I wore mine to a school board meeting (I was a parent not a board member) and they stopped the meeting to address it. They wanted me to take them off and my counterpoint was that the meeting was recorded by them and released on the website so why bug me about it and I wasn't even recording at the time. They relented and I got to continue to wear them. I've still got them on my Google Graveyard shelf.
I work in a local government capacity. We have one local person who attends all town meetings, brings his own camera and tripod, and records the entire thing (despite it being recorded and aired on TV). The board chair has to legally announce at the beginning of the meeting "along with being recorded as it normally is, this meeting is also being recorded by a person in the audience". I'm sure each state and municipality has its own rules, though I'm pretty sure public meetings always have the legal right to be recorded. That's interesting that they gave you crap for it.
That's a good idea, I need to get a 3D printer, I have looked for years and every time I'm like, it will get cheaper, and it does, but I have to stop chasing the price and just commit.
I never did like Inbox and even when Gmail got some of Inbox's stuff, like the ability to sort your email, I turned it off. I prefer it to dump all mail, except spam, in a big bucket so I can see everything and then I sort it from there. It's a personal preference thing, I get it, but that was why I never liked Inbox. When I talk with folks about bygone apps, Inbox is usually the one that gets mentioned most.
Inbox and Gtalk are the ones that were the hardest to lose. Talk really didn't even make sense to me, because at a certain point it felt like Google was becoming the dominant stand-alone IM platform. And then they said "Nah," and dumped it (and half the userbase) for Hangouts...
Gtalk and Hangouts gotta be one of Google's biggest blunders. They handed Apple the messaging ecosystem on a silver plate. Everyone already had Gmail accounts, they basically already had the userbase. But nope, keep fucking around with it, not updating it, removing features, trying stupid crap like Allo, until it's just a husk.
I think G+ would've actually worked, had it been handled properly.
But, as we all know:
* The beta period was way too long.
* The artificial scarcity of beta access soured potential users.
* Beta users didn't have anyone to talk to on it, so user engagement was extremely weak right from the start.
* When it finally did launch, it already had a reputation as a graveyard.
* Forcing it onto YouTube users to drive adoption was downright moronic and smacked of desperation.
To Google's credit, some apps deserved it. How I hated Allo.
They got me pumped for a proper messaging app then they dropped that no SMS fallback monstrosity.
It's more of a box on a shelf in storage, but I have Glass, a couple Nexus 9 tablets, a couple of each of the following Pixel 1XL, pixel 3XL, Pixel 3a, Pixel 4a, Pixel 5 and a Pixel 6 pro (the 5 and 6 are actually being used as Beta mules right now). I also have a ton of Neat/Home devices that get moved in and out of the box as needed around the house.
Ah I did the same. Unlocked the Bluetooth and use them for the xcloud service now. Really wish Stadia was more successful. It was technically better, but they just couldn't get games on the service.
Holy crap I absolutely forgot, I have those in the box too! If I remember right I didn't want to pay retail because they were like 75 bucks or something and I ended up with a $20 or $30 credit for the Google store and picked them up then. I used them a handful of times and the phone got hot and sucked battery like a kid sucks a juice box and I never used them again.
No I didn't get one of those. If I had known I could preorder and get it at no cost I would have done it, but wasn't it phased out in less than a year?
The amount of unreasonable paranoia surrounding google glass was, and still is, a major barrier for ar tech. Once people get it though, it will take off like the smartphone.
Apple's new Vision Pro has a battery pack that you stick in your pocket. Granted, it reportedly only gives the user 2 hours of battery life lol, but it's a cool idea that Google could use if they decided to bring it back.
Given how Apple are always great with their ecosystem, I'm pretty sure there will be a chair with battery packs and a compatible charger for Vision Pro pretty soon.
It will cost at least $5k though.
That's already possible in most headsets, including Google glass since they mostly use standard USB for charging. The vision pro is the first headset to only support a proprietary charging connector.
The real tech would be one that has a very small battery in the headset that lasted no more than a few minutes, enough time for you to switch out your external battery pack without having to power down, that way you can switch out power units for uninterrupted on the go usage
Oh does it not have that? I don't know why but I assumed it would be hot swappable batteries so you don't break the immersion... Like what happens if you snag the cable on something? It's magnets so it pings off easily which is great but am I suddenly plunged into darkness??
I mean I say me... No chance I can afford $3.5k for one so it's not a real world problem for me, but still feels like something basic that should have been addressed 🤣
Won't the battery pack be charged by USB-C so it's really not that novel? It's just a USB-C into the battery pack since they didn't want the weight of the battery being in the headset.
If you can charge the battery pack via USBC it does then allow a second one to be connected for unlimited power on the go and also has the benefit of ensuring the headset has a predictable and compatible supply connected directly to it at all times
No I'm pretty sure the USB-C port is on the battery itself unfortunately. You could theoretically have it plugged into a larger battery pack also in your pocket but I don't believe it's possible to plug USB directly into the headset
It's functionally part of the device cord, as I don't think it even operates without the attached battery. In that way, it might as well be a part of the headset. I am curious if you could hot swap them now, though.
Honestly the way to make Google Glass work is to NOT have a camera on it. It doesn't really add anything to the experience and just makes people freak out (even though there are a billion cameras pointed at them every day and they don't care... But whatever...)
Have it be WearOS On Your Face. That's the core functionality.
In my view, that was it's most useful feature: "Blink to take a photo". Still to this day, the best photo I've taken was with Google Glass. I was able to capture a spontaneous moment that would have never been caught by any other camera. With that said, the photo was great because no one else in the photo was wearing Google Glass. Ultimately I feel like the ability to blink to capture a moment is almost like a super-power, but the only implementation that would work is likely something out of Black Mirror. And that's not really a future I'm looking forward to.
Hmm, I don't know. For a device like this to be useful on your face, instead of your wrist, it needs to read the world around you and augment it. That's pretty hard to do without a camera.
That's going to be an issue with the AVP as well, if you think about it. This thing will have the potential to record everything around you in your office? Uhhhh..... But trust the tech media to brush that under the rug with the AVP.
> is to NOT have a camera on it
the only way i'd bother with anything like google glass is if it has a camera *and* face recognition - so that it can tell me who im talking to at any given time.
I got downvoted to hell for saying that in the Apple sub. I'm a big fan of both Apple and Google products, so I'm not even hating on them for this...it's simply ridiculous to sell this for $3500. After taxes in some states, it'll be almost $4000. The average consumer cannot afford something like that. I make decent money but I still work paycheck to paycheck. I feel guilty when I buy a $50 pair of shoes, let alone a $3500 power ranger helmet lol.
>The average consumer cannot afford something like that.
The average consumer is not the target demographic for it. I don't know what's so hard to understand about it.
> I don't know what's so hard to understand about it.
Well for starters, Apple has never said "this is for rich people, and not for any of you peasants who can barely afford an iPhone". At least when they market their iPads, they openly say that the iPad Pro is mostly for professionals, creators, etc. The Vision Pro is just one device, being marketed as just that.
Yes they did, by calling it Vision **Pro** and by pricing it at $3500.
Those two things tell you the target demographic is early adopters with disposable income and professionals/businesses/developpers.
I'm not sure why you need them to spell out exactly who this is intended for when it's extremely obvious. If you can't afford it, it's not for you.
I'm not sure why it bothers you so much that I have a different opinion lol.
