Support NeoGAF

[numble]

You ignore the rest of his discussion.

See how that works?

That's fine, but he's wrong on Glass and iWatch will fail (it will be pretty epic).

No, I didn't ignore the rest of his discussion. Maybe you need to watch the interview to get the context. He is not talking about glasses failing because they are glasses, but failing because they are not a great product. Why is he saying that there are problems to solve and a category ripe for exploration, if you think he is dismissing it wholesale as a product category?

Well there's a humongous rift between ubiquitous and trendy. And honestly, a lot of times, trendy precedes ubiquity. We have seen it happen in the electronics field a lot of times. Hell, text messaging itself was trendy before it was ubiquitous.

I was under the impression that he was just saying that non prescription lenses are a trend (they definitely are), not that they are ubiquitous (they most certainly are not).

Giga's first post and all subsequent posts were all focusing on ubiquity. If you're asking him what he's getting at and surprised that he's talking about ubiquity, well...

 

[Zaptruder]

How am I doubtful? I'm posting Tim Cook quotes about how he thinks the category is ripe for exploration and for many companies to play in.

Infering from your previous posts on the subject matter, and parroting of a person in a position that you respect - it seems to me at least that you're only willing to tow the line on the subject matter at best!

 

[giga]

OK. But glasses and sunglasses are already ubiquitous.



http://glassescrafter.com/information/percentage-population-wears-glasses.html

Uh. What? What's your point here?

 

[CharlieDigital]

Uh. What? What's your point here?

Eyewear is ubiquitous. It seems a pretty simple point to deduce.

Giga's first post and all subsequent posts were all focusing on ubiquity. If you're asking him what he's getting at and surprised that he's talking about ubiquity, well...

Eyewear is pretty ubiquitous.

...but failing because they are not a great product...

He knows this because...? He has used Glass extensively? He knows that the software is bad? He knows that the technology is bad? How does he know it's not a great product? Or is he being salty, as I asserted before?

 

[Deleted member 12837]

OK. But glasses and sunglasses are already ubiquitous. Folks wearing frames as eyewear only extends that percentage of the population.



http://glassescrafter.com/information/percentage-population-wears-glasses.html

Those aren't fake glasses though, and they certainly aren't Google Glass-style eyewear.

Glasses and sunglasses have actual utility, and I bet the majority of people wearing them use them for that (as opposed to fashion). There aren't any numbers that can prove that though, unfortunately.

 

[giga]

Eyewear is ubiquitous. It seems a pretty simple point to deduce.

I am not talking about general eyewear.

 

[border]

Hey guys, it's a basketball player wearing a feather hat and boa!

BOAS = ubiquitous

 

[CharlieDigital]

I am not talking about general eyewear.

Like I've already said: eyewear is eyewear.

I don't get what's so hard to get.

Eyewear is ubiquitous.

Those aren't fake glasses though, and they certainly aren't Google Glass-style eyewear.

Glasses and sunglasses have actual utility, and I bet the majority of people wearing them use them for that (as opposed to fashion). There aren't any numbers that can prove that though, unfortunately.

Frames also have utility as an accessory of fashion; this trend is easy as day to spot. Google Glass will also have utility -- I did not even mention that yet (I don't even think I should have to; it will be the ultimate utility).

There is a general premise that:

People don't like to wear eyewear. Therefore, people won't wear Google Glass.​

Certainly, this is Tim Cook's assertion (aside from apparently thinking that Google Glass is not a good product).

And it is this thinking that is weak and I think will be proven wrong.

 

[numble]

Infering from your previous posts on the subject matter, and parroting of a person in a position that you respect - it seems to me at least that you're only willing to tow the line on the subject matter at best!

Where did I say I respect Tim Cook? You guys certainly like to make up things to argue about. I've always said that the current Google Glass product is not very appealing, and I'm not talking about its hypothetical future. Futurists might as well argue with detractors in product launch threads--just wait for the tenth generation iPad! Imagine where the iPhone will be in 2017! I think it is proper to critique current product incarnations without saying anything about the products successive versions.

