Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Input Devices Displays Google Hardware

Ask Slashdot: Should I Get Google Glass? 421

Posted by timothy
from the well-are-you-a-stone-thrower? dept.
lunatick writes "I put in my application for Google Glass as a joke. I never figured I would be selected. Well in less than one week I got my invite to buy Google Glass. My main hold back is the $1500 price tag for a device that just seems to be a camera and navigation aid. Does anyone in the /. community have Google Glass and can they give some advice to the rest of us considering it?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Should I Get Google Glass?

Comments Filter:
  • No (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:47PM (#46297009)

    Period

    • Re:No (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:58PM (#46297149)

      Not yet... maybe when glass comes with X-ray vision.

    • Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PopeRatzo (965947)

      But wait until the technology can be added to normal-looking eyeglasses.

      There are lots of applications for Google Glass technology that have nothing to do with voyeurism.

      The people who are scoffing at Google Glass right now just can't afford it yet.

      • Re:Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Immerman (2627577) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:53PM (#46297911)

        >The people who are scoffing at Google Glass right now just can't afford it yet.

        Not all of them. A lot of us think that, at least in it's current iteration, Glass is pointless, creepy, distracting, and unacceptably invasive to both the surrounding populace and the user themself. If you gave me one for free I'd probably play with it a bit, but it'd get even less usage my tablet. More likely I'd sell it and use the money to buy a medium-high performance PC and a VR helmet, which is a technology I consider to have far more interesting potential. I already have an old smart phone that I occasionally find useful, I have no desire to strap the damn thing to my face.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      No is the short and straightforward answer.
      The longer more thought through answer should be: No-no-no-no-no-no-no-Hell-no!

      There are way to many camera's as it is today, no need for privately owned ones as well.
      There should be a little red 'recording' light on there. So you can go about as you are when not filming me, or get a sub-retinal version for free if you start filming me without consent.
      I feel no need for others to film me with a wireless webcam straped to their faces!
      So the answer should be NO. Peri
  • by Gavin Scott (15916) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:48PM (#46297025)

    Pretty soon there will be a $399 version that's 10x better than the first generation.

    If you can get $1,500 worth of fun showing it off to people in the first year then sure.

    G.

    • by slapout (93640) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:56PM (#46297131)

      Let people wear them for $15/hour. After 100 hours you'll have the money back.

    • Whaat? I always assumed GG was given out to a select few just to get feedback. So Google Glass is still experimental, is a solution looking for a problem, has a high chance of being suddenly dropped by Google if it doesn't take off, and people still are willing to pay $1500 for it?
      Holy Crap! I thought Apple's fanboys were insane!

    • by hey! (33014) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:59PM (#46297965) Homepage Journal

      Pretty soon there will be a $399 version that's 10x better than the first generation.

      True, but if you're an app developer that's actually a sensible reason to drop the dough now and get familiar with the platform so you're ready when it becomes viable for pragmatist adopters. In my experience $500/seat is an important threshold when selling to pragmatist adopters.

      The fact that the guy is even asking this question shows that he's got the money, but it's enough dough that he has to consider the purchase carefully. If there were an existing application that justified the purchase as a user he'd probably know about it, so I'd guess that the only practical reason to buy the thing would be to develop a new application. If you had an idea for a new app or even had confidence you could come up with such an idea, now would be a good time to get a jump on the competition.

      If the guy isn't a serious developer, then what he ought to do is compare the novelty value of owning a Google Glass with other amusing ways he could spend $1500. That would pay for round trip airfare to Hawaii; a half dozen prime seat at Broadway shows; or a rather memorable night in a Nevada brothel.

  • by peter303 (12292) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:51PM (#46297061)
    When I was trying one in demo that was doing lots of video shooting, it didnt even last two hours.

    I hear lots of wearables have this issue. You want something to go all day.

    The upcoming version could be better.
    • by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:02PM (#46297191)
      That's because, despite what the idiots on Slashdot assert, the point isn't video. It's having a convenient screen always in view. The camera is more for environmental awareness than recording people/events. It is *not* an augmented reality device because the side-screen can't overlay information on the visual field of the wearer.

      When you think of it as a convenient remote display, and nothing more, then it becomes much less "interesting".