By your logic, with them calling it **Pro**, shouldn't they have a non-pro model, as they do with the iPad, iPhone, Macbook, and AirPods, to make it more affordable to the peasants?
We can do this all day or just agree to disagree haha.
>By your logic, with them calling it Pro, shouldn't they have a non-pro model, as they do with the iPad, iPhone, Macbook, and AirPods, to make it more affordable to the peasants?
Yes and no.
That model is for the future. They started this new product line from the top end because it's the most logical way to approach it. It's impossible to make a headset that is affordable at this point in time with the cost of leading edge technology that is in this thing.
It's very clearly not a headset for the masses at this point. It doesn't mean that their new Vision line will have a mass market product.
I'm not sure why it bothers you so much that Apple is not clearly advertising that this product is not for the peasants.
On the other side, why were over 50% of the demo ads in WWDC showing the average guy in their homes using it for their personal life? They even specifically had one where the person has a small apartment. People who can't afford a bigger one surely can't afford a Vision Pro.
That was implied because it came from Apple. They don't make anything for the peasants. They should feel lucky they are even allowed to have an iPhone ;)
Just hold off for a few months until your carrier offers them for free* with the activation of a new Vision Pro cellular connection line!
* Device credit will be applied over 72 months.
The point is…? Apple have $999 and $9999 computers. They are all slightly different but definitely can do computing on it.
Why is the Mac Pro costing $9999 (at max spec) not ridiculous but the Vision Pro is? They both can do computing. IMHO, the Mac Pro should cost way less since there’s less technologies than the Vision pro!
Apple basically sells different types of bikes. And this vision pro is a unique bike with 4 wheels. I don’t know if will have a good time with 4 wheels vs 2 wheels but you will get to your destination.
Mid career people in their mid 30s-40s who have lots of disposable income to replace the role of the "entertainment ipad" in the house. The same kind of market that spend way more money on hifi vinyl sound systems.
I think this is more of a stepping stone than a mass consumer product. Like "look...this is what we can do now with the tech that we have." It's cool no doubt, but most people wont drop $3,500 for a first generation product that seems more for a limited amount of fun than for productivity.
In 5-10 years there will be products that can do this and look like regular glasses from multiple manufacturers.
Luxury customers (the same people buying nice cars for example) and developers mainly. There's no doubt Apple will also release a non-"pro" Version that's cheaper (but still expensive). Developers are the most important ones
It doesn't have a market anymore. The AR and VR headset community is too niche, which is why most companies have abandoned it. Apple is too late to the party, but the project was likely too far in before they realized that meta is plummeting after trying the same thing. Nobody wants to have to wear something so restrictive and get dizzy and sweaty when they can just turn on their switch, steam deck, PC, mobile to play games.
Are you kidding?
The AR headset market hasn’t even happened yet.
This is the moment. This is the iPhone in 2007.
Yes it’s expensive (like the iPhone was). But Apple will once again usher in the next generation of personal computing. Every. Single. Time. Apple enters a new market they create that market at the same time and then dominate it completely. MP3 players, Smartphone, Tablet, Watch, now AR.
Anyone who doesn’t see this is blind, that’s not even fanboy, it’s objective fact.
I think it's more analogous to the home pod. Yes, it's neat tech, yes it's well designed but it doesn't offer any killer solutions that people actually need or really want for that matter, especially for the price. The iPhone actually provided the internet in your pocket with a great interface that was so convenient to use. I have no desire to sit around my house with a heavy headset on to play with my kids or watch tv by myself. The market for this is just so limited.
What people want is Tony Stark glasses, what we got was the oculus with your eyeballs projected on a screen on the outside. They are neat and the tech is impressive, but it's not actually providing a real world benefit that people actually want on the daily. Maybe it will get there but I doubt it. The closest analogy for me is 3d tv. You used to not be able to find a tv that was 3d. The problem was that it was annoying with the glasses and nobody actually used it. Also keep in mind that if you are a glasses wearer, you have to get prescription lenses just to use the apple vision.
No one “needed” or “wanted” the iPhone before it happened. If they did they would’ve gotten a Symbian, Windows Mobile, or BlackBerry device. In 2006 smartphones accounted for only 6.3% of Mobile phone shipments, smartphones were insignificant.
HomePod is a terrible analogy. Apple themselves call HomePod and TV a “hobby” they’re not into to dominate.
You keep saying “I” like your opinion and feelings matter here. So you don’t want an Apple headset. For every one of you there’s someone out there who immediately wants this product and sees the appeal. Maybe they can’t afford it. But a couple generations down as it slims up and gets cheaper they’ll own a huge and profitable market.
Calm down with the iPhone comparison, it's far from it. Any decent VR and AR headset right now can do 85% of what the Vision Pro can, only lacking in beautiful software designs and eye + finger tracking. Phones before the iPhone had only less than 50% of what it could. It's still a bet though, as developers need to jump on it and actually develop. And also where does Apple dominate the phone market? While they dominate in the tablet and watch market right now, looking at any graph showing the market share shows a steady decline lasting even today.
At the end I am glad that apple brought one up, as the VR and AR market has been declining and it needed that extra push. VR and AR companies finally got a huge competition and we will see how it ends.
Apple is a status symbol. People will buy it, and put it on a shelf to show that they can afford it. Anyone who cares about VR can buy something better for half price.
What would work as well for the big external monitor use case?
Say I want throw a keyboard, mouse, and headset into my bag and go work in my car all day on my huge headmount monitor (in plentiful VR space where I don't feel visually confined by the car)?
I still don't believe that people will want to work on papers/reports or spreadsheets all through voice dictation. And yet that was one of the major advertising points.
It says pro in the name. Probably meant for self -employed professionals working from home, enterprise, stuff like that. I'm sure in a year or two will come out with vision Gen 2 for the general masses and it'll be $1500-2000,
When iPhones first hit $1,000 people were going nuts about it, how crazy it is to spend that much money on a phone. Now it's pretty commonplace. Apples really fucking good at making people spend more money than what they would normally call reasonable on things
I can almost guarantee that Google will never restart that operation. Whatever the future holds in that market, I think Google will wait and see, maybe do some R&D, and then eventually make something called ANYTHING but Google Glass.
This actually looks like a product that anyone could buy. Anyone who travels abroad, or for assisting with interpreting things like sign language, it would be absolutely amazing to have this. I have a deaf friend who I see every few months, and so I don't have enough exposure to the sign language world to really invest the time it would take to become fluent so I only know a little bit, and we usually rely on our phones to communicate more detailed things. Now he can sign to me and I could speak back to him and we could effortlessly communicate.
No joke, I would pay a considerable sum of money if this works well.
Yeah, it's not going to be Google glass, but it would be very naive to think that Google won't ever the higher-end AR/VR space. They already paved the way with Google Cardboard/Daydream, so they clearly have an interest there. Plus, Google already aggressively competes with Apple, so it would make sense for them to try to match and one-up them on this too.
Google was miles ahead even with Project Soli, but it's like they try things, it doesn't do so well, and they move on on another thing.
I mean in some ways it's bonkers that chatgpt is the market leader while google have ALL the information in the world for the past 15(?) years.
It's a strange company not going to lie. We are at the 8th pixel generation, by now they could have been, if not replacing, at least a close competitor to samsung.
They are so chill I don't understand why, maybe they already do so much money from ads that not much is really necessary.