 

[giga]

Like I've already said: eyewear is eyewear.

I don't get what's so hard to get.

Eyewear is ubiquitous.



Frames also have utility as an accessory of fashion; this trend is easy as day to spot. Google Glass will also have utility -- I did not even mention that yet.

There is a general premise that:

People don't like to wear eyewear. Therefore, people won't wear Google Glass.​

And it is this thinking that is weak and I think will be proven wrong.

This is not at all the same and if you can't differentiate between them, then I'm done.

 

[CharlieDigital]

This is not at all the same and if you can't differentiate between them, then I'm done.

Sure they are.

Eyewear is eyewear and most folks do view their choice of eyewhere -- corrective, sunglasses, non-corrective -- as a fashion statement and an opportunity to accessorize.

Surely, it's not like I just walked in and picked a pair of frames of the rack and walked out. It took considerable time to pick one that I felt accented my face and my look.

It's a narrow view to see eyewear purely as a utilitarian need and not an accessory of fashion -- corrective or not.

 

[badcrumble]

This argument is like watching someone say that Segway will take off because lots of people have bicycles and it's better than a bicycle.

 

[numble]

He knows this because...? He has used Glass extensively? He knows that the software is bad? He knows that the technology is bad? How does he know it's not a great product? Or is he being salty, as I asserted before?

It's probable that they have tested it. They certainly have a lot of friends that have the Explorer version. Even then, they can evaluate the information that is publicly available and make their determination. It certainly is not "salty" to assert that a competitor's product has appeal to certain sectors and has some issues to solve. He's on the board of Nike and he doesn't think the Fuelband has broad appeal.

 

[Ether_Snake]

He's right on pretty much everything. The Android VS iPhone thing is so dumb. It's like bringing up how Windows is the most used OS.

The wearable thing, I said it before: People won't want a pair of glasses that does all sorts of stuff, they'll just want a clip they can snap to their glasses or hat or whatever. A headset-cam they'll hook up to record stuff in first-person or for other first-person uses, but not something they wear like clothing.

 

[CharlieDigital]

This argument is like watching someone say that Segway will take off because lots of people have bicycles and it's better than a bicycle.

It's not the reason why it will take off.

And in fact, I don't think one person in this thread has claimed it to be the reason -- certainly not myself.

The only reason ubiquity of eyewear comes into play is to refute Tim Cook's assertion that it will not take off because people don't like to wear eyewear unless they have to.

Now, with that out of the way, I think it will take off because of it's functional utility and fundamentally changing human interaction with our devices and our world; there is no reason that aversion to eyewear should be leveraged as an argument against Glass succeeding in a wider market.

Hey, look, if Tim Cook has specifics about why he thinks it won't take off, I'm all ears.

I'm not an investor in APPL or GOOG, but it's a very interesting topic to me as a technologist so I'm very interested in hearing why he thinks it won't take off.

But he has not given specifics. Is the software buggy? Is it slow? Does it heat up too much to be comfortable? Is the battery life too short? Is the UI unusable?

I mean, these are valid concerns (though it should be acknowledged that it's basically in beta right now). If Cook had said "Glass will not succeed because the software is poor" that's one thing.

 

[LCfiner]

Goddamn this the flimsiest and possibly dumbest argument I have seen regarding google glasses yet. Let me add to it.

Here's a simple reason why they won't succeed: wearing them immediately makes the user look like a fucking dork.

QED. And I'm out of this thread, it is a silly place.

 

[Jimrpg]

i think google glass is a cool novelty.

but i just don't see what its supposed to do... it doesn't really do much that i can't already do now.

and secondly glasses are something you wear all the time, not something you put on when you want to find the local mcdonalds. Are people going to wear these all day? If you have a business meeting are you going to wear these? Or working behind the counter at mcdonalds?

 

[Deleted member 12837]

There is a general premise that:

People don't like to wear eyewear. Therefore, people won't wear Google Glass.​

Certainly, this is Tim Cook's assertion (aside from apparently thinking that Google Glass is not a good product).