      The only app I'd want is a drunk driving app. An app that detects eyelid dilation, eye movements per minute, and eye movement speed could set off warnings when a driver is unsafe (too tired, too drunk). And that doesn't even use the external-facing camera.
      • by noh8rz10 (2716597)

        That's because, despite what the idiots on Slashdot assert, the point isn't video. It's having a convenient screen always in view.

        then why does it have a camera? if it didn't have a camera, this would solve 95% of the problems people have with the technology.

      • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:43PM (#46297769) Journal
        If you need someone to tell you you're drunk, you're too stupid to live.
      • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:57PM (#46297935)

        The camera is more for environmental awareness

        What, like an eye?

      • by denzacar (181829)

        The only app I'd want is a drunk driving app. An app that detects eyelid dilation, eye movements per minute, and eye movement speed could set off warnings when a driver is unsafe (too tired, too drunk). And that doesn't even use the external-facing camera.

        An app that tracks the items you are handling (phone, keys, wallet, children...) taking a snapshot of the last time you were holding it and where.
        For bonus functionality include shape and color recognition (sell cans of specially formulated transparent dye invisible to human eye but noticeable to cameras) to let you know "where's your shit" when you walk into a room.
        Very useful for humans who must live surrounded by other humans who keep moving "their shit".

        There you go.
        You (or whoever reads this and develo

  • by jythie (914043) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:54PM (#46297089)
    Kinda like the 'if you have to ask, you can not afford it', if you balk at $1,500, it probably is not for you. Google Glass right now is an expensive toy for people who either can afford to chunk the cash into entertainment or derive enough social benefit from owning one to justify the cost.

    Granted there are also some tinkerers out there that are playing with them, but I suspect they are kinda like the 3d printer market, present but fairly niche. For the most part, either you make enough that the cost is nothing to you, or you decide the social status from your peer group is worth the outlay.
    • I would add that developers who are interested in writing against Google Glass may consider the $1,500 price tag an investment in getting a lead on development.
    • ...I suspect they are kinda like the 3d printer market, present but fairly niche.

      Darn good suggestion. I'd rather have a 3D printer.

      • by jythie (914043)
        I have to agree, if I was going to drop $1,500 on something to experiment with or develope for that was non-camera related, it would probably be for a 3d printer rather then Google Glass. Then again I would probably just print out a camera.....
  • You need an invite to BUY a product. This trick has worked in so many different products and services, for example facebook or 'limited edition' coin collections on late night T.V. There's probably some other very good examples, but those were the first two that came to mind.

  • by nicholasjay (921044) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:54PM (#46297093)

    The main idea behind getting Google Glass now is to help improve it. Develop apps for it that enhance the experience. If you're not going to do that, I'd consider the money poorly spent.

    • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:21PM (#46297469) Homepage
      I can't say I was surprised. I knew it was going to happen. The poster clearly stated: "Does anyone in the /. community have Google Glass and can they give some advice to the rest of us considering it?"

      queue all the slashdotters who cannot read and have a bias sans experience. Kudos for eschewing the low hanging Oh Noooh! It's Google and it's new and it's different! I'm a gonna punch you in da noze if you wear it! crowd and offering an actual response with some possible value. I get that you probably don't own Glass yourself either, but at least you provided some feedback that actually has some value in it.

      I also don't have Glass, but would certainly try it out if I has the $1500.00 In the end it comes down to what the OPs budget is, and how badly they want a new toy. If you are looking to live on the bleeding edge go for it. If you are expecting real utility from Glass for your $1500.00, wait for it to mature. The cost will come down drastically as the capabilities likewise improve.
      • The "I'm gonna punch people in the nose" crowd are hilarious to me.

        Let's face it: there's people you don't piss off, and then there's people that are going to punch you anyway. Well, with that first group, don't piss them off unless you have good reason--I mean let's face it, cock-blocking a rapist is going to piss them off and they will probably punch you, but this is good reason to start some shit. That second group... is going to punch you anyway. So what do you do about it?

        Win.

  • I can't see shelling out $1500 for the privilege of what amounts to beta-testing Google Glass. Honestly, Google should be paying the testers, not the other way around. It's not like they're low on cash.