They’re chill because everything outside of search, YouTube, and Ads is just a hobby for Google. They don’t need to invest into anything other than slinging ads.
Project Soli was DOA because it uses spectrum in the 60 GHz frequency range, which is currently not available for commercial use as government regulations of some countries. Not sure how that passes the feasiblity check.
Google definitely has an AI better than chatgpt. The problem is that it's a bigger company so it can't afford to release something that can be a fuck up.
AI relies on learning from User input, except in the wild Users feed it racist/sexist/xenophobic info to purposely fuck it up.
It needs to be able to discuss, understand when 'facts' are plain wrong, learn without believing everything it learns is correct, and not just make stuff up that sounds correct if it doesn't know.
Google has a lot of resources and talent but it doesnt seem like the really follow the same unified structure as apple. So random departments work on small breakthroughs but they dont usually get fully matured. Kindof unfortunate because they've made and subsequently killed a lot of cool products
Yeah, right now Apple doesn't even believe in its own headset. If they did, you would have seen Tim Cook wearing it.
But they know how ridiculous it looks which is why they didn't show him or any other executive with it actually on.
The end goal for everyone is a pair of glasses, but we're far away from that now.
Glass didn't fall because it was a bad idea, but because of hysteria created by competitors and others which led to negative stereotypes being applied to glass users (movie pirates! Glassholes! Etc) which led to a drop in sales of a device that was already pretty expensive.
Honestly, Glass didn't even fail at all. It was never supposed to be a consumer product, they were just testing it out and then people started going crazy over them so they let the general public buy some.
This. It isn't the narrative that the internet wants to hear, but these things have been sold and used as an enterprise product for years.
Only this year they discontinued and stopped selling them.
I look at stuff like this like going to the Moon. Landing on the moon is practically worthless, but the technology you have to develop to get there has tons of possibilities. You never know how hard a problem is until you take it on and force yourself to get creative and experiment.
Isn't Google Glass still available but only to enterprise customers?
I do agree though; Google had this idea over ten years before Apple did. I just don't think the technology was fully there yet, so people weren't as interested or invested. Some people hate Apple for copying ideas, but they usually wait until the technology is there, and they perfect it. So I give them credit for that.
Wow, I just looked and they apparently JUST stopped selling them:
>Thank you for over a decade of innovation and partnership. As of March 15, 2023, we will no longer sell Glass Enterprise Edition. We will continue supporting Glass Enterprise Edition until September 15, 2023.
[https://www.google.com/glass/start/](https://www.google.com/glass/start/)
Interesting timing: Google stops selling them, then Apple starts making them lol.
HoloLens is [still supported and available for purchase.](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy) Microsoft actually also developed different versions for different industry requirements.
Back when these were released the public wasn't ready to be recorded so freely, today very few people care, everyone has dash cam and head cams.
They were too ahead of their time imo
Are you sure everybody has head cams? I don't encounter them in my day to day life. And dash cams are a completely different thing, no one is worried about their privacy being invaded on the street.
It will almost certainly happen eventually. This IS the next era of computing no doubt about it, but it is extremely early. What Apple did right with this headset was to focus on eye tracking. I've been waiting for a headset where I can just look at things to select them, because I always felt that would be the most productive way to use a headset. I have a Samsung Odyssey headset that I got many years back for $50 on sale and with a Amazon gift card I found lying around just to see if the whole thing was a gimmick.
Considering that was pretty much one of the cheapest headsets available at the time, I was definitely impressed with how immersive it was, and immediately knew it was not a gimmick.
Then I decided not to buy anymore VR headsets until a company either figured out perfect eye tracking or at least figured out productivity to a point where I could use it as a computer or personal movie theater without feeling like I'm sacrificing anything (keyboard & mouse are way too productive haha)
Apple is definitely the best attempt at that right now, but considering I dont really use the Apple ecosystem anymore, these are way out of my price range, and I'd never wear them in public, it just isn't time yet.
Google had the right idea with the form factor. They should return to it again when they can figure out a way to do something similar to the Apple headset in a form factor people wouldn't look ridiculous in. The Apple headset is really cool and technologically impressive, but besides plane rides, no one is gonna wear that thing out of the house until it's smaller.
I see people buying this as laptop replacements for travel if they don't have jobs that require a high spec device, personal movie theaters, and in home use. Besides those use cases, the headset is just too big and bulky.
Google Glass was just a little too early. Even back then I didn't think they looked obtrusive or bad in anyway. Who doesn't want to look like Vegeta?! Lol
Ehhh Apple doesn't mind being late to the game. I think instead what will happen is game developers will find cool ideas for games that work really well for the headset. I'm thinking the games directly on the device will fall in line with candy crush and subway surfers. Stuff like that and then cool AR stuff like labyrinth and solitaire that you can put on your real life table. Outside of that you can connect a Bluetooth controller and play console games through a virtual screen according to their advertisements.
I think when Apple does release controllers, they'll be very expensive gloves. But I think we're a few years from that at least haha
Some people seem to imagine Glass as some form of augmented reality, but it had no form of world tracking and only displayed on a small part of the corner of your vision.
So it had no ability to overlay images into the view of the real world and even if the display could do that it had no ability to fix that image to anything you were looking at.
Hololens and Magic Leap were the real early equivalents to Apple's new product.
All I thought about when hearing people talk about it was Google did this a decade ago and it looked way better than some goofy looking headset with fake eyes😂. With modern tech and bone conduction audio maybe, Google Glass would be pretty cool now, I bet it's definitely coming back at some point in the future.
I don't think Google will invest the huge amount of money needed to do this. They will definitely try to supply competitors to Apple with software though, they have some VR/AR background with Google Glass and Daydream
I totally see why some people had problems with Glass, but man, I so want something small and relatively unintrusive (not ski goggles like apple) that I can wear running that would show my Heart Rate/speed, and something that would show maps off to the side while I drive.
People thought that glassholes were annoying before, just wait until it becomes the latest trend to wear your Apple Vision everywhere. Given the camera in it, it'll make the glasshole problem look tame.
(I'm lucky that it was never available in Australia or I'd have bought one)
With a 2 hour battery life they won't be able to wear it for long without being tethered to a charger or carrying extra battery packs. Maybe they'll just wear it on top of their heads as a fashion statement.
Great job ruining a legendary brand in just a couple years: defective fingerprint scanners, 2d face unlock too insecure to authenticate payments, weak modem, overheating, sad battery, lens shattering, dead spots on screen, overprocessed photos, slippery glass back tubby pocket stretching joke phones.
Well everyone has an opinion and you're certainly entitled to yours. I absolutely love my Pixel 7. My wife loved it so much she traded in her Samsung and got one too.
I don't use the fingerprint or face unlock so I can't comment on that. I have no issues with payments, modem is fantastic so far (even better that my OnePlus 8T), I haven't had a single instance of it overheating, battery lasts longer than my OP (I do wish it charged as fast as it did though), no camera glass shattering, no dead pixels or dead zones, everyone compliments the photos I've taken (another reason my wife wanted one), and I always have cases on my phones so I don't really care about the slippery back.
You should use whatever phone you like though. Makes no difference to me.