And it is this thinking that is weak and I think will be proven wrong.

His assertion is that non-prescription, non-sunglass eyewear is not ubiquitous right now. He said very clearly that people that "don't have to" wear glasses generally don't. And he's right, it's not even close. It's becoming a bit of a trend with certain demographics, but that's all. There aren't hundreds of millions of people walking around with them on.

 

[RedAssedApe]

Cook simply states that its current utility doesn't make it a good candidate for mainstream adoption (at the moment).

To convince people they have to wear something, it has to be incredible.

Not sure what there is to argue here.

Prescription glasses are AMAZING. Google Glass...not so much.

Being that I need to wear glasses and hate contacts, I'd even go so far as to lump sunglasses as something that is a pain in the ass category due to having to juggle eyewear. The sunglasses that are supposed to change tint never really worked well for me.

 

[CharlieDigital]

His assertion is that non-prescription, non-sunglass eyewear is not ubiquitous right now. He said very clearly that people that "don't have to" wear glasses generally don't. And he's right, it's not even close. It's becoming a bit of a trend with certain demographics, but that's all. There aren't hundreds of millions of people walking around with them on.

There doesn't have to be because there are already hundreds of millions of people who do wear eyewear of some sort in the US alone.

It should not even be considered a condition for the success of the product.

Not sure what there is to argue here.

For one, he can offer why he does not believe it to be incredible so that we can discern on what basis he is making his statement.

I'm interested as a technologist. I'm not invested in AAPL or GOOG (though I am in MSFT and I develop software on Microsoft enterprise platforms) and I don't generally think that I have a bias, but I see Glass and the ability to augment reality and "real time" as a great leap in technology and how we interact with it and how it interacts with the world around us. It's been promised before, but this is the closest we've gotten to it and I think it will be a tremendous success.

 

[Piecake]

Cook simply states that its current utility doesn't make it a good candidate for mainstream adoption (at the moment).



Not sure what there is to argue here.

hipsters apparently since they will wear stupid looking shit

 

[Raitosaito]

I want to join the dick eating bet.

I've been practicing my yoga

If people love wearing glasses so much, why do so many of them moan about having to wear 3D glasses?

Because JZ and JBiebs isn't wearing them yo

 

[border]

If people love wearing glasses so much, why do so many of them moan about having to wear 3D glasses?

 

[RedAssedApe]

There doesn't have to be because there are already hundreds of millions of people who do wear eyewear of some sort in the US alone.

Out of necessity. There are not hundreds of millions of people wearing eyewear because they see Lebron James wearing his non-frame glasses during a press conference. Actually 99% of the people who see that shit laugh at him.

If people love wearing glasses so much, why do so many of them moan about having to wear 3D glasses?

4d. glasses over glasses bro.

 

[numble]

The video of Tim Cook talking about this is here:
http://9to5mac.com/2013/05/28/video...ly-makes-one-iphone-and-discussing-wearables/

The comment about glasses includes it needing to be light, unobtrusive and fashionable for it to get broad appeal. When he talks about watches you can see the point he's making, it needs to be an incredible product to make you want to wear it.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

There doesn't have to be because there are already hundreds of millions of people who do wear eyewear of some sort.

It should not even be considered a condition for the success of the product.

If you're arguing that Google Glass and regular eyewear are equivalent, and that it can be expected that anyone wearing eyewear will most likely be a customer that purchases Google Glass-style eyewear, then I really have nothing more to say here.

 

[yogloo]

I will wear google glass when it can give me the power meter reading of the people around me.

 

[CharlieDigital]

If people love wearing glasses so much, why do so many of them moan about having to wear 3D glasses?

For one, they are made from flimsy plastic if you get a pair in the movie theater and of course, seem very un-hygenic.

Secondly, they impair the visual fidelity of the film because they necessarily reduce the light coming into each eye.

Thirdly, they are often intrusive for individuals who already wear eyewear.

Fourth, the 3D experience itself can cause many individuals to suffer sickness.

