Talk:Google Glass/Archive 1

Archive 1

Project Glass

Project Glass very big, the next generation of this glass would be better smaller chips.

Google 'Project Glass' Replaces the Smartphone With Glasses --Losfigh (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Declaration per WP:COI

I just made my first edit to this article. I have no personal affiliation with Google; however, I have a sister who is a Google employee involved in Project Glass. I'm a well-established Wikipedia editor with a deep familiarity of policy and guidelines, so this will not be a problem; even if I were not an established editor, this sort of twice-removed connection to a subject isn't even covered in the COI guidelines and probably wouldn't warrant declaration. However, I wanted to make an immediate up-front declaration of the connection to avoid any appearance of impropriety. —Bill Price (nyb) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Rename article title

Currently, the article uses Project Glass and Google Glass almost interchangeably in the lead, but the article will need to be moved to Google Glass eventually, following the convention used with other former projects such as Project Revolution (Wii) and Project Natal (Kinect). In addition, if we go by WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be titled as Google Glass since there are about 300,000 more hits for "Google Glass" than for "Project Glass". An admin will need to delete the existing redirect and move the project to the product name. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Update: moved by Amatulic - M0rphzone (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Just wondering if a criticism section should be added to deal with the privacy issues, eg to patient privacy if someone wearing these walks into a waiting room, or the general risk to people walking down the street that they could be filmed and have that uploaded to the net? How obvious is it from far away that someone is wearing these, or when you approach them from behind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.96.250 (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It generally isn't appropriate to specifically include a section titled "Criticism" in articles (see WP:NOCRIT), but as criticism is part of general reception of a topic, any notable criticism can and should be added to the reception section (under more specific sub-headings if necessary). - M0rphzone (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced information

Please do not remove well-sourced information without a discussion and consensus on the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Google Glass#Inappropriate use

This section is not only poorly written, but seems entirely irrelevant and out of place. --129.10.114.102 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's highly relevant as it shows the tremendous impact of this device on society, already changing the language. It's also kind of funny but that's not a reason to keep it. The fact that it was picked up by both the San Francisco Chronicle and Techcrunch means glasshole is now pretty mainstream. The section should stay. Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not highly relevant. It's trivia and should not be present in an encyclopedia, as a sysop such as you should know. It's only mentioned by a few sources, not by multiple reliable sources, and even if it is mentioned by news, that doesn't mean it's encyclopedia material. This isn't news and such trivial mentions are just part of the daily news cycle. I've already given you this reason in my first and second reverts, so if you have no good reason other than WP:ILIKEIT and continue to re-add this trivia into the article, you'll be blocked for violating 3RR. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to its own article and added a link in the Google Glass#See also section. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to push for inclusion of this neologism, and even creating a stub on it? If I'm not mistaken, you're bordering on being obsessive-compulsive over including this neologism when it is clearly not notable even if you say it is. Google Glass has not caused this "tremendous impact on society" that you speak of, and 3 sources mentioning the term are not enough to show that it's an often-used and notable term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a repository for neologisms. The sources present in the article so far don't show any substantial evidence of notability beyond a trivial coining of "Glasshole" and its apparent "trending" usage. Sorry for your enthusiasm in promoting this, but I Afd'd the stub as it doesn't pass WP:Criteria for inclusion. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize you don't have consensus for removing it from the article? Removing it from the Google Glass#See also section is tendentious at best. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You are the one editor pushing for inclusion of the term when consensus is to remove it. If that's not TE, then what is? It's already been pointed out above that the sentences about the neologism are unnotable and irrelevant to this article. Currently, the term is referenced in one sentence, and I have not removed it for now, but note that we are trying to improve the article, not clutter it with trivia. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's set this straight. I'm not the only one who has added it [1]. You appear to be the only one removing it. You do not have consensus here for its removal as only you and your IPsock have objected to it. Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Careful - you're lapsing into personal attacks. Seeing how you've been editing for 6 years, I'd assume that you'd be very familiar with Wikipedia's policies on no personal attacks and assuming good faith. I'll ignore your last part about the false accusations and attribute that to a temporary lapse in clear judgement on your part. Accusing others of sockpuppetry when you have no evidence to back it up is terms for an ANI/ArbCom event and is violation of WP:PERSONAL. I'll make it clear: that IP is not my IP, and I don't intend on editing the same articles from my IP as that would be clearly violating WP:SOCK and be considered abusing multiple user accounts. Also, you may just be as guilty of committing the same acts that you accuse others of doing, since that user account that you linked may as well be a sock of your account. Now, please take a deep breath and come back when you've calmed down. I haven't removed that sentence yet, but I've yet to see any arguments that justify inclusion of the trivia. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Update: removed per reasons above. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's my take, speaking as a linguist. Google Glass hasn't been released to the public, so "glassholes" themselves obviously don't exist yet. Even once the product is released, there's no clear evidence that the word will catch on, even if there are indeed users who "misuse" the technology. Let's pretend that the first generation of bluetooth phone headsets are about to be released, and someone invents the reasonably-satisfying neologism "balloontooth" to refer to people who are so "full of hot air" that they can't stop talking into their headset, even at inappropriate times. A couple of media outlets pick up on it and mention the term in pieces about the future technology. But then, once the product is released, who knows if the word will actually catch on? (So far as I know, "balloontooth" doesn't exist as such, despite being a plausible term.) A word isn't notable unless people actually use it and understand it. So in this case, I would say we need to be behind the curve and wait to see *what actually happens* in the language once the product is released. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasshole was closed as Merge to Google Glass#Reception on 3 May 2013. The material has been merged here per community consensus and should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Note that while the discussion was closed for a merge, that does not mean that the content from that page is appropriate for this article. As I've said already, the term is a neologism and including specific sections that go on a tangent about it is WP:UNDUE. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you're being disruptive. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