  • Probably Not (Score:4, Informative)

    by HannethCom (585323) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:55PM (#46297105)
    I have a friend that has Google Glass. I have tried it and found it to be very underwhelming. Right now it is really just a very expensive toy and in its current form I do not see it ever being really all that useful.

    If you do get it, you should probably have an Android 4.0.3+ phone, so you can do SMS and GPS with it.
  • No (Score:4, Funny)

    by scotts13 (1371443) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:55PM (#46297121)

    Another no. At least, not until most of your neighbors are cyborgs.

    • Another no. At least, not until most of your neighbors are cyborgs.

      Seriously, aren't they/we cyborgs already?

      Google Glass just lets you wear the technology on your face, instead of in your pocket or on your wrist.

  • Joke? (Score:4, Funny)

    by tsqr (808554) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:56PM (#46297129)

    I put in my application for Google Glass as a joke.

    I don't think you understand what a "joke" is. Unless, that is, the information you supplied on the application is funny in some way.

    You want some advice? Here's some advice: buy it, and wear it into a biker bar. Before you go to the bar, leave a note for your next of kin, asking them to post the recorded video on Youtube. That way, we can all share in the joke.

    • I put in my application for Google Glass as a joke.

      I don't think you understand what a "joke" is. Unless, that is, the information you supplied on the application is funny in some way.

      I don't think you understand what "doing something for a joke" is. Actually I think you do, but you're being deliberately obtuse so you could follow up with that idiotic following sentence.

      • by tsqr (808554)

        Actually I think you do, but you're being deliberately obtuse so you could follow up with that idiotic following sentence.

        Ah, I love the smell of ad hominem in the morning. It's such a wonderful reflection of the poster's state of mind.

        Of course I understand what "doing something for a joke" is, and this is not an example. This is more along the lines of "doing something to see what happens".

        • I don't think you understand what "ad hominem" is. (Yes, I understand I am using it incorrectly, but I'm sticking with the theme)

    • Re:Joke? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:22PM (#46297485) Homepage

      Already did that with a friend, nothing happened except for a few people that were curious about it and he let them try it on, most thought it was cool and wondered if they could use it for GPS on the motorcycle while they ride.

      Bikers are actually decent people and not complete scumbags like you seem to believe they are.

      Stop watching "sons of anarchy" it's not reality.

      • Except those DeSades, fuck those guys. Stick with the TechGeists, or the Kaffe Boys--nobody likes them, but they're cool. Dewleys are retards, but they're pretty decent guys overall if you can get over being, you know, better than them.
    • by slew (2918)

      I don't think you understand what a "joke" is.

      Jokes don't necessarily have to be funny... Jokes can be simply things that are not to be taken seriously...

      E.g., This job is a joke. That test was a joke. My car is a joke. Beta is a joke.

      Perhaps: s/beta/google glass/

      Funny? Nah...

  • by torchdragon (816357) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:58PM (#46297151) Homepage

    I'm an early adopter because of my employer. We do mobile development and have been pushing to be a leader in Glass development. I've had a lot of hands on time with the device and its is a really cool piece of tech but there's a bunch of gotchas for it.

    1. Its limited. There's little it can do right now that isn't handled better on your smartphone.
    2. Battery usage is pretty abysmal. If you're looking to get a solid 8-10 hours of casual usage, you won't make it.
    3. Its expensive. $1500 is a lot for what it can do.

    Those things are severe downsides as a non-developer. However, if you're interested in learning how to develop on the device and juicing up your resume with wearable design / implementation experience, then for someone like me (a mobile developer), the $1500 is an investment that you get to play around with on your off hours.

    So if you want to be a leading edge developer and you can back up your interest with cash, go for it. If you're looking for a good investment on a solid end user experience you will be disappointed, just wait for the consumer version to hit the market.

  • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday February 20, 2014 @01:59PM (#46297167)

    Google held a "glass event" in my city the other day and I had a chance to try it out.

    I found it awkward to use: the gesture interface is clunky, voice commands are obtrusive to people nearby, and it takes way too much attention and focus to use the screen. I found it harder to use Glass while walking around than it is to use an Android smartphone while walking around.

