Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Google Shooting for 4Q13, Sub-$1,500 Project Glass Release

Tags:
Last response: in News comments
Share
February 25, 2013 12:34:20 PM

Cool, it's only 5x more expensive than i thought it might be....
Score
8
February 25, 2013 12:35:05 PM

Wow, if Glass is going to be close to $1,500 then that kills any potential ownership for me. I figured it would be expensive, but damn!
Score
5
February 25, 2013 12:48:41 PM

I'll be getting one...looks nifty.
Score
2
February 25, 2013 1:15:38 PM

ha, biiig deal, I'm more interested in the Oculus Rift. Yeah yeah I know, Google is AR , Oculus Rift is VR.
You don't know what Oculus Rift is huh? Ohhhh nevermind~ ^_^
Score
-6
February 25, 2013 1:27:45 PM

I want them both, the rift for gaming and glass for everything else. What got me initially interested in glass is it's potential as a very cool HUD for motorcycle use... telemetry and navigation rolled into one display that doesn't require close focus to use means very fast minimally disruptive tracking of needed data while riding.
Score
2
February 25, 2013 2:11:51 PM

as close as you get to get a hud to "play" your real life:) 
Score
1
February 25, 2013 2:15:52 PM

Too expensive and it looks ridiculous when you wear it.

The idea is cool, but I'm going to wait a generation or two before I really consider it.
Score
3
February 25, 2013 2:25:19 PM

aoneoneha, biiig deal, I'm more interested in the Oculus Rift. Yeah yeah I know, Google is AR , Oculus Rift is VR. You don't know what Oculus Rift is huh? Ohhhh nevermind~ ^_^


That's a sneaky way of advertising. XD

Anyways, I'd love to see something like the Google Glass used for combat overseas. Imagine being able to see what your fellow soldiers can see in the corner of your eye. Imagine being able to detect movement using Google Glass.

Maybe Google should partner up with a game company so that they can make a game that advertises the Google Glass in it.
Score
2
February 25, 2013 2:31:22 PM

pocketdrummerToo expensive and it looks ridiculous when you wear it.The idea is cool, but I'm going to wait a generation or two before I really consider it.

That's why it's called a PROTOTYPE....
Score
3
February 25, 2013 2:39:00 PM

why so many cheapos on this site? I mean my computer was about 2.5 times the cost, and i didn't get no fancy pants glasses.
Score
-2
February 25, 2013 2:59:49 PM

This and that Pixlulz laptop are way overpriced. If you can bring a gadget in the 200-300 dollar range you have something to talk about.

Pass.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 3:08:39 PM

way over priced, good luck with that google
Score
1
February 25, 2013 3:13:02 PM

^ Yeah...because there are so many less expensive versions.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 3:23:38 PM

Even at $200 I wouldn't buy one. Nothing it can do to make my life any easier or add to my productivity. Of course, for those who also carry a utility belt I'm sure this would fit right in.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 3:24:21 PM

man was hoping that it would be under 1000.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 3:27:58 PM

this is not overpriced. a galaxy note 2 is $650 unlocked or a dual core apple laptop for $1,600. This tech is the beginning of something well beyond either of those. Since when can you get into a truly innovative product on the ground floor for less than $2,000. This is the gateway to life changinf tech. http://www.ted.com/talks/pranav_mistry_the_thrilling_po...
google search: Pranav Mistry: The thrilling potential of SixthSense technology
Score
-1
February 25, 2013 3:34:13 PM

for 1500, I think I can hold off on having a screen in front of my eyeball running otherwise free google softwre (maps, earth, image search, etc.) for a while longer.

Honestly, I can't see the tech inside this being worth "Less than 1500 bucks." Either they have a lot of R&D worked into that price, or they're grabbing early adopters with more cash than brain and shaking them upside down until their wallets fall out.

Of course, everything about this article is highly speculative. This isn't an official comment from google, this isn't an official price, there's no official release date etc. etc. We'll see.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 3:38:27 PM

I'm going to wait for the Google Glass 1s.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 3:43:45 PM

all MS can come up with to compete, is the Microsoft Helmet, at $1,699
Score
0
February 25, 2013 4:10:10 PM

You've got to pay for the R&D up front. We need competition if it is going to get cheaper. Apple iSee, Galaxy Monicle, Pantec Percieve...
Score
0
February 25, 2013 4:34:54 PM

I'll wait to see what the actual release price / specs will be before I judge this. I wonder what the need for a $1500 price would be? The actual materials behind it aren't that expensive. I'm guessing that they are doing this to ensure that only people that are really interested in it will get one. This will prevent non-techies from buying one and then being disappointed that it isn't 100% consumer ready as the entire AR field is relatively new.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 5:21:54 PM

$1500 seems very expensive for something that will be inherently extremely fragile - how many pairs of sunglasses (which look considerably more robust than Glass) have you broken?
I guess looking like a Universal Soldier is a big drawcard.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 5:58:39 PM

Umm it's a computer in your glasses. It's the future. How is it not worth $1500?? You people are paying way more