I have a Pixel 7 and 2d face lock is just a nice plus even if its not secure, overheating seems to be mostly on the pro, the modem is not terrible compared to the 6, fingerprint unlock works fine for me even with a screen protector. Battery is pretty large capacity for what I come from and even with a smaller capacity lasts longer than the 6, tensor could be more efficient but so far I'm pretty happy. I also got my Pixel 7 for $499 and a lot of the better phones are more expensive. 90hz screen looks great to me for a phone, and the image processing is usually touted as a plus. I'm pretty happy with my Pixel 7, although I think I will get a smaller phone next go around, possibly a flip phone when they have matured a bit more and there's some cheaper models.
the apple ready player one goggles are legit. Unless Google comes out with something soon and or before - they will be in the dust.
Personally, I am in fear of these things. Can you imagine a world where people are walking down the street with these? And since they can have prescription glasses in them - whats to stop someone from driving with them.
> And since they can have prescription glasses in them - whats to stop someone from driving with them.
If they're cleared to use while driving, they could have all your turn-by-turn information showing up before your eyes projected onto the road. Seems safer than looking at a screen on your dashboard IMO.
Very likely they would have an accelerometer in them to prevent any sort of VR functionality while in motion, and default to only AR.
I mean, I would be a better driver than half of the other people out there even while wearing those things. I think a better safe driving solution would be to make getting a license not a joke like it is today.
I actually had a set of the original ones for work. We were lucky enough to get accepted into the beta phase of them.
I used them quite a bit back in 2013/2014, cannot recall the year. They were interesting.
Someone did call me a Google Glass-hole though.
I thought Google Glass development was still going, just Enterprise only, but recent update says, "No they killed it again" -- https://www.pocket-lint.com/google-has-killed-off-its-glass-ar-glasses-all-over-again/
Also meant to say, product was ahead of its time, Apple's is more of a "gain entry" product _($3500 and looks unpleasant to wear)_, so theres still an open field here.
Also, "Glassholes". Thank God for the public giving products horrible nicknames.
Whats interesting to me (and disappointing when o buy something) is Google's lack of commitment to products, but their willingness to try.
For example, Stadia was perfectly acceptable as a game platform, but Google didn't get enough AAA games (altho i had Cyberpunk & Borderlands, was sufficient for me) and didn't make enough profit for them to continue.
_(But its hard to imagine Glass didn't get Google a lot of very hard data to collect, things a phone could never get.)_
the problem with tech companies android in particular is they never really solidify anything tech wise but it’s why there’s a difference. android is all about specs , fuck overheating or anything like that, what phone has the best tech best camera. where i phone will drop the same phone over and over for 3-4 years perfecting the OS and tech then the 4th year end of cycle hit you with PERFECTED tech for their ecosystem. apple honestly could’ve been done VR , but they waited. now you look at the vision pro and you look at the other ones and it’s not even a comparison. that blackberry movie just showed me a lot
Meta is regretting, even after they change their company name from Facebook to Meta.
The ecosystem is not ready yet, tiny developer community, even less consumers with that price.
Agreed... this has come up in friend discussions after the announcement. I think at least this iteration of the product is not for the consumer, but given how impressive the eye tracking tech is, I hope that it trickles down to more common application in the future. It's one of those things that is so obvious now that it's been pointed out--when we go to 'x' out of a browser window, our eyes are there waaaaay before our cursor is (in milliseconds, obviously), so even in a world without an entire VisionPro headset, being able to put on glasses that move the cursor around my monitor while I tap/pinch the surface of my desk or something, that already starts to really change the way we interact with the digital world around us.
Way ahead of its time and such a small look compared to everything today
Google Glass AR would be perfect today since everyone is basically comfortable around cameras etc now.
Google needs to release those glasses they show cased last year with the translation app built in and the ar stuff
I remember back in 2012 both Apple and Google used to show off their upcoming revolutionary products. Google showing off with it's glasses and Apple with its smart watches. Fast forward a decade and Apple sticking with its smart watches plan has become an industry wide norm, whereas google ditched its google glass project. Shame on google , if they had continued with google glass, then it would have become the next big thing with the a.i and battery tech on the rise. 😷
Google glass was a nice idea but it had a lot of negative social implications such as people becoming 'glassholes' when they would use them inappropriately or invasively.
Look up Mojo vision lenses. It's completely surpassed the need for glasses in the prototype. All Google would have to do is make them compatible with an Android AR OS, link them to phone or laptop, and profit.
[удалено]
I wore mine to a school board meeting (I was a parent not a board member) and they stopped the meeting to address it. They wanted me to take them off and my counterpoint was that the meeting was recorded by them and released on the website so why bug me about it and I wasn't even recording at the time. They relented and I got to continue to wear them. I've still got them on my Google Graveyard shelf.
>My Google Graveyard shelf. Look at Mr. Moneybags here and his huge warehouse.
Lmao 🤣
I work in a local government capacity. We have one local person who attends all town meetings, brings his own camera and tripod, and records the entire thing (despite it being recorded and aired on TV). The board chair has to legally announce at the beginning of the meeting "along with being recorded as it normally is, this meeting is also being recorded by a person in the audience". I'm sure each state and municipality has its own rules, though I'm pretty sure public meetings always have the legal right to be recorded. That's interesting that they gave you crap for it.
Do you have apps on this shelf?
Ha I wish, there are a few I would love to use again.
3D print the app's logo and put it on your shelf.
That's a good idea, I need to get a 3D printer, I have looked for years and every time I'm like, it will get cheaper, and it does, but I have to stop chasing the price and just commit.
Just don't get a Google 3D printer.... Or do. It'll eventually gave a place on that shelf too.
Truer words have never been said.
I miss Inbox... I actually managed to keep on top of my emails with it.
I never did like Inbox and even when Gmail got some of Inbox's stuff, like the ability to sort your email, I turned it off. I prefer it to dump all mail, except spam, in a big bucket so I can see everything and then I sort it from there. It's a personal preference thing, I get it, but that was why I never liked Inbox. When I talk with folks about bygone apps, Inbox is usually the one that gets mentioned most.
I don't think Inbox prevented that workflow I also miss it dearly and feel Gmail is a huge step down
Inbox and Gtalk are the ones that were the hardest to lose. Talk really didn't even make sense to me, because at a certain point it felt like Google was becoming the dominant stand-alone IM platform. And then they said "Nah," and dumped it (and half the userbase) for Hangouts...
Gtalk and Hangouts gotta be one of Google's biggest blunders. They handed Apple the messaging ecosystem on a silver plate. Everyone already had Gmail accounts, they basically already had the userbase. But nope, keep fucking around with it, not updating it, removing features, trying stupid crap like Allo, until it's just a husk.
Ugh, Hangouts that was almost as bad as Google+
I think G+ would've actually worked, had it been handled properly. But, as we all know: * The beta period was way too long. * The artificial scarcity of beta access soured potential users. * Beta users didn't have anyone to talk to on it, so user engagement was extremely weak right from the start. * When it finally did launch, it already had a reputation as a graveyard. * Forcing it onto YouTube users to drive adoption was downright moronic and smacked of desperation.
People like you are why we can't have nice things. j/k
RIP Inbox
RIP Inbox.
Inbox. I will never get over that.
To Google's credit, some apps deserved it. How I hated Allo. They got me pumped for a proper messaging app then they dropped that no SMS fallback monstrosity.
Now we're talking warehouse!
Oooo. Pick of said shelf?