    Also, the apps they had available to demo -- which I can only assume are some of the best existing on the platform right now, because why would you demo anything other than the best? -- were not particularly useful. The closest that came to being cool was a program that used the camera to take pictures of signs in foreign languages and then display them translated to English. I could see that being useful if you travel in foreign countries extensively, but even then the experience was clunky -- you had to pick which language you thought the sign was in and aim the camera directly at the middle of the sign for it to work. And even then the translation wasn't "stable:" there was one German word displayed along an arch instead of a straight line where the translation kept shifting between completely different words as the viewing angle changed slightly.

    If you want to develop apps for Google Glass, it might be worth getting. But if you just want to use it, it's not ready yet. Personally, I think it's actually a regression in functionality compared to what people like Steve Mann and Thad Starner had a decade ago, because it lacks both a reasonable input interface (e.g. a twiddler [handykey.com]) and software that actually does something that a smartphone can't.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      "the gesture interface is clunky, voice commands are obtrusive to people nearby, and it takes way too much attention and focus to use the screen. "

      this is the same words I heard from the co-worker I convinced to switch from an iPhone to an Android phone recently. Sounds more like someone not used to a User interface than anything else.

  • by fermion (181285) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:00PM (#46297185) Homepage Journal
    My theory is that in this point they are pretty much willing to give a pair to anyone who has $1500 to blow. In my case it will closer to $2000 because I want the prescription frames.

    The fact that everyone seems to be getting an invite indicates that I theory I have held since the first Google Android phone came out might be true. Google does not know how to make an affordable piece of consumer technology. Google does not know how to market a piece of consumer technology except through marketing process like this where they try to make the device seem very scarce and available only to a select group. Google has not built up the trust with the public to make anyone who buys something like this feel anything other than an extreme early adopting Guinea pig.

    I might buy it if I get external funding. However the horror stories of lack of customer support for the first Google phone, and those who paid for other Google services, make me realize that I am giving two grand for a product, not for help from any company backing it. It is also the reason why I tend not to use MS products. If something is only supported by third parties, and not by the manufacturer, it make me worry about quality.

  • by hoyle (89469) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:04PM (#46297219)

    The cost is not worth it, not for a device that you'll be using for yourself.

    I have one that I got for research purposes, and I love it. However, I would not have paid my own money for it. It does not provide $1500 of utility at the moment.

    Now, if you are looking to get into wearable computing application development, that's a different story and I'd say get one. Try to get your company to pay for it, though.

  • With 1500$ you can get a desktop CNC machine or a 3D printer. If you shop around, maybe both.

  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:11PM (#46297313) Journal
    The $1500.00 price tag set me back as well. I don't love being a first adopter that much! There are five alternatives to Google Glass [laptopmag.com] here if you want to consider something more reasonable.
  • I've been wanting something like this since I was a kid. Even if for no reason other than to feel totally cool. (Yes, everyone else will think I'm a dork for wearing it, but that's the story of my life. I wear by 8-bit tie proudly!)

    • If you want one, sign up for it. You'll get an invite within a couple of weeks because lots of people are interested, but they're not $1500 interested when it comes down to it.

    • No, not a dork, a glasshole. That's the label you're going to get, not dork.

    • Dude, you know plumbers don't wear ties.
  • We bought two pair for our company to play with. I have one and my business partner has another.

    The only real use we have had for them is taking videos and pictures of our kids. Don't get me wrong, they are FANTASTIC for that.

    But both of us really can't find the use for them, other than a cool method of capturing video. Not $1500 worthy, wait for the commercial version.
  • For 1500 Bucks... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:14PM (#46297363) Homepage Journal

    For $1,500 you could buy an Oculus Rifts, small form factor PC, battery rig, and a couple of EyeToys, and have a real augmented reality display, with money left over.

    And, you know, look like a complete idiot, instead of an 80% idiot.

  • by peter303 (12292) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:16PM (#46297381)
    Most of the time you want to see one line of information or one picture: info like time, weather, message, newsheadline. You dont want to fumble with pulling out a smartphone to see these all time. Google Glass will display 10 lines of 40+ characters on their 360 scanline display. Thats far more than I'd usually want to read for most uses.