^Might want to take back your attacks. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to include any of this (yet). Let's wait and see if this really becomes noteworthy. For now, it's a made up word (which we don't write about), and that's about it, and there seems to be a pretty strong consensus not to include it here. --Conti|✉ 15:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a made up word with press coverage. The consensus at the deletion discussion was that the term is somewhat notable, but not suitable for a standalone article. I think a one-to-three sentence mention wouldn't be undue weight and is a reasonable thing to discuss in the Reception section. LFaraone 18:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Practically everything has "press coverage" these days, thanks to the internet that produces thousands of thousands of new articles every single day. That does not mean that we have to include all of them. People tend to forget that we're an encyclopedia, not a site that summarizes what's currently in the news. --Conti|✉ 20:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

(COI disclaimer: I worked for Google previously, but I was not working in Google[x] and only interacted with the Glass team in passing.) I don't like this term, but I think it should be mentioned in the article. LFaraone 19:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Including it in this article was the consensus of the AFD, which is much more widely publicized than this talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There was no consensus to merge, in fact the discussion and arguments were leaning towards a plain delete without merge. As I said already, adding it into this article gives undue weight to the neologism. No way is that term a main topic of the article, and this is not some blog where we mention every detail or opinion about the topic. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with the close, take it to DRV. Otherwise you're being disruptive. Toddst1 (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless if a DRV is required or not, you already merged the content into this article (therefore deletion result/procedures were fulfilled); however, I removed the content afterwards per reasons given above. The WP:DELETION policy does not give binding or permanent inclusion status to content determined to be merged/kept in any xfD, as separate/later evaluation of the content can be independent of the previous xfD result, so the content can be edited or removed later if it is inappropriate for inclusion as discussed on the individual article talk page (i.e., here - above). Other editors: if possible, please comment/give opinions on whether or not the neologism should be mentioned in this article. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're arguing that you were edit warring or just plain disruptive and ignoring community consensus? Toddst1 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What M0rphzone said, basically. I'm going to re-redirect the Glasshole article again unless a consensus forms that it should be its own article after all. Toddst1, you are taking the concept of an AfD merger far too literal. It does not mean that the merged content, for all eternity, has to stay in the article, and no one will ever be able to change that because it was decided in the AfD discussion to merge it. Local consensus can always change, and the current consensus seems to be not to include the content, or at least not in such prominence as you would like it. --Conti|✉ 11:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the term merge is unambiguous. It doesn't mean redirect and ignore. The consensus at the AFD was clear, recent and overrides this talk page as it is a broader community discussion. If you disagree with the close, take it to WP:DRV. Continued redirection of that article without that merge is inconsistent with the formalized community decision and disruptive. Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So a DRV is the only place to ever change the content of this article in regards to Glasshole? That makes absolutely no sense, and you know it. --Conti|✉ 19:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No, and I know you're being WP:POINTy with your last comment which up until now have been in good faith. Toddst1 (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A few month later, and I think we should reopen this discussion. I'm hearing the term "glasshole" everywhere. It was in the New Yorker last week: "I hear in San Francisco the term 'Glassholes' is already current..." The glasses have come under much criticism, and "glasshole" seems to encapsulate that. This article is too squeaky clean as it is.Chisme (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Changes and added content for Google Glass