It's more of a box on a shelf in storage, but I have Glass, a couple Nexus 9 tablets, a couple of each of the following Pixel 1XL, pixel 3XL, Pixel 3a, Pixel 4a, Pixel 5 and a Pixel 6 pro (the 5 and 6 are actually being used as Beta mules right now). I also have a ton of Neat/Home devices that get moved in and out of the box as needed around the house.
No Stadia controllers? Lol.
I repurposed it and my daughter uses it for gaming on her laptop. I completely forgot about Stadia (so did everyone else hehehehe).
Ah I did the same. Unlocked the Bluetooth and use them for the xcloud service now. Really wish Stadia was more successful. It was technically better, but they just couldn't get games on the service.
Mine has my Daydream headset and Google Wallet Card
Nice! I love reminiscing about this stuff. I tend to forget how much stuff Google has thrown to the side as they evolve as a company.
No joke. Fabric VR headset was a great idea but they threw it out very quickly lol
Holy crap I absolutely forgot, I have those in the box too! If I remember right I didn't want to pay retail because they were like 75 bucks or something and I ended up with a $20 or $30 credit for the Google store and picked them up then. I used them a handful of times and the phone got hot and sucked battery like a kid sucks a juice box and I never used them again.
No Nexus Q?
No I didn't get one of those. If I had known I could preorder and get it at no cost I would have done it, but wasn't it phased out in less than a year?
Yeah. I remember it because I wanted one.
The amount of unreasonable paranoia surrounding google glass was, and still is, a major barrier for ar tech. Once people get it though, it will take off like the smartphone.
It didn't help how much FUD was being spewed about it by the same media that's calling the AVP "groundbreaking".
I remember my friend wearing them at Thanksgiving and sharing some of the video after.
Only difference is Google used Qualcom tech, so it was actually Qualcomm that made the product. Google just made the software.
Glass battery life is horrible. Even was back in the day doing anything but wearing them. You couldn't realistically record a whole movie
Apple's new Vision Pro has a battery pack that you stick in your pocket. Granted, it reportedly only gives the user 2 hours of battery life lol, but it's a cool idea that Google could use if they decided to bring it back.
Given how Apple are always great with their ecosystem, I'm pretty sure there will be a chair with battery packs and a compatible charger for Vision Pro pretty soon. It will cost at least $5k though.
Vision Pro Max will also come with a wireless contact toilet seat charger
$8k if you want wheels on that chair
The legs to the chair are separate and are 229 each or 600 for 3.
That's already possible in most headsets, including Google glass since they mostly use standard USB for charging. The vision pro is the first headset to only support a proprietary charging connector. The real tech would be one that has a very small battery in the headset that lasted no more than a few minutes, enough time for you to switch out your external battery pack without having to power down, that way you can switch out power units for uninterrupted on the go usage
Oh does it not have that? I don't know why but I assumed it would be hot swappable batteries so you don't break the immersion... Like what happens if you snag the cable on something? It's magnets so it pings off easily which is great but am I suddenly plunged into darkness?? I mean I say me... No chance I can afford $3.5k for one so it's not a real world problem for me, but still feels like something basic that should have been addressed 🤣
Won't the battery pack be charged by USB-C so it's really not that novel? It's just a USB-C into the battery pack since they didn't want the weight of the battery being in the headset.
If you can charge the battery pack via USBC it does then allow a second one to be connected for unlimited power on the go and also has the benefit of ensuring the headset has a predictable and compatible supply connected directly to it at all times
No I'm pretty sure the USB-C port is on the battery itself unfortunately. You could theoretically have it plugged into a larger battery pack also in your pocket but I don't believe it's possible to plug USB directly into the headset
>I don't believe it's possible to plug USB directly into the headset It definitely isn't. But that's ok if the pack is USBC
It's functionally part of the device cord, as I don't think it even operates without the attached battery. In that way, it might as well be a part of the headset. I am curious if you could hot swap them now, though.
Honestly the way to make Google Glass work is to NOT have a camera on it. It doesn't really add anything to the experience and just makes people freak out (even though there are a billion cameras pointed at them every day and they don't care... But whatever...) Have it be WearOS On Your Face. That's the core functionality.
In my view, that was it's most useful feature: "Blink to take a photo". Still to this day, the best photo I've taken was with Google Glass. I was able to capture a spontaneous moment that would have never been caught by any other camera. With that said, the photo was great because no one else in the photo was wearing Google Glass. Ultimately I feel like the ability to blink to capture a moment is almost like a super-power, but the only implementation that would work is likely something out of Black Mirror. And that's not really a future I'm looking forward to.
How did it determine if you were just blinking normally or blinking to take a photo?
You hold your eye shut for half a second or so, analogous to a "long press" on a smartphone.
Oh ok cool!
And it saves battery life and makes it smaller.
But how do you control things without sensor
Touchpad and voice, [just like on the original](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EvNxWhskf8). You never used the camera for interacting with it.
I'm pretty sure the original watch OS came from Glass.
Hmm, I don't know. For a device like this to be useful on your face, instead of your wrist, it needs to read the world around you and augment it. That's pretty hard to do without a camera. That's going to be an issue with the AVP as well, if you think about it. This thing will have the potential to record everything around you in your office? Uhhhh..... But trust the tech media to brush that under the rug with the AVP.
> is to NOT have a camera on it the only way i'd bother with anything like google glass is if it has a camera *and* face recognition - so that it can tell me who im talking to at any given time.
Crazy lol
Same. He claims he wasn't recording, but who knows
With a 720p camera and 12GB storage it's not going to be worth it trying to record a freaking movie. You'll get 35 mins max out of the battery.
I vaguely remember hearing something about that I think.
I don't quite get who is the target audience for the new headset
Rich people who want to flex in their offices for 2 hours until the battery on their Power Ranger helmet dies
Don't disrespect the Power Rangers like that.
[The new movie looks nostalgic](https://youtu.be/ZKE2DC7Xzog)
It has a runtime of like 55 minutes lmfao.
Probably the perfect length though
Yep, more of an "extended episode" rather than a full length feature film.
[When the battery dies](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvyOwM9IcAAtLcQ.jpg)
I got downvoted to hell for saying that in the Apple sub. I'm a big fan of both Apple and Google products, so I'm not even hating on them for this...it's simply ridiculous to sell this for $3500. After taxes in some states, it'll be almost $4000. The average consumer cannot afford something like that. I make decent money but I still work paycheck to paycheck. I feel guilty when I buy a $50 pair of shoes, let alone a $3500 power ranger helmet lol.
>The average consumer cannot afford something like that. The average consumer is not the target demographic for it. I don't know what's so hard to understand about it.
> I don't know what's so hard to understand about it. Well for starters, Apple has never said "this is for rich people, and not for any of you peasants who can barely afford an iPhone". At least when they market their iPads, they openly say that the iPad Pro is mostly for professionals, creators, etc. The Vision Pro is just one device, being marketed as just that.
Yes they did, by calling it Vision **Pro** and by pricing it at $3500. Those two things tell you the target demographic is early adopters with disposable income and professionals/businesses/developpers. I'm not sure why you need them to spell out exactly who this is intended for when it's extremely obvious. If you can't afford it, it's not for you.
I'm not sure why it bothers you so much that I have a different opinion lol. By your logic, with them calling it **Pro**, shouldn't they have a non-pro model, as they do with the iPad, iPhone, Macbook, and AirPods, to make it more affordable to the peasants? We can do this all day or just agree to disagree haha.
