“Let me go on record here and state that I was not a fan of Google Glass at all. I cannot imagine being at a party or a restaurant or other social setting and seeing somebody wearing Glass,” Jim Lynch blogs. “If I had been in that situation I would have immediately put my guard up for fear of being recorded in a video by the Glass wearer. I don’t think I’m alone in that since most of us say and do things that we don’t want recorded and shared without our knowledge and consent.”
“Yes, the Glass device was a combination of ugly and silly that made anybody wearing them look foolish, to say the least. I wear distance glasses, and you couldn’t have paid me enough to walk around with Glass on my head. Ugh,” Lynch writes. “But I don’t think Glass is gone for good at all, I think Google realized that a serious makeover was needed and that is what they are doing right now.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: So, the answer to the headline is: No.
Related article:
Google Glass is no more, if it ever was – January 15, 2015
It won’t be the next iPod, it’ll be the iSpy.
I think Sarah Palin last said it best…You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. (cue the Sarah Palin flamer asshats…)
The problem with Google Glass wasn’t cosmetic. Which for now, seems to be the biggest thing they’ll change about it. The problem with GG was two-fold:
1. GOOGLE!
2. It’s not a good concept. Too many social problems/taboos to hurdle, and the “Jetsons” concept is just crap. Never gonna be liked by the public. Too many privacy concerns.
Nuff said.
If you love The Quitter you are the asshat.
If you love The Quilter, you stay warm all night.
2.0 or 3.0 or…… It doesn’t matter. It isn’t because it was butt ugly first time around. Nor was it functionality or UI. No update is going to change the problem. It is just a very creepy idea in general. These bozos don’t get it because they are creepy too!
“He simply needs to redefine the purpose and physical design of Glass in a way that makes it a viable product, and makes it something that people actually want to buy”
That part of the article is quite true and it applies to most new products. I might quibble about including the word “simply”, as I don’t think it’s an easy task to transform Google Glass into something that people will actually want to buy, but it’s pretty obvious that unless he comes up with a way to make it a compelling product with an entirely obvious purpose, it’s never going to take off.
I think that highlights a significant difference between Google and Apple. Google invested a huge amount of money developing a technology which appears to have no obvious market or purpose. Apple would never have allowed a product like that to leave the laboratory unless there was a clearly defined market for it, together with a high probability that it would be a profitable business.
Spot on
I can imagine Glass Technology installed in cars.
Where hands free is a must.
However it also maybe seen (lol) as a distraction to driving.
Implementation has to be just right – so Google can not possibly manage that. Let’s wait until Apple for some reason sees Glass like technology merged with Siri.
Google Glass 2.0 will be the next Google Glass for… Wait for it… glassholes… You can Zune on it.
MDN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
Hey, look at me. I’m a Glasshole 2.0: The New Breed.
I believe Google Glass could be useful in some industries, but I really don’t see consumers taking to it in the near future. I think it would have caught on by now if it was ever going to be popular. Even using 3D TV glasses are annoying to consumers, so I can imagine very few consumers would put up with wearing Google Glass.
NO! It won’t.
In keeping with Betteridge’s law, the answer, naturally, is “No”
“He simply needs to redefine the purpose and physical design of Glass in a way that makes it a viable product,”
Yea, put it on the wrist.
It’s like asking can you make the Measles as fun as sex.
Remove the camera and eliminate the creep factor.
Yeah, put it in a motorcycle helmet – where it cant be seen – but can provide data, turn directions and traffic advice whilst on the move.
The trouble is, that its a niche product for a niche market however you redefine it.
Yes, Fadell was instrumental in the iPod, but he always had others to guide him, too. I think he’ll become like Rubinstein and make himself some dough, and have a product that isn’t bad, but isn’t great or something that people will want.
Hiring people who worked at Apple isn’t making or besting an Apple product.