But that said, audiences still clamored to experience Avatar -- forget whatever cinematic shortcomings it has -- in 3D to push it to the highest grossing movie of all time.

So I think the conditions are very different.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

For one, they are made from flimsy plastic if you get a pair in the movie theater and of course, seem very un-hygenic.

They're shrink-wrapped and brand new. How is that un-hygenic?

Thirdly, they are often intrusive for individuals who already wear eyewear.

Isn't Google Glass just as intrusive for them?

 

[RedAssedApe]

I will wear google glass when it can give me the power meter reading of the people around me.

I bought this avatar item just because it looked like a DBZ scounter...ashamed. lol

 

[CharlieDigital]

They're shrink-wrapped and brand new. How is that un-hygenic?

I have never gotten a shrink wrapped pair of 3D glasses at a movie theater.

Isn't Google Glass just as intrusive for them?

Side load vs. front load and Glass interface is not directly in your line of vision.

With 3D glasses, you have a separate set of eyewear sitting on your ears.

With Glass, it will be mounted on existing frames.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

I have never gotten a shrink wrapped pair of 3D glasses at a movie theater.

And I don't have many friends who wear non-prescription, non-sunglass eyewear ; )

I've never gotten 3D glasses at the movies that weren't wrapped/sealed *shrug*. That's kinda gross that they actually recycle them at some theaters, though.

 

[Macam]

Throw me in with the "people ain't gonna wear frames for shits n' giggles" crowd, though I could see some potential offshoot development of Glass being integrated into a more useful product. At the moment, it's in Segway territory (pricey, goofy, but neat).

I should also point out -- and this is nitpicking -- Loic LeMeur and the bearded Googler wearing his Glass over frames aren't exactly what I would consider normal people. They're firmly in the Valley circle. That said, Google shipped something like 1,500 Google Glass in the first Explorer Edition round, and there will be a sprinkling of Normies in there. Enthusiasts, developers, and the like, but otherwise fairly normal people.

 

[Maximus.]

It's amazing how a thread about Apple has degraded down to the viability of wearing non-prescription glasses as an accessory, but than again, Tim didnt really divulge too much juicy info.

 

[adamsappel]

It seems to me that CharlieDigital's argument only works if regular people are wearing fake Google Glass, not just nice-looking fake glasses. I think Google Glass look stupid, but put the tech in a fashionable frame or sunglasses, and I might wear it.

 

[Cipherr]

It's amazing how a thread about Apple has degraded down to the viability of wearing non-prescription glasses as an accessory, but than again, Tim didnt really divulge too much juicy info.

Truth be told, he was just doing what people who speak for Apple have always done. A little BS while making sure not to give a nod to someone elses product. They have always done that. Shit, they probably have protoype glasses wearables of their own, but he isn't ever going to lead on that someone else might really be on to something. That's not how they have ever done things.

Those expected and routine dismissive comments are a pretty bad springboard for conversation.

 

[border]

It's amazing how a thread about Apple has degraded down to the viability of wearing non-prescription glasses as an accessory, but than again, Tim didnt really divulge too much juicy info.

I'm actually glad that this thread got so ambiguously titled. "Tim Cook at All Things Digital Hot Seat". It doesn't reveal the topics of discussion, and most people probably won't right away realize who Tim Cook is, so it excludes a fair amount of fanboys from both sides.

If the title was "Apple CEO talks about Android and Google Glass" this whole thing would just be a 5 page minefield of nonsense.

 

[Always-honest]

Curious to see what they come up with next.

 

[rezuth]

Loved the iOS 7 tease

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

lol @ this thread turning into a celebrity glasses fashion show

 

[onadesertedisland]

Make it cool (ala beats by dr dre) and it will catch on. I think those things are hideous but the kiddos love them. Glass' form factor right now is sort of irrelevant. I think it's not half bad. Think oculus rift. The consumer version will be more polished. I wouldn't be surprised to see google license the device out to other manufacturers akin to android. While sone may deride the form factor it us obvious that this interface is where computers are headed.