    The problem with early wearables are they are over designed to do too much like a smartphone or desktop. That makes them expensive, difficult to use, and short battery life. I am learning toward a watch as my wearable message machine.
  • One of my coworkers has one. Honestly, i think it sucks. The resolution is abysmal, and I found the screen impossible to focus on. It promises to provide super fast access to vital information, but in the use case of looking up a stock quote or reading a text message or using a map, i found it far easier to just look at my phone.

    to even make out the screen. i had to adjust it constantly. it would always slip on my face so everytime i needed to look at the screen that meant more fiddling with my hands. for
  • And are you looking to make apps for it? If not, then wait. It's early days for this type of tech and you will probably kick yourself in 12-18 months for blowing that $1500 on glass. You can still be an early adopter and probably get a better device at a better price by waiting a short while. Heck, even if you are dead set on getting Google Glass, everyone expects the commercial version to be released this year (possibly within the next few months) at a much lower price. Why by now? It would be like buying
  • by binarybum (468664) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:25PM (#46297533) Homepage

    Do you already have a moustache? If yes, you are probably creepy enough to wear google glass - consider it if you have funds left over after buying a nice pair of tight leather pants.

  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:31PM (#46297605) Homepage

    "You have been selected to receive our exclusive offer! For only $1500...!"

    It's a commercial product. Soon (maybe already) anyone with the money will be able to buy one. Probably for less money.

    If you want a Google Glass invite code, there are plenty of them on eBay, all with 0 bids. $8.99 or best offer is the going rate for Buy It Now.

  • by jdavidb (449077) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:35PM (#46297653) Homepage Journal
    I hear there's a filter in Google Glass that fixes Slashdot Beta. I'd go for it.
  • No. (Score:5, Informative)

    by mcspoo (933106) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @02:43PM (#46297759) Homepage

    Unless you're rich and $1500 is a piddling amount of moola...

    I also got an invite to order Google Glass and politely declined. $1500 is too much for a product that isn't fully realized. Yet, Google Glass holds interest to me because it holds a possibility of improving the lives of deaf folks like me... REAL TIME CAPTIONING, right in front of our eyes. That would completely change LIVES. (Yes, I recognize that similar technology on Youtube produces lamentable results.) What disappoints me is that Google doesn't seem to recognize it, or deems it an inadequate market to follow. You really think it wouldn't be cool to more or less create a version of the Babelfish from Hitchhiker's Guide? Or recognize that if you erased communication difficulties, you'd be one step closer to a civilized world where we can exchange ideas WITHOUT throwing poo?

    Glass uses bone conduction for sound (which wouldn't work for a person with truly profound nerve deafness, like myself), and has stated that they do not recommend the Glass for deaf users. While it's not the same as "get to the back of the bus", it's still disappointing to be marginalized in such a way. But I'll remain hopeful that one day, Google recognizes what they could do for folks like me, and enable us to communicate with "norms" without ya'all looking like fools :)

  • I would have expected a question like this on a website where they post things like "This is now a Spiderman thread" and the like.

    ("Post ending in trips decides", and "Lunatick delivars!" etc.)

  • For that kind of money, I'd personally be far more inclined to buy one of the Samsung tablets with a stylus, and still have enough money left over for a cheap desktop to replace my aging P4. And the only reason I want the Samsung is I have some ideas about software to develop for it; I have no use for it's built-in default "apps".

  • ...at all times it has to enhance my vision, not distract it.

    Google Glass, AFAIK, does not meet this criterion yet.

  • by claytongulick (725397) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @04:04PM (#46298629) Homepage

    A while ago I was also accepted to the glass explorers program. I was pretty excited at the time, and was planning to go ahead and get one. I'll admit to being a bit of a Google fanboy, though recently they've lost some of their shine in my eyes.

    At the time, there were a few compelling reasons why I decided to wait, which I summarized here: Why I'll Wait on Glass [google.com]

    One thing to consider, is that along with the $1,500 price tag, unless you live close to one of the fitting centers, you'll also have to book airfare and hotel, which can be as much as the Glass itself, so that really raises the price a lot. At least, this was the case when I was invited to the program, it may have changed.