What is Google Project Glass?

Some of you may wonder what Google glass or project glass is? Here, we are going to give you some brief information about the Google glass. Google Glass is an interesting new coming hands-free technology. It is the project glass that Google has been developed for a period of time. The concept for the glasses was introduced on April 4, 2012 on a Google+ page. [2] Google glass is just like a smart pair of glasses with the heads-up display with battery hiding inside. It is more like a smartphone, used when needed, with the lenses serving as a see-through computer monitor. Google glass is expected to come out to the public by late 2014. How the project glass works differently from other glasses is that it uses a transparent LCD or AMOLED display to put information right in front of your eyes. [1] It will have motion sensors, GPS and 3G or 4G data connections. It can also connect to a Smartphone --android via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. [4] So, with the Google glass, you can find any information you want --it can run Google search and Google+, you can check when the subway is closed [3]--you will be able to summon up maps and other useful data from website straight on to your lenses, you can take and share photos--automatically take photos every ten seconds, and you even can learn ukulele. Isn't that fantastic? Recently, the New York Time has estimated the price of Google glass, they said the price would be around $750 --about the same price with Smartphone. Now, the specific details about the Google glass are still in the cloud but here's what we know, it is lightweight brow-band which looks just like a pair of reading glasses with no lenses. [3] it connects to an earpiece which is much the same as we can find in a Smartphone. The wearers can see the map and useful data through the lens which will create sound by sending vibrations directly through the wearer's skull instead of speakers [5]. The micro-display is positioned over one eye. The glass can record the user conversations and surroundings and store those recordings in the cloud. Google says that the glass is small, light and stylish enough if people would like to wear it all day long. The Glass will even make you feel smarter. In early February 2012, Google invited software developers to the event " Google Glass Foundry" in New York and San Francisco and let them try the Google glass which showed off the high resolution camera combined with facial face recognition search that could identify the tech writer at up to fifty meters while image interpolation automatically removes him from the user's vision. Also showed off at the event was the built-in voice recognition detects a conversation. While in conversation a small shock is delivered to the users with increasing voltage until the conversation has ended.

[6]Sources:

[1]- http://www.techradar.com/news/video/google-glass-what-you-need-to-know-1078114

[2]- http://mashable.com/category/project-glass/

[3]- http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/google-gets-in-your-face

[4]- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/technology/google-glasses-will-be-powered-by-android.html?_r=0

[5]- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/googles-glasses-make-sound-through-skull-vibrations-8478792.html

[6]- http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/02/15/if-google-glass-is-such-a-secret-why.html

Features of the Google Glass

1) Communications
Google Glass is expected to have phone capabilities requiring either a CDMA  and or a GSM mobile communication capability . It is also expected that the device have instant messaging capabilities and share other messaging features with Gmail, Google +, Google Voice, and Google Talk. Users an also expect to have access to third party communication applications and a Siri-like voice recognition service.[1]

2) Real-Time Personal Navigation

Google Glass is expected to have navigational services where users can speak to it a location and be given directions to said location. Users also should be able to see real time location of their friends. Google has also hinted on Google Glass using merchandise tagging so when a user wants to find a specific book or item the user will be navigated tot he closest place to find the item. [1]

3) First Person-Visuals

Google glass will be a hands free camera device allowing for hands free interaction while taking pictures and video. The device will be able to share the pictures and videos with Google applications  and other third party applications. [1]

