StevieM Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I appreciate that there are valid arguments both for and against CCTV. However, I feel that the thread is drifting a little from Google Glass. My beef was about individuals capturing me on camera without my knowledge.
localzuk Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) I have to say, I'd probably buy one if I could afford it! I do like augmented reality as a technology though! My beef was about individuals capturing me on camera without my knowledge. They can do this now anyway, Glass is neither here nor there with this. The law is clear on it too. Edited June 24, 2014 by localzuk
Gibson335 Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 £1000?! Are they nuts?! I would want them to pay me that per day to wear them.
Hefferzzzz Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 It does surprise me the amouunt of anti new tech sentiment on here. I would have thought that we would be all for some new technology and embracing its use, finding out its limits, possibilites and how we could use it to improve quality of life.
Zoom7000 Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 It does surprise me the amouunt of anti new tech sentiment on here. I would have thought that we would be all for some new technology and embracing its use, finding out its limits, possibilites and how we could use it to improve quality of life. Hardly anti tech. Definitely anti rip off!
flyinghaggis Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 It's not something I'd want to wear all day but I think it would be useful when I'm out cycling. It would be handy being able to record my journey and for using as a HUD with information like speed/time/possibly map info/etc. I always wear glasses when out cycling anyway so I think this is a specific instance where it would work well. I'll need to wait until they drop the price slightly though!
localzuk Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Hardly anti tech. Definitely anti rip off! Really? You think a tiny computer that has a day long battery that projects into your eye is cheaper than £1000 to produce in low volume?
Gibson335 Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 It does surprise me the amouunt of anti new tech sentiment on here. I would have thought that we would be all for some new technology and embracing its use, finding out its limits, possibilites and how we could use it to improve quality of life. New technology itself may not be the issue - but frankly I have a hard enough job not laughing at people who use blue tooth phones, so my ability not to openly mock people wearing this is questionable. You may say the problem lies with me - to which I'd offer a shrug.
localzuk Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 New technology itself may not be the issue - but frankly I have a hard enough job not laughing at people who use blue tooth phones, so my ability not to openly mock people wearing this is questionable. You may say the problem lies with me - to which I'd offer a shrug. People call Glass users "glassholes". I'd say your attitude is more closer to the original word than someone merely using a piece of technology. Would you have mocked people who started using the seed drill? Or the automobile? Or early plane developers?
Gibson335 Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 People call Glass users "glassholes". I'd say your attitude is more closer to the original word than someone merely using a piece of technology. Would you have mocked people who started using the seed drill? Or the automobile? Or early plane developers? Oh dear...some people take themselves so seriously...
localzuk Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Oh dear...some people take themselves so seriously... Nice counterargument... You've convinced me. We should mock everyone who does new things.
sonofsanta Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Really? You think a tiny computer that has a day long battery that projects into your eye is cheaper than £1000 to produce in low volume? The bill of materials is somewhere around the $100 mark. 1
Gibson335 Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Nice counterargument... You've convinced me. We should mock everyone who does new things. It was actually very much a tongue-in-cheek post, but then along you come with your self-righteous indignation...have yourself a very nice day.
Theblacksheep Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 The more cameras the better if you ask me, they serve a protection purpose and as long as you're not doing anything wrong in the first place then what's the problem, your caught on camera up to 300 times a day depending on where you live already so why does it bother people when more cameras are coming anyway, they protect us and help police etc... I have never understood the big issue with this whole "Big Brother" concept everyone is throwing around, do you care if someone has you on camera but you're not doing anything wrong? Mods can we have an ignore user button?
localzuk Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 The bill of materials is somewhere around the $100 mark. Interesting! Doesn't cover the costs for software development or original R&D though. But yes, if those prices, even doubled, are true then the price is far too high.
abillybob Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Mods can we have an ignore user button? You can block me if you wish!
sonofsanta Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Interesting! Doesn't cover the costs for software development or original R&D though. But yes, if those prices, even doubled, are true then the price is far too high. Oh undoubtedly the R&D and software are huge, but I don't think it's fair to push this onto the beta users who are helping you refine and improve the product, and dealing with an openly flawed and unready product. R&D is the gamble you take that it will turn into a product you can profit from later. Oculus Rift has probably spent more on R&D, with a device that likely costs more to make (no BOM teardowns available, as far as I can tell) but their prototypes have been sold at near-to-cost, $350 for the latest version (compared to $1500 for Glass). Even Zuckerberg has said they'll sell the consumer OR at "the lowest cost possible". So yeah... bit of a rip-off from Google
pcstru Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Oh undoubtedly the R&D and software are huge, but I don't think it's fair to push this onto the beta users who are helping you refine and improve the product, and dealing with an openly flawed and unready product. R&D is the gamble you take that it will turn into a product you can profit from later. I thought the current early access was really aimed at developers for whom whom the advantage is they get to be first to market with their AR apps.
Fleetwood Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I'd say they're selling it at £1,000 "because they can." - there will be a market of people who would spend that sort of money on this, unfortunately.
Zoom7000 Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) Google Glass - Available in: Charcoal, Tangerine, Cotton, Shale and Sky or Black, Orange, White, Grey and Blue you know, for us normal people! Edited June 24, 2014 by Zoom7000 1
Arthur Posted June 24, 2014 Author Posted June 24, 2014 @Zoom7000. The high price is to discourage certain types of people from buying the device while it is essentially in beta. Google Glass will be much cheaper once it's ready for regular people.
Ric_ Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 I want some... I just don't have a grand right now (still tempted to just hit buy though) FYI... You're all wrong saying that they are dumb!
Grey-gear Posted June 24, 2014 Posted June 24, 2014 Would be cool to have a piar to see how goo they really are but no way I can afford to drop £1000 for it, come on Google if this is Beta are they going to change £2000 for Google glasses after Beta
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now