Google's glasses: Who's the idiot that would buy these?

Google's glasses: Who's the idiot that would buy these?

Summary: The composite sketch of a Google glasses consumer isn't pretty.

SHARE:

Google is reportedly cooking up glasses that will be based on Android and feed information and data to your eyes in real time.

The New York Times' Nick Bilton writes:

According to several Google employees familiar with the project who asked not to be named, the glasses will go on sale to the public by the end of the year. These people said they are expected “to cost around the price of current smartphones,” or $250 to $600.

Bilton has a bunch of other details, but let's cut to the chase. These goggles are going to go over just like Google TV did. I can't help but think of the composite sketch of the person who would buy these things.

That composite sketch is a total dork.

  • Do you really need GPS in your glasses? No.
  • Do you really need a data connection in your eyes? Nope.
  • Are you really going to pay more than $100 for what essentially is a gag gift for nerds? No.
  • Do you want Google ads in your glasses (you know they're coming)?
  • Do you want data---not to mention tracking---following you around everywhere? Probably not.

In the end, it's hard to see how these Google glasses contribute much of anything. Even worse Google glasses threaten to take the life out of what should be a mindful walk in the park. Skip the goggles. Enjoy the walk.

Topics: Hardware, Google, Mobility, Smartphones

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

57 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The devil is in the details

    Just because you are wearing a computer in front of your eyes does not mean it has to obvious to anyone who sees you. For all we know, they may have been able to make the Google goggles look like ordinary sunshades or prescription glasses.
    fishy2
    • Larry's comments remind me of Ballmer on the iPhone

      @fishy2 remember all of the negative things Ballmer said about the iPhone? Larry sounds exactly like Ballmer did. :-)
      balsover
      • I also remember...

        When the iPad was announced, many people believed it would fail because of its name resembling a tampon product.

        And before anyone suggests that Apple is the only one who can disprove their critics, there are articles from the past, which suggested Android won't succeed: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/25/android_to_conquer_all_not/ (2010), and that Gmail will fail: http://www.nickschweitzer.net/2004/04/16/WhyGmailWillFail.aspx (2004).

        My opinion is that it's too early to decide whether Google glasses will or won't catch on. Articles such as this are just speculative fiction.
        fishystory@...
    • Dignan's comments about "Do you need...do you want..."

      are about as relevant and prophetic as my own ridiculously horrible misguided comments that were much the same that I so proudly predicted about the iPad the first days I read about what exactly it was and what it could and could not do, and what it would cost.

      The ipad, for what it cost, appeared to be a monstrously ridiculous device that wasn’t up to a whole lot, had clear cut shortcoming in the way of storage capacity and real desktop style applications along with no USB support or DVD drive all wrapped up in a package that was going to cost as much as an inexpensive desktop. If ever common sense appeared to predict a loser of a product, I so horribly and mistakenly felt that all the earmarks of an unwanted dog were the, and I was ridiculously wrong.

      There are clearly lessons to be learned. One is; never under estimate the public’s interest in purchasing things they neither actually NEED nor things that don’t exactly do all one might hope, or cost a lot more than just pocket change.
      Cayble
  • Hollywood will like it

    It already in movies hundreds of times.
    FADS_z
  • I would definetely buy them

    just imagine the google+ integration!
    The Linux Geek
    • I'd love to see you in a pair

      So I could see you walk into lampposts and brick walls. That would be fun to watch.
      Blogsworth
    • I have no doubt. Seriously.

      There is now some serious history to show that there is likely plenty who would find a way to manage the expenses to strap a set of these goggles on their noggin.

      And make no mistake, there is also now some serious history to show there are plenty out there who will swear that after they get these things, that they will be able to assist with the daily workload and that they are suitable for all sorts and kinds of regular activity and there will be bunches probably ready to wait in line for version 2.0.

      The iPad should have the absolute, absolute and absolute last word on the "never say never" rule in the world of IT.

      And the absolute last word is, never ever say never. I and quite a number like me are still chocking on our own big fat mouths.
      Cayble
  • You will too.