4) Interactive Media

Users of the Google Glass should be able to watch videos, read books, read newspapers, read magazines, and scan Quick-Response (QR) barcodes. Without a doubt these on demand features will allow for faster learning on the go. [1]

5) Education

Everything from sharing instructional content to interactive guest lectures to interactive virtual guest lectures will enhance the way we learn in and outside of the classroom. Instructors may be able to get more control or at least the attention of  their students. [1]

6) Mobile Shopping

With the Google Glass, user will be able to scan QR codes to find out everything from instructional videos to reviews of whatever product they are holding in their hand. When connected to shopping applications users can check for the best price of an item.
7) Bio-metric Security
Users will be able to use eye movement to lock and unlock their device. Also users may be able to use their actual eye image as a password. [1]

8) Gaming

Google Glass users can expect high interactivity through gaming. Being a room full of friends and having your own devices on will enhance gaming when connected  in a virtual world sitting on your eye. [1]

See the Google Glass in action.

[2]Sources:

[1] http://lifeontech.com/2012/08/22/7-realistic-google-glass-features-at-launch/

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jhN8ZTDw8uA

Google Glass is a technology that will be available before the end of the year 2013. Some are even saying that this device will be the last step before human-machine interaction moves under our skin. Google Glass is promising to be a very desired technology, such that there are people paying $1,500 for the privilege of owning it first. By the end of the year it should be more affordable because many people will already own it. Google Glass is desired by many people, but not by all. [2] Even though Google Glass is not out yet, it is a technology that will not be allowed everywhere. Just like cellular phones are not allowed in places like court houses, Google Glass will be prohibited in certain places. Many people are discussing whether or not Google Glass will be allowed in there business. "One of the reasons Glass will find itself unwelcome in places is because its camera lives at the wearer's eye level...Anywhere cameras and other recording devices are unwelcome, the same would most certainly go for Google Glass." For example, NBC ran a story giving details of places that do not want patrons with cameras strapped to their faces which included stip clubs and casinos. Other areas and places that Google Glass will not be allowed are in movie theaters. Some places still being negotiated are locker rooms, playgrounds, bathrooms and many more areas. The reason for this is that Glass only requires a line of sight. Wearable technology is the latest technology initiative with many companies today. Because Google Glass is a promising very wanted technology, it now has competitors. Baidu, the biggest search engine in China is building their own version of Google Glass. The name for it is Baide Eye. Apple is conducting its own experiments on a device that is similar to a wristwatch that would operate on the same platform as the iPhone. There is also a rumor that Microsoft will also join these other companies with its own set of high-tech glasses by the first half of 2014.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2013/04/09/google-glass-wont-be-allowed-in-strip-clubs/

[2] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100624379

[3] http://kottke.org/13/04/chinese-google-glass

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/baidu-google-glass_n_3004525.html

[5] http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/04/04/rumor-microsoft-to-introduce-google-glass-competitor-in-2014

1) The Google glass will come out to the public within the end of this year (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100624379)

2) Google glass will be prohibited in certain places since it holds both camera and recorder.

3) The user can use eyes to lock and unlock the device, and also use actual eye image as a password.(http://lifeontech.com/2012/08/22/7-realistic-google-glass-features-at-launch/)

Ka w chan (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
nokaumpamas (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Cjacks457 (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Zunigag (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions for new content to add to the article. Generally, this style of writing isn't quite appropriate for encyclopedia articles, but feel free to individually add any information not already present in the article. You can cite sentences by clicking on the "Cite" dropdown menu located in the toolbar above the edit box, and clicking on "Templates" and then "cite web". You can fill out the author's last/first name, title of the work, url of the page, work (generally the website/website company name), publisher (optional if work field is filled), date of publication, and access date. If you want to include the publisher field in addition to the work field, you can use the parent company of the website. Feel free to comment if you have any questions, comments or additional suggestions. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wearable computer?