    For those who don't like clicking G+ links, here's my full original post:

    Why I'll Wait on Glass

    So, I received my invitation to purchase #googleglass and become a #glassexplorers . Google notified me that I had 14 days to make my purchase and schedule a pickup date.

    I've put a lot of thought into this, and decided not to move forward with the purchase. I'm outlining my reasons below, and I hope that the amazing folks on the Glass team can take this post with the spirit that it's intended: as constructive, objective feedback from a developer who is a huge Google fan.

    When I first heard about Glass, I was gobsmacked. The notion of having a powerful, wearable computing device with an array of sensors, camera and floating UI always available to the user, with speech recognition and integration with wireless services - well frankly, I had trouble containing my excitement.

    At the local bar, I waxed on (to annoying lengths, I'm sure) about how this was a revolution in technology. How it would change the world and the way we interact with it.

    I shared my excitement with my family, and when I was selected as a #glassexplorers they had to pull me down out of the clouds.

    I was busy planning apps that I was going to develop, I had visions of an app where I could say "ok glass, find my car" and a floating 3d compass arrow would appear and guide me.

    I had visions of walking into my house and saying "ok, glass turn on the lights, lock the doors, arm security", and seeing an interactive display of all my devices. I would be able to say "ok, glass show front camera" and I would be able to look out of the security camera on my front porch.

    I had ideas for interactive augmented reality games, where the user could scan the sky for alien UFO's and see 3d spaceships through the Glass display window.

    I eagerly refreshed myself on OpenCV, preparing for all the computer vision awesomeness I would be able to develop (I'd already done some of this work on android tablets, using the native sdk).

    With all of these visions in my head, I set out to begin development. Finally the new api was released. I sat down at my main development box, pulling up the docs, expecting to see all of the richness of the Android API plus Glass specific enhancements.

    What I got was: Cards. A completely non-interactive API where I had to broker every request through a complex chain of servers where eventually, at some point, some static text or images may or may not popup on the user's screen.

    I was actually in disbelief. I was sure I was missing some documentation somewhere. I poured through the docs, trying to understand what I was looking at. I felt that I must be missing something really obvious. From what I could tell, the amazing awesomness that was Glass, was limited by the API to being essentially nothing more than a SMS messaging system, similar to text messages on my cell.

    None of my applications were possible. I couldn't talk to the accelerometer or other sensors. All I could do was go through a strange "add my app as a contact" process so that I could post text messages with some limited media to the user's timeline. That's it. Interactivity was limited to glorified hyperlinks that would post a me

  • by lunatick (32698) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @04:08PM (#46298681) Homepage

    Thank you to the /. community for their input. Based on the replies my first instinct was correct. Forget about it!
    I work as a FF/Medic and I know there are apps being developed for that area but I have no ability to create apps for it beyond an idea. I was hoping you could put notes on it as a heads up display that may help in patient care or in rescue.

    From the list of apps that some provided me I find the apps all useless.

    I appreciated all the input and hope others find it useful as well.

    Thank you

  • by thisisfrancis (3545589) on Thursday February 20, 2014 @05:07PM (#46299337)
    - It's not disclosed prominently, but you have 30 days from date of delivery or pickup to return Glass for a refund (assuming in full working order with everything, etc- don't drop and step on it!).

    - If you can, pick it up at a Glass showroom. They're very helpful in adjusting the nose pads and display for you, answering any questions, and getting you started. The private Explorers online community has a lot of enthusiastic users ready to discuss their experiences and ideas.

    - Warning- if you're an iPhone user, you're a second class citizen in the Glass ecosystem. You'll need a data plan compatible with Personal Hotspot (i.e. NOT compatible with grandfathered unlimited plans from AT&T). Apple restrictions on access to system apps and services mean, for example, no iMessage/SMS notifications to or sending from Glass. Every time you ask for route directions, you'll have to pull out your phone and open the MyGlass companion iOS app.

    - Will this be the next Walkman/iPhone? I doubt it. Will it find use in niche vertical applications, like medicine, environmental exploration, etc? Sure. If you're a developer and would like to explore those possibilities or just like to tinker with a new gadget, give it a try.

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist

Working...