    Do you really need GPS in your phone?
    Do you really need a constant data connection to your phone?

    Need no want yes.

    How much of your day do you spend staring at a screen anyway?
    Why would you want to be able to fit that screen in your pocket?

    Who would want to look up and review an instructional video when tinkering under a sink or car?

    I would!
    DarCK
    • Good point..

      @DarCK - and politicians would like them as a teleprompter replacement, so they could tell better, more fluid, more graceful lies.
      JCitizen
      • Hahah touche!

        Hahah touche!
        registeredjustforthis
  • Lack of vision on your part Larry

    I don't know what they look like, on the other hand neither do you. Most of your comments already apply to cell phones that people already carry around.
    If these glasses could be made to look respectable as far as a pair of sunglasses go being able to call up any information and have it displayed privately (possibly in 3D) before your eyes from a voice command is seriously cool and would be a cooler thing than Apple's Sirus or whatever it is called; it would be about as close to virtual reality as we can practically create today.
    balsover
    • Agree

      @balsover
      Criticizing a product before it has been shown or demonstrated does not help anyone to make an informed opinion. One one hand, if it works like Hollywood portrays in movies then it could be popular and on the other hand it could have problems like eye strain and distraction and not sell.
      sboverie
  • Trolling in the name of journalism?

    Build in a high quality camera and design them so it is not readily obvious that they are 'Google specs' and paparazzi, policemen, sports photographers, spys, me and many, many others will buy them like hotcakes.

    Easily film whatever you happen to be looking at, upload the footage in near real time, broker/sell it to whoever might want it (news agencies, tabloids, corporation, etc) again - in near real time. This idea has been around since at least 1992 (See Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.) Been seen in countless films and is perfectly sensible, rational, viable and about time.

    Question: is it common for articles here to troll so shamelessly? Of course people will buy these.

    Sheesh.
    mostlyfoobar
    • Many of the writers are turning into pot stirrers.

      This article is pure nonsesne. The writer knows it fully well yet he put it out there.

      There have been inexplicable products in very recent history that have made multiple multiple millions if not billions and yet we get a jackass story like this that implies nobody would by such a thing.

      History shows; not only will masses likely buy these glasses, they will likely wait in line for days to get them at any price, and then afterward swear that they can do their best work while wearing them, and then wait in line again when version 2.0 is ready for sale.

      Dignan knows this all too well, its more worthwhile asking ourselves why he would write an article like this.
      Cayble
  • This means..

    The CIA/NSA will have real time knowledge of what you are looking at and have an interest in.
    Jow_Blow
  • Nerdy, nerdy, nerdy

    I spend way too many hours in front of my computer. So I've early my nerd merit badge a hundred times over. But Google glasses are a nerd too far.
    MC_z
  • Misses Everything

    I'm sure I'll try the glasses, but may not take to them. The article, though, misses everything.

    The glasses will likely interface with another device that you carry with you always, so the GPS will be in your pocket.

    The data connection isn't in your eyes in either case. See above, it will likely be your cell phone. The glasses are likely to be only an interface.

    The gag will be on you when you change your opinion about the usefulness of an immersion interface.

    If Google can make the ads useful, it won't be that bad. You already have ads in your visual space when you move about. The plus is they will be closer to your brain and can more accuratly read your thoughts. Thought: Mmmm, bacon. Ad: Discount Bacon that way! --->

    Do you want tracking following you everywhere? Do you have a cell phone?
    JamesKelley
  • For certain forms of blindness

    My mum will try them; she has a form of blindness stemming from dry macular disease. Some weeks back we discussed them when I first read about them and she wants to have a go. The money is irrelevant, because what she wants is something she can only get by sitting up close to the television; she wants to see faces again, and dry macular disease obscures them; it kills the central area of vision, leaving only the 'side view' as it is called. Proximity helps to obviate the problem.
    Zwort
    • But they have this technology already

      @Zwort
      so why would you wait for Google to develop a pair?
      William Farrel