What is the computer part, then? As far as I can tell, the Glass is merely a HDM? What are the stats for the computer/smart part? Processor, other hardware, size and weight, connectivity beyond WiFi, applications it can run, removable storage, and so on and so forth.85.230.45.115 (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Google Glass apps

There are much more apps available. Check this source: http://glass-apps.org especially the application gallery & list http://glass-apps.org/google-glass-application-list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.252.140.51 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Need a picture of the display

We have a superabundance of pictures of the thing on faces and mannequins, but no pictures of the actual display. Pictures of the display from the vantage point of a wearer would be much more informative. -- ke4roh (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Project Glass > Google Glass

"Project Glass" was more of a codename for Glass. Google has just officially acknowledged the name and updated their Google+ Page name. I renamed the English Wikipedia article back in February, but several other language articles are still "Project Glass". If anyone has move permissions in those languages, updating would be appreciated! :) --Dan Leveille (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing aspects of the article.

The current article declares the capacity of the device's onboard battery in Watt-hours, but fails to mention the running time (autonomy) this affords to the Glass. Maybe it only runs 30 or 90 mninute on one charge?

Furthermore, the article does not contain any EM health safety info. The idea that Google places a Wi-fi emitter device (much more powerful than BT) right onto one's ear is a bit suspect, considering there is a brain to be fried behind that ear. If the WLAN base station is on the far side of the person, the radio waves emitted by the Glass need to travel through the entire cranium to reach the Net. Brain tumor is the most lethal kind of cancer. 87.97.100.243 (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you allowed to buy Google Glass on eBay?

Are you allowed to buy Google Glass on eBay? If not, why? Fladoodle (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is not the venue to discuss sites to purchase the product. Article talk pages are intended to discuss the article's content. 99.12.240.1 (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but will you please answer the question anyway? Fladoodle (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Again: [2]. Please find an appropriate online chat site. 99.12.240.1 (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Research section

I'm concerned that the entire section appears to have WP:COI issues, and may be promotional, detailing current work by Lucien Engelen without, for the most part, reliable objective sources. Further thoughts from outside editors welcome. Given this and the edits to the subject's biography, perhaps a thread at COI noticeboard is appropriate. 99.12.240.1 (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

XenonJohn's Google Glass

Perhaps worth mentioning:

• www.instructables.com/id/DIY-Google-Glasses-AKA-the-Beady-i/‎
• www.dvice.com/2013-3.../build-your-own-google-glass-and-save-1200

KVDP (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Have any photo requests?

I was thinking about taking a series of photos of my Glass and uploading to Wikimedia. Any requests that could help illustrate the article? --Dan Leveille (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article but seems like ad

its a good article. but it seems like an ad so would need some cleanup. and may have some original work .FockeWulf FW 190 (talk)FockeWulf FW 190FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) talk... — Preceding unsigned comment added by FockeWulf FW 190 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 6 November 2013

Use SI, make world better...

1. Development section:

"Around August 2011, a Glass prototype weighed 8 pounds" to:""Around August 2011, a Glass prototype weighed 8 pounds (3,600 g)"

1. the table on the right..

|display = Prism projector, 640×360 pixels (equivalent of a 25 in. screen from 8 ft. away)
to:

|display = Prism projector, 640×360 pixels (equivalent of a 25 in. (0.64 m) screen from 8 ft. away(2.4 m))

NoWiki: codes for fast copy and paste make: {{convert|8|lb|g}}
(equivalent of a 25 in. ({{convert|25|in|m|disp=out}}) screen from 8 ft. away({{convert|8|ft|m|disp=out}})<ref name="tspec"/>)

Done. Thanks for the nowiki codes. I think you meant disp=or, but I've used a / separator instead, as it's best to be very compact in the infobox. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request (retracted) - Google Glass does NOT have a GPS chip

http://www.techradar.com/news/video/google-glass-what-you-need-to-know-1078114

http://designdautore.blogspot.ca/2013/11/google-glass.html

http://blog.orbissolutions.com/2013/07/18/1022/

Ok, retract this edit request - Turns out it DOES have a GPS chip, it just cannot be accessed through the API. A ton of conflicting information out there at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHMKShore (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Google Glass apps

there are many glass apps available by now. Consider adding this popular source to external links http://glass-apps.org/google-glass-application-list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.37.130 (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Glass manufacturer

As of December 7th, 2013 at 6:46pm et, the article says Glass is manufactured by Foxconn. This is incorect. It says on the Glass that it is 'Manufactured in Califonria', and on the box, it says 'Assembled in the U.S.A'.

