Quite a few of these winners, particularly the ones who are 'normal' that Google wanted to have as non-tech nerds, aren't actually going to fork over the $1000 for the glasses though. A friend of mine, a normal college girl, won 'the right to purchase a pair of Google Glasses', but says that she probably won't buy them since she can't justify the cost.
The ones who are most likely to fork over the $1000 are the tech nerds who place comparatively greater value on having early access to such gadgets. Google is probably going to see a strong skew towards tech nerds greater than the initial distribution of contest winner backgrounds.
I wonder what's going to happen with the left over Glasses.
I checked (had a friend who can't afford it but won)... it's non-transferable and you need to show up with a credit card and matching id. Sure I could have them pick up the glasses then use them myself, but Google owns the right to everything you do with them and can take them back at any time evidently.
“Google owns the right to everything you do with them and can take them back at any time evidently.”
Could you elaborate? (a source would be helpful) If I understand correctly, Google retains ownership of the equipment and everything you record is owned by them?
"I would feel a lot safer walking around at night knowing I could get directions or a cab without pulling out my phone"
Putting aside the fact that it isn't really any kind of proactive suggestion, the idea that you're less likely to be mugged wearing a $1500 pair of glasses on your face is patently ridiculous. And:
There was a story a couple of days ago that google had rescinded some selections, including "#ifihadglass I'd cut a bitch" and "#ifihadglass I'd throw it in your face". So yes, some of their selections were definitely made randomly (or else by looking at nothing other than the number of twitter followers somebody has)
Hey everyone, I put this site together. It looks like the traffic managed to crash the entire cs.stanford.edu . (I hope I'm not in too much trouble...)
Also, almost 2,000 people misread or misspelled the tag, their contest entries contained "#ifihadaglass instead of #ifihadglass. It seems Google skipped those completely, which is too bad, because there were legitimate ideas there.
Great analysis. The selection does seem random, considering all the "winning" entries that were clearly making fun of Google Glass or the contest itself. There were some blank winning entries too (just the hashtag, with no explanation). Which is disappointing, because Google was making it sound as though they would actually read people's entries, and pick ideas:
"We have been overwhelmed, entertained and inspired by your responses."
I also did some analysis of the original contest entries, now trying to think of a good way to visualize all of them. You can see my early N-grams here:
iPhone is typically used as a status icon rather than a device that actually has purpose (this is why some people replace their phone every year). Having such a high profile device a year before it comes out would be an extremely powerful status icon, just like how there's lots of people who are willing to blow 1500+ to get google glass ahead of release.
No doubt quite intentional. Google needs some "brand ambassadors" to make Glass look hip, rather than something that only nerds wear. They definitely need it, seeing as people wearing Google Glass just look weird.
About looking weird: people will get over it. Five years into being the local Segway guy, nobody in my community gives me a second glance anymore. Early on I got lots of hoots and hollers, but the novelty has long since worn off and nowadays I'm just part of the landscape. Glass will be accepted the same way.
I know where you're coming from, but a lot of the weirdness of glass is what it actually does. I keep imagining somebody walking around recording everyday people for no good reason, and find it hard to imagine that being accepted. The 'novelty' of constantly being recorded by strangers might not wear off.
It's not constantly recording, it's recording when you decide to start recording. In the same way that anybody sitting down holding their phone could actually be recording you.
I swear, Glass gets more FUD on this site than any other product.
In the same way that anybody sitting down holding their phone could actually be recording you.
Yes, it's just like that, and that's the problem. That's creepy. Putting it on your face doesn't make it less creepy, even if you're a Google-sanctioned celebrity normalizing unit.
I swear, Glass gets more FUD on this site than any other product.
You're commenting on a submission about people winning the right to purchase the product in question. What you call FUD is a naught but an anthill in the path of an overwhelming hype machine.
I'm aware of that, but it is much less obvious whether glass is recording or not than whether a phone is. If somebody is pointing their phone's camera at you, they could be recording you - that's quite noticeable. Glass won't necessarily have any visible signs that it is recording.
It's been confirmed that it has a blinking red light when it enters record mode. Doesn't make your point any less valid though since its the perception that counts. It'll be interesting to see if it can get over that wall.
In addition to the light that others have noted, it's hard to understand why one assume that staring at someone is not obvious, but ubiquitous experience of having someone fumbling with a phone nearby is "quite noticeable" as a signal that you could be recorded.
Another analogy is with those bluetooth "Uhuru" cell phone ear pieces. For the first 5 years of their existence they were so un-hip no one under 35 (45?) would be caught wearing one. They were relegated to businessmen and some businesswomen whose hair was long enough to cover them. Now their use is much more widespread with those under 35. The rest of us an teens are waiting for the implants.
I don't know where you're located, but anyone in my community who cares about preserving their social "image" still wouldn't be caught dead on a Segway.
Sure, but you need to get over that initial hump. That's the difficult part, for which Google needs to have a solid adoption strategy that is more inclusive than "early adopter geeks".
The explanation is that it doesn't matter what you said. Google cares more about who you are[1] than what you say you're going to do[2]. Nearly all of the responses were going to be some variation on the core functions of Glass anyway, so really they were fishing for cool people, not ideas.
[1]: quoth the word cloud: "social", "media", "marketing", etc.
[2]: quoth the word cloud: "use", "share", "show", etc.
The ones who are most likely to fork over the $1000 are the tech nerds who place comparatively greater value on having early access to such gadgets. Google is probably going to see a strong skew towards tech nerds greater than the initial distribution of contest winner backgrounds.
I wonder what's going to happen with the left over Glasses.