­on­ment re­cog­ni­tion, and com­mu­nic­a­tion. “A lot of things that I want to do are still apps that I have on my phone,” Dom­ine said.

“Google’s been get­ting a pretty steady bar­rage of cri­ti­cisms over Glass,” Walsh said. “It’s not about pri­vacy; it’s about func­tion­al­ity.”

Even shoot­ing hands-free pho­tos and videos — one of Glass’s main call­ing cards — has come with prob­lems. Users re­por­ted ac­ci­dent­ally tak­ing pho­tos by blink­ing, with some of then end­ing up on Face­book. Scoble ad­ded that the tiny screen makes it dif­fi­cult to re­view pho­tos, and there’s no way to up­load them to ser­vices like In­s­tagram.

So who should be us­ing Glass? Ex­plorers said the cli­en­tele falls in­to three cat­egor­ies: De­velopers or cre­at­ives with a busi­ness idea, tech­no­philes (who prob­ably already have a pair), and people with ex­tra money to spend.

“It was the first-kid-on-the-block thing that got me,” said Walsh. “My ex­per­i­ence with it proved it not to be a good in­vest­ment.”

One ex­plorer who has put the tech­no­logy to pro­fes­sion­al use is Dr. Ra­fael Gross­man, who has per­formed sur­gery while wear­ing Glass and sees lots of pos­sib­il­ity in the health care field. He was able to livestream an op­er­a­tion while his stu­dents watched. “If you could in­teg­rate Glass to the elec­tron­ic health re­cord “¦ I think that you pre­vent med­ic­al er­rors.”

Still, Gross­man said he uses his Glass only for pro­fes­sion­al pur­poses. “At that price tag, the reg­u­lar user would not be mak­ing a wise de­cision,” he said. “It’s not ready to be everything you would want it to do.”

One day, users said, Glass’s per­form­ance will match its po­ten­tial. Emer­gency re­spon­ders could see real-time build­ing lay­outs. Con­struc­tion work­ers could read in­struc­tions without hav­ing to put down their tools. And a moth­er could teach her child to cook a fam­ily re­cipe from across the coun­try.

Even today’s Glass, Ack­er­son says, makes tech­no­logy less in­trus­ive by keep­ing his hands free and al­low­ing him to see mo­ments nor­mally, not through the lens of a cam­era.

But for now, buy­ers should be pre­pared to spend a lot of money to help put a lim­ited sys­tem through its paces.

And, of course, they should be ready to deal with the so­cial fal­lout that comes with it. Users should be pre­pared to be some­what of a spec­tacle — and deal with a fair amount of de­ri­sion. “There’s a high prob­ab­il­ity of not get­ting laid if you’re wear­ing it,” Walsh said. “You’re also buy­ing in­to what is still now a so­cial stig­mat­ism.”

COR­REC­TION: An earli­er ver­sion of this art­icle in­cor­rectly named Noble Ack­er­son’s com­pany, LynxFit. 

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
16 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×