~Paul Schulman, Glass Explorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paultheschulman (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, Glass has yet to go into large scale manufacturing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paultheschulman (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Hi Paul, just wondering, does it say 'Manufactured in Califonria' or 'Manufactured in California' (note the spelling of the last word)? Thanks. Newyorkadam (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

I think Paul has just made a spelling error in his post.--Soulparadox (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Right or left eye?

The article doesn't address this, but it looks as if the GG uses the wearer's right eye only. As someone who can barely see anything out of my right eye, I'd be interested to know if this is switchable, or if the device requires decent eyesight out of both eyes to work (ie, the other eye must be able to see normally while the other eye receives information from the device). This might prove to be something of a liability issue if people like me start using it on their one good eye, or can't use it because it's only set up to work with their one bad eye. (This is a problem with a lot of professional video cameras, for example.) ProhibitOnions ^(T) 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no released version of the product for the other eye, nor can the Explorer edition version be switched, as far as I can tell. LFaraone 04:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Because of the (in my opinion, incompetent) focus on the (it turns out more 'newsworthy' but irrelevant) issue of whether the gGlass was on, the article does not address whether or not the obvious and fundamental safety issue of obstructed vision (both directed & peripheral) was addressed in the case. If it was not, it shows a failure of the police officer & his training, not to mention the driver's intelligence, in addressing road safety as the true goal of her being stopped in the first place. The article also implies (by omission) that she was also not convicted of speeding.

According to Fox News,'Officer Keith Odle, a 10-year veteran of the CHP, testified Thursday that the "hardware for this device was blocking her peripheral vision on her right side," and that's why she sped by his patrol car at 85 mph in her Toyota Prius. Blair rejected that as speculation, noting that Odle had never worn the device. He also threw out Odle's documentation of her speed and found Abadie not guilty of that count.'
Wikidity (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume there is audio in the GG. If so, and the officer could see the light from the screen, could they charge you if the display was only visible to your bad eye?
Wikidity (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"FBI Drags Google Glass Man From Theater on Piracy Fears"

After wearing a turned off and prescription lens-equipped model to the theater, a man had it torn from his face on suspicion he was engaging in movie piracy. Several hours later the FBI conceded they’d made a big mistake."

This should be added to the article.[3] 85.247.144.196 (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a wearable android cat please?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/10/sxsw_google_release_wearable_android_sdk/

Or can we just assume that all wearable computers will just use Android and take over that article? Hcobb (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

prescriptions

Prescription frames are available now, aren't they? http://www.google.com/glass/help/frames/ So perhaps the paragraph that basically half says they aren't, half says they are could be clarified by somebody who understands the situation better than I? Rogerdpack (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical specifications

Does anyone know who manufactured the cable that comes with the earbud that comes with the glass? It's a fabric coated very thin USB cable, Thanks 66.249.81.233 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the word "Glassholes" in this article

The article should talk about glassholes.

I agree. We've reached a threshold when Google itself uses the word. In its "Welcome to a world through Glass" website, Google mentions the word. Google advises wearers not to "be creepy or rude (aka, a “Glasshole”)." Anybody object to putting the word in the "Critical Reception" section of this article? This topic was discussed a year ago, when a handful of people were vehemently opposed to including the term in the article. But now the term is very much in use -- even Google acknowledges the term. In bears including. Chisme (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding photo to Healthcare applications

I can't update this article due to COI, so I'm asking for a editor to add a simple image of witch I have full copy rights to be added to the Healthcare applications section in the part that small world is mentioned, is this photo Breastfeeding with the caption Breastfeeding volunteer mother using Google Glass

that is related to the breast feeding program.

Thank you in advance,

Chulian1819 (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't figure out how the Google Glass is relevant to the breast feeding — which isn't actually going on anyway.

If the photo is not clearly labeled as to Creative Commons status, or public domain status, nobody can add it to the article.P0M (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The picture was uploaded by the company's author at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mother_and_baby_with_Google_Glass.jpg with the Creative Commons license. You can find additional information on the reference links on how the Google Glass is relevant to the breast feeding, can't add detail to this document due to COI.