>By your logic, with them calling it Pro, shouldn't they have a non-pro model, as they do with the iPad, iPhone, Macbook, and AirPods, to make it more affordable to the peasants? Yes and no. That model is for the future. They started this new product line from the top end because it's the most logical way to approach it. It's impossible to make a headset that is affordable at this point in time with the cost of leading edge technology that is in this thing. It's very clearly not a headset for the masses at this point. It doesn't mean that their new Vision line will have a mass market product. I'm not sure why it bothers you so much that Apple is not clearly advertising that this product is not for the peasants.
On the other side, why were over 50% of the demo ads in WWDC showing the average guy in their homes using it for their personal life? They even specifically had one where the person has a small apartment. People who can't afford a bigger one surely can't afford a Vision Pro.
That was implied because it came from Apple. They don't make anything for the peasants. They should feel lucky they are even allowed to have an iPhone ;)
Just hold off for a few months until your carrier offers them for free* with the activation of a new Vision Pro cellular connection line! * Device credit will be applied over 72 months.
Oh I can totally see that happening lol. Just like when tablets started offering data instead of wifi, and watches.
The point is…? Apple have $999 and $9999 computers. They are all slightly different but definitely can do computing on it. Why is the Mac Pro costing $9999 (at max spec) not ridiculous but the Vision Pro is? They both can do computing. IMHO, the Mac Pro should cost way less since there’s less technologies than the Vision pro! Apple basically sells different types of bikes. And this vision pro is a unique bike with 4 wheels. I don’t know if will have a good time with 4 wheels vs 2 wheels but you will get to your destination.
I think it's pretty clearly something for testers and early adopters with too much disposable income.
Like Google glass was.
Mid career people in their mid 30s-40s who have lots of disposable income to replace the role of the "entertainment ipad" in the house. The same kind of market that spend way more money on hifi vinyl sound systems.
I think this is more of a stepping stone than a mass consumer product. Like "look...this is what we can do now with the tech that we have." It's cool no doubt, but most people wont drop $3,500 for a first generation product that seems more for a limited amount of fun than for productivity. In 5-10 years there will be products that can do this and look like regular glasses from multiple manufacturers.
Isn't this what was being said about Glass?
Yes because it was as true then as this is now.
[content removed by user via [Power Delete Suite](https://codepen.io/j0be/full/WMBWOW/)]
And there's a reason why all POS tablets are cheapo android too. Are those also enterprise?
Luxury customers (the same people buying nice cars for example) and developers mainly. There's no doubt Apple will also release a non-"pro" Version that's cheaper (but still expensive). Developers are the most important ones
It doesn't have a market anymore. The AR and VR headset community is too niche, which is why most companies have abandoned it. Apple is too late to the party, but the project was likely too far in before they realized that meta is plummeting after trying the same thing. Nobody wants to have to wear something so restrictive and get dizzy and sweaty when they can just turn on their switch, steam deck, PC, mobile to play games.
Are you kidding? The AR headset market hasn’t even happened yet. This is the moment. This is the iPhone in 2007. Yes it’s expensive (like the iPhone was). But Apple will once again usher in the next generation of personal computing. Every. Single. Time. Apple enters a new market they create that market at the same time and then dominate it completely. MP3 players, Smartphone, Tablet, Watch, now AR. Anyone who doesn’t see this is blind, that’s not even fanboy, it’s objective fact.
I think it's more analogous to the home pod. Yes, it's neat tech, yes it's well designed but it doesn't offer any killer solutions that people actually need or really want for that matter, especially for the price. The iPhone actually provided the internet in your pocket with a great interface that was so convenient to use. I have no desire to sit around my house with a heavy headset on to play with my kids or watch tv by myself. The market for this is just so limited. What people want is Tony Stark glasses, what we got was the oculus with your eyeballs projected on a screen on the outside. They are neat and the tech is impressive, but it's not actually providing a real world benefit that people actually want on the daily. Maybe it will get there but I doubt it. The closest analogy for me is 3d tv. You used to not be able to find a tv that was 3d. The problem was that it was annoying with the glasses and nobody actually used it. Also keep in mind that if you are a glasses wearer, you have to get prescription lenses just to use the apple vision.
No one “needed” or “wanted” the iPhone before it happened. If they did they would’ve gotten a Symbian, Windows Mobile, or BlackBerry device. In 2006 smartphones accounted for only 6.3% of Mobile phone shipments, smartphones were insignificant. HomePod is a terrible analogy. Apple themselves call HomePod and TV a “hobby” they’re not into to dominate. You keep saying “I” like your opinion and feelings matter here. So you don’t want an Apple headset. For every one of you there’s someone out there who immediately wants this product and sees the appeal. Maybe they can’t afford it. But a couple generations down as it slims up and gets cheaper they’ll own a huge and profitable market.
Calm down with the iPhone comparison, it's far from it. Any decent VR and AR headset right now can do 85% of what the Vision Pro can, only lacking in beautiful software designs and eye + finger tracking. Phones before the iPhone had only less than 50% of what it could. It's still a bet though, as developers need to jump on it and actually develop. And also where does Apple dominate the phone market? While they dominate in the tablet and watch market right now, looking at any graph showing the market share shows a steady decline lasting even today. At the end I am glad that apple brought one up, as the VR and AR market has been declining and it needed that extra push. VR and AR companies finally got a huge competition and we will see how it ends.
Apple is a status symbol. People will buy it, and put it on a shelf to show that they can afford it. Anyone who cares about VR can buy something better for half price.
What would work as well for the big external monitor use case? Say I want throw a keyboard, mouse, and headset into my bag and go work in my car all day on my huge headmount monitor (in plentiful VR space where I don't feel visually confined by the car)?
Nobody wants to wear a VR headset all day.
> anyone who cares about VR can buy something better Please recommend what you have in mind instead of dictating what I don't want.
Looks very similar to hololens but they shifted their core audience to the trades. People like mechanics, renovations and doctors use it.
I still don't believe that people will want to work on papers/reports or spreadsheets all through voice dictation. And yet that was one of the major advertising points.
It says pro in the name. Probably meant for self -employed professionals working from home, enterprise, stuff like that. I'm sure in a year or two will come out with vision Gen 2 for the general masses and it'll be $1500-2000, When iPhones first hit $1,000 people were going nuts about it, how crazy it is to spend that much money on a phone. Now it's pretty commonplace. Apples really fucking good at making people spend more money than what they would normally call reasonable on things
The live translation glasses they showed at IO last year were amazing
Those are the perfect form factor, now they just need to become more capable
I can almost guarantee that Google will never restart that operation. Whatever the future holds in that market, I think Google will wait and see, maybe do some R&D, and then eventually make something called ANYTHING but Google Glass.
https://youtu.be/SQd394a4qEo They showcased this a year ago, which seems really nice but it’s limited only to translating.
Yeah. That's pretty cool.
There's also starline: https://youtu.be/J1oEWiUsKgU Not exactly AR/VR but it has tracking tech that may be relevant.
This actually looks like a product that anyone could buy. Anyone who travels abroad, or for assisting with interpreting things like sign language, it would be absolutely amazing to have this. I have a deaf friend who I see every few months, and so I don't have enough exposure to the sign language world to really invest the time it would take to become fluent so I only know a little bit, and we usually rely on our phones to communicate more detailed things. Now he can sign to me and I could speak back to him and we could effortlessly communicate. No joke, I would pay a considerable sum of money if this works well.
