> It’s a cool lab demo that they’re presenting as a finished product.

Google couldn't be any more clear that it is a beta and they've never once said that the current price is what it will hit the market at (or if it will hit the market, for that matter). So that's just flat out wrong.

> It is ugly and clunky and ridiculously expensive for what it does.

Again, assuming it's a mass market product and not the experiment in wearable computing it is.

> In the meantime, to me, Google Glass is the new Tablet PC.

And there it is. Glass is Microsoft's failed foray into tablet computing. He's not even sure that this form factor will be popular, yet he compares it to a technology that took off in spite of an initially poor execution. He's convinced it will succeed, I guess, when someone other than Google does it. I wonder who he has in mind.

This is just wrong. Google gains massive points in my book for putting something like Glass out there. They get points for showing the world a glimpse of what the future can be, and getting everyone else to think about it. The wearables revolution was started with Glass, and whether or not Glass ends up being the flagship product of the wearables market it doesn't matter. Google started it either way.

I own Glass. 99.9% of people who see me wearing them want to know more about them. They want to try them on and experience glass. And of course, I let them give Glass a whirl. They love it. Yes it's WAY too pricey but, it's still awesome. I don't find them that unattractive. I look at it like, "I'm at a sporting/concert event and I obviously want to take pictures, so I'm wearing this, which is more convenient." Once I explain that to people, they totally get why I'm wearing Glass.

Glass makes sense and it's a step in the right direction for wearable computing. At least for now.

My gripes:

It needs Bluetooth LE. I'm an iOS developer. I need Bluetooth LE to support notifications at least.

iOS is hamstrung until I can send iMessages. I don't see that changing.

Swiping through all the cards can be kind of a nuisance.

Battery life.

Google is a software company so, I imagine the more Apple opens up their notifications etc, the better Glass will get.

I'm not sure if it's because of the 'creep factor' or what. I guess I'm just not ready for a society always recording everything. I can't even imagine what high school would be like. One embarrassing thing happens, and 30 people have it recorded, uploaded to the internet, and commenting on it in minutes. I guess that could already happen with phones, but at least right now not everything is being recorded at every minute by every person.

If Glass use does become widespread, I have a feeling many private companies, such as restaurants, and malls will ban its use indoors, which would make it a pain to use (especially if it's connected to your prescription glasses!).

He knows deep inside that regardless of how Google Glass (and wearable glasses in general) fare in the future that Google has out innovated Apple, and he's really having a hard time coming to terms with that idea.

They do? It seems to me that they've been looking for early adopters that can provide feedback. It'll be a finished product once it's available for order on Google Play.

I also work at a news outlet (NPR), and I have a co-worker who wears Glass during the workday (not every day, but enough that I notice). I've never seen anything but polite interest.

Oh no! I might have to get laser eye surgery and stop wearing glasses.

Society already records everything. The only change Glass brings is the first-person perspective and it frees up a hand that normally would be holding a phone.

Surely you are aware this society has been existing for close to a decade, right?

> If Glass use does become widespread, I have a feeling many private companies, such as restaurants, and malls will ban its use indoors

People were saying the exact same thing about cell phones ten years ago.

Alternatively, some kind of wifi/3g blocker or jammer, could be the answer.

In some ways it might make sense to use a polite version of that, where devices would 'hear' a wifi SSID signal, or whatever, with a 'this is a private place, no creepiness, please' signal embedded in it. To stop denial of service, or only having official jamming, you could have that privacy signal location specific, with a Lat/Long GPS position, and then the whole thing signed against a central server (probably google, but a non-Profit would probably be ideal), so that people couldn't wander around with portable jammers.

Then shopping centers, schools, private homes, resturants, etc, could easily register for a code, plonk it on a jammer or other wifi router, and behold, an illusion of privacy.

If there were government regulation about devices having to obey such signals to be legal for use, then I could see it working.

It just seems so unnecessary, a (lousy) solution in search of a problem. For now, people wearing Glass strike me as trying too hard to be "cutting edge" or whatever. It's the world's most pathetic conversation starter.