Chulian1819 (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

battery longevity

What is the battery longevity of the Glass? How long can it record videos/take photos and how much does the traffic gathers from the battery? 78.35.206.203 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Google, Google Glass and speech recognition

Shouldn't we briefly touch the subject of Google experimenting with speech recognition as well ? See Web Speech API plugin for Chrome. See also: http://www.labnol.org/internet/dictation-for-google-chrome/24719/

It also strucks me that, given that Google Glass has a microphone and bone-conduction speakers, it could be used to control (any) linux operating system as well, by installing Web Speech API and having it control the operating system directly (similar to Dragon NaturallySpeaking). Google all ready has Chrome_OS linux on which it can possibly work this out further. 109.130.224.156 (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2015

Omit reference to Winky app, or correct it. Current text: Additionally, Michael DiGiovanni created Winky, a program that allows a Google Glass user to take a photo with a wink of an eye, while

I work on the Glass team, and helped develop "Wink to take a picture." We worked on this for 2 years before Mike found the on/off switch for this feature and released it before we did. The current article implies it was his idea and technology, when in fact, it was not. Proof: https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013151997A1?cl=en&dq=inventor:hayes+raffle+wink&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ounjVMTrIoSayQS_9oCIBg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

Hraffle (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede section should clarify definition/function/purpose, go easy on jargon & participants

The lede portion of this article needs (and No, I do not think I am the person to make these edits...) to state, if only very broadly, something more tangible than that Google Glass is a wearable, OHMD, hands-free natural-language voice-command (etc.) interface, smartphone-like, internet-capable computer aimed at bringing about mass-market ubiquitous computing; it needs to state clearly, in less jargon-laden terms, what the contraption does and what it is hoped to accomplish. For example, I had to read down to Reception | Critical reception | Privacy concerns (4.1.1) to verify the fundamental attribute that the device is intended to collect information locally for global use, in addition to retrieving information for the wearer. The present opening paragraphs seem overly focused on Glass from a commercial product / software-hardware project / participating entities perspective, while more or less assuming that the reader already knows, in general, what this category of technology is all about, and specifically, how Glass fits into the general category. In short, this intro (and maybe the whole article) needs to offer less of an Insider/Industry view and do more interpreting for the general public.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, definitely too much content in there. Rogerdpack (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. I've been editing accordingly. Chisme (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert

@IfYouDoIfYouDon't:, @Rogerdpack:, @Chisme:

Before even coming to the talk page, and noting this section, I made a fairly big revert here of a good faith edit that added a fair bit of 'jargon', new sources, a bit of possible POV (and poor grammar) to the lede. It also added info that wasn't anywhere else in the body, so misplaced. Just notifying any interested parties. for comment. 220 of ^Borg 01:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Focusing on something so near

Hi, I don't quite get how one can focus on something that near to the eye. The article neglects to explain that, unless I've missed something. Is the image just reflected onto the retina in the right place avoiding the need to actively focus? Please explain in the article :) Malick78 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit like looking in a mirror : even though it is close to you, you aren't focussing on it, but on an aerial image far behind it. I don't think that need be in the article.--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Malick78: I agree with IP 195 re how it works, and not being on page (in detail anyway)

Tch, tch! Malick78, there's this thing called Goggle you know? "Focus at infinity HMD" gave a first Googling result that looks pretty cluey here at 'physics.stackexchange.com'. It is actually a bit outside the articles topic, and more for Helmet-mounted display, Head-up display or similar pages to cover. A query at the Science ref desk would get you good information too, if you need more. Regards 220 of ^Borg 01:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

meaningless words removed

I removed some meaningless words from the lead. A "type of technology" is redundant waffle, "small-market" is unexplained jargon. 69.86.6.150 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google Glass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140909201538/http://www.hopkinscme.edu/CourseDetail.aspx/80033274 to http://www.hopkinscme.edu/CourseDetail.aspx/80033274

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Brain Power advertising

I just removed a thing being like "here's how you can purchase this exciting product!" from the Brain Power section, but I suspect the section is just largely an ad. I imagine it might also contain valuable information though, and don't have enough experience with wikipedia editing to trust that I could sort it out right. So am just mentioning it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.72.239 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)