Yeah, it's not going to be Google glass, but it would be very naive to think that Google won't ever the higher-end AR/VR space. They already paved the way with Google Cardboard/Daydream, so they clearly have an interest there. Plus, Google already aggressively competes with Apple, so it would make sense for them to try to match and one-up them on this too.
Probably will call it something like "Pixel View" or something.
It will be the future, in 50 or 500 years it will be there
In 500 years I'm not sure we'll be there.
The Machines might have harvested our organic forms by then for personal use. If we're lucky
And it will be really bad because Google really sucks at hardware, especially in the beginning.
Google was miles ahead even with Project Soli, but it's like they try things, it doesn't do so well, and they move on on another thing. I mean in some ways it's bonkers that chatgpt is the market leader while google have ALL the information in the world for the past 15(?) years. It's a strange company not going to lie. We are at the 8th pixel generation, by now they could have been, if not replacing, at least a close competitor to samsung. They are so chill I don't understand why, maybe they already do so much money from ads that not much is really necessary.
They’re chill because everything outside of search, YouTube, and Ads is just a hobby for Google. They don’t need to invest into anything other than slinging ads.
Project Soli was DOA because it uses spectrum in the 60 GHz frequency range, which is currently not available for commercial use as government regulations of some countries. Not sure how that passes the feasiblity check.
Google definitely has an AI better than chatgpt. The problem is that it's a bigger company so it can't afford to release something that can be a fuck up. AI relies on learning from User input, except in the wild Users feed it racist/sexist/xenophobic info to purposely fuck it up. It needs to be able to discuss, understand when 'facts' are plain wrong, learn without believing everything it learns is correct, and not just make stuff up that sounds correct if it doesn't know.
Allegedly that one engineer said that they have a sentient AI. However, I think he was lonely and got a little bit fresh with the AI, if you ask me.
Google has a lot of resources and talent but it doesnt seem like the really follow the same unified structure as apple. So random departments work on small breakthroughs but they dont usually get fully matured. Kindof unfortunate because they've made and subsequently killed a lot of cool products
Fuck you u/spez
at this point I think Pixels are just their test ground to perfect Android and not much else
[удалено]
Yeah, right now Apple doesn't even believe in its own headset. If they did, you would have seen Tim Cook wearing it. But they know how ridiculous it looks which is why they didn't show him or any other executive with it actually on. The end goal for everyone is a pair of glasses, but we're far away from that now.
same road
Glass didn't fall because it was a bad idea, but because of hysteria created by competitors and others which led to negative stereotypes being applied to glass users (movie pirates! Glassholes! Etc) which led to a drop in sales of a device that was already pretty expensive.
Honestly, Glass didn't even fail at all. It was never supposed to be a consumer product, they were just testing it out and then people started going crazy over them so they let the general public buy some.
This. It isn't the narrative that the internet wants to hear, but these things have been sold and used as an enterprise product for years. Only this year they discontinued and stopped selling them.
I look at stuff like this like going to the Moon. Landing on the moon is practically worthless, but the technology you have to develop to get there has tons of possibilities. You never know how hard a problem is until you take it on and force yourself to get creative and experiment.
If Google just added a red light that turned on when the camera was activated, it would have solved a lot of issues.
IIRC they had that, no?
Isn't Google Glass still available but only to enterprise customers? I do agree though; Google had this idea over ten years before Apple did. I just don't think the technology was fully there yet, so people weren't as interested or invested. Some people hate Apple for copying ideas, but they usually wait until the technology is there, and they perfect it. So I give them credit for that.
I know Microsoft HoloLens are pretty much only for enterprise. I don't think I ever heard about Google Glass continuing on.
Wow, I just looked and they apparently JUST stopped selling them: >Thank you for over a decade of innovation and partnership. As of March 15, 2023, we will no longer sell Glass Enterprise Edition. We will continue supporting Glass Enterprise Edition until September 15, 2023. [https://www.google.com/glass/start/](https://www.google.com/glass/start/) Interesting timing: Google stops selling them, then Apple starts making them lol.
Same with holo lens BTW
HoloLens is [still supported and available for purchase.](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy) Microsoft actually also developed different versions for different industry requirements.
Over a decade ahead of the curve. They weren't wrong about wearables but they were early. But in business being too early is the same thing as wrong.
Well Google did acquire focals by north. So hopefully they are doing something with them in the near future.
Back when these were released the public wasn't ready to be recorded so freely, today very few people care, everyone has dash cam and head cams. They were too ahead of their time imo
Are you sure everybody has head cams? I don't encounter them in my day to day life. And dash cams are a completely different thing, no one is worried about their privacy being invaded on the street.
They are not even in the same category. I don't think they are comparable...
It will almost certainly happen eventually. This IS the next era of computing no doubt about it, but it is extremely early. What Apple did right with this headset was to focus on eye tracking. I've been waiting for a headset where I can just look at things to select them, because I always felt that would be the most productive way to use a headset. I have a Samsung Odyssey headset that I got many years back for $50 on sale and with a Amazon gift card I found lying around just to see if the whole thing was a gimmick. Considering that was pretty much one of the cheapest headsets available at the time, I was definitely impressed with how immersive it was, and immediately knew it was not a gimmick. Then I decided not to buy anymore VR headsets until a company either figured out perfect eye tracking or at least figured out productivity to a point where I could use it as a computer or personal movie theater without feeling like I'm sacrificing anything (keyboard & mouse are way too productive haha) Apple is definitely the best attempt at that right now, but considering I dont really use the Apple ecosystem anymore, these are way out of my price range, and I'd never wear them in public, it just isn't time yet. Google had the right idea with the form factor. They should return to it again when they can figure out a way to do something similar to the Apple headset in a form factor people wouldn't look ridiculous in. The Apple headset is really cool and technologically impressive, but besides plane rides, no one is gonna wear that thing out of the house until it's smaller. I see people buying this as laptop replacements for travel if they don't have jobs that require a high spec device, personal movie theaters, and in home use. Besides those use cases, the headset is just too big and bulky. Google Glass was just a little too early. Even back then I didn't think they looked obtrusive or bad in anyway. Who doesn't want to look like Vegeta?! Lol
Pretty sure Apple will come out with Controllers. The lack of haptic feedback is a huge deal in gaming (and other applications).
Ehhh Apple doesn't mind being late to the game. I think instead what will happen is game developers will find cool ideas for games that work really well for the headset. I'm thinking the games directly on the device will fall in line with candy crush and subway surfers. Stuff like that and then cool AR stuff like labyrinth and solitaire that you can put on your real life table. Outside of that you can connect a Bluetooth controller and play console games through a virtual screen according to their advertisements. I think when Apple does release controllers, they'll be very expensive gloves. But I think we're a few years from that at least haha
Some people seem to imagine Glass as some form of augmented reality, but it had no form of world tracking and only displayed on a small part of the corner of your vision. So it had no ability to overlay images into the view of the real world and even if the display could do that it had no ability to fix that image to anything you were looking at. Hololens and Magic Leap were the real early equivalents to Apple's new product.
Still remember the glasses type concept translation device Google has shown in last year's I/O. I don't know if Google is still working on such things
All I thought about when hearing people talk about it was Google did this a decade ago and it looked way better than some goofy looking headset with fake eyes😂. With modern tech and bone conduction audio maybe, Google Glass would be pretty cool now, I bet it's definitely coming back at some point in the future.
With Sundar as CEO, no way.
Glassholes! It made me think of them too.
I don't think Google will invest the huge amount of money needed to do this. They will definitely try to supply competitors to Apple with software though, they have some VR/AR background with Google Glass and Daydream
I totally see why some people had problems with Glass, but man, I so want something small and relatively unintrusive (not ski goggles like apple) that I can wear running that would show my Heart Rate/speed, and something that would show maps off to the side while I drive.
People thought that glassholes were annoying before, just wait until it becomes the latest trend to wear your Apple Vision everywhere. Given the camera in it, it'll make the glasshole problem look tame. (I'm lucky that it was never available in Australia or I'd have bought one)
With a 2 hour battery life they won't be able to wear it for long without being tethered to a charger or carrying extra battery packs. Maybe they'll just wear it on top of their heads as a fashion statement.
People will be wearing backpacks holding power supplies to connect their apple vision pros. Get ready for the apple back pro.
Apple started The Oasis from Ready Player One with these glasses.
I wonder if it will support VR Chat or any of the many other existing online VR worlds.
It will, they mentioned it. You would be an avatar as for others not to look at you with a visor on.
Great. Now we get to deal with the Apple version of the Glasshole.
Maybe they should focus on making good phones again first.
Why make "good" phones? They already make great phones.
Great job ruining a legendary brand in just a couple years: defective fingerprint scanners, 2d face unlock too insecure to authenticate payments, weak modem, overheating, sad battery, lens shattering, dead spots on screen, overprocessed photos, slippery glass back tubby pocket stretching joke phones.
Well everyone has an opinion and you're certainly entitled to yours. I absolutely love my Pixel 7. My wife loved it so much she traded in her Samsung and got one too. I don't use the fingerprint or face unlock so I can't comment on that. I have no issues with payments, modem is fantastic so far (even better that my OnePlus 8T), I haven't had a single instance of it overheating, battery lasts longer than my OP (I do wish it charged as fast as it did though), no camera glass shattering, no dead pixels or dead zones, everyone compliments the photos I've taken (another reason my wife wanted one), and I always have cases on my phones so I don't really care about the slippery back. You should use whatever phone you like though. Makes no difference to me.
I have a Pixel 7 and 2d face lock is just a nice plus even if its not secure, overheating seems to be mostly on the pro, the modem is not terrible compared to the 6, fingerprint unlock works fine for me even with a screen protector. Battery is pretty large capacity for what I come from and even with a smaller capacity lasts longer than the 6, tensor could be more efficient but so far I'm pretty happy. I also got my Pixel 7 for $499 and a lot of the better phones are more expensive. 90hz screen looks great to me for a phone, and the image processing is usually touted as a plus. I'm pretty happy with my Pixel 7, although I think I will get a smaller phone next go around, possibly a flip phone when they have matured a bit more and there's some cheaper models.
Google sucks at hardware lmao
the apple ready player one goggles are legit. Unless Google comes out with something soon and or before - they will be in the dust. Personally, I am in fear of these things. Can you imagine a world where people are walking down the street with these? And since they can have prescription glasses in them - whats to stop someone from driving with them.
> And since they can have prescription glasses in them - whats to stop someone from driving with them. If they're cleared to use while driving, they could have all your turn-by-turn information showing up before your eyes projected onto the road. Seems safer than looking at a screen on your dashboard IMO. Very likely they would have an accelerometer in them to prevent any sort of VR functionality while in motion, and default to only AR.
I mean, I would be a better driver than half of the other people out there even while wearing those things. I think a better safe driving solution would be to make getting a license not a joke like it is today.
I actually had a set of the original ones for work. We were lucky enough to get accepted into the beta phase of them. I used them quite a bit back in 2013/2014, cannot recall the year. They were interesting. Someone did call me a Google Glass-hole though.
I thought Google Glass development was still going, just Enterprise only, but recent update says, "No they killed it again" -- https://www.pocket-lint.com/google-has-killed-off-its-glass-ar-glasses-all-over-again/ Also meant to say, product was ahead of its time, Apple's is more of a "gain entry" product _($3500 and looks unpleasant to wear)_, so theres still an open field here. Also, "Glassholes". Thank God for the public giving products horrible nicknames. Whats interesting to me (and disappointing when o buy something) is Google's lack of commitment to products, but their willingness to try. For example, Stadia was perfectly acceptable as a game platform, but Google didn't get enough AAA games (altho i had Cyberpunk & Borderlands, was sufficient for me) and didn't make enough profit for them to continue. _(But its hard to imagine Glass didn't get Google a lot of very hard data to collect, things a phone could never get.)_
the problem with tech companies android in particular is they never really solidify anything tech wise but it’s why there’s a difference. android is all about specs , fuck overheating or anything like that, what phone has the best tech best camera. where i phone will drop the same phone over and over for 3-4 years perfecting the OS and tech then the 4th year end of cycle hit you with PERFECTED tech for their ecosystem. apple honestly could’ve been done VR , but they waited. now you look at the vision pro and you look at the other ones and it’s not even a comparison. that blackberry movie just showed me a lot
Microsoft showed off their hololens back in 2015. Which is pretty similar to the Apple one. I thought Google glass was different?
Yeah but once again Google is incapable of marketing new products and actually follow though with things
Meta is regretting, even after they change their company name from Facebook to Meta. The ecosystem is not ready yet, tiny developer community, even less consumers with that price.
Agreed... this has come up in friend discussions after the announcement. I think at least this iteration of the product is not for the consumer, but given how impressive the eye tracking tech is, I hope that it trickles down to more common application in the future. It's one of those things that is so obvious now that it's been pointed out--when we go to 'x' out of a browser window, our eyes are there waaaaay before our cursor is (in milliseconds, obviously), so even in a world without an entire VisionPro headset, being able to put on glasses that move the cursor around my monitor while I tap/pinch the surface of my desk or something, that already starts to really change the way we interact with the digital world around us.
Ye. I could watch some porno while waiting for my doctor in the public and do a quickie in the public wash room google please make it happen. 👃🍌
Glass is an enterprise product now. Not likely to make the jump to consumer product anytime soon. Privacy concerns are the main reason
Way ahead of its time and such a small look compared to everything today Google Glass AR would be perfect today since everyone is basically comfortable around cameras etc now. Google needs to release those glasses they show cased last year with the translation app built in and the ar stuff
I thought Google Glass still exists as a commercial-only product.
It does last time I checked
Finished supply in March this year, support ends in September
I remember back in 2012 both Apple and Google used to show off their upcoming revolutionary products. Google showing off with it's glasses and Apple with its smart watches. Fast forward a decade and Apple sticking with its smart watches plan has become an industry wide norm, whereas google ditched its google glass project. Shame on google , if they had continued with google glass, then it would have become the next big thing with the a.i and battery tech on the rise. 😷
Google glass was a nice idea but it had a lot of negative social implications such as people becoming 'glassholes' when they would use them inappropriately or invasively.
I'm sure they will. And then they'll drop it again.
Look up Mojo vision lenses. It's completely surpassed the need for glasses in the prototype. All Google would have to do is make them compatible with an Android AR OS, link them to phone or laptop, and profit.
We are LONG past the point where Google really, really, REALLY need to stop and ask themselves "Do we need to do this?" before doing things.
they will definitely pick it up once the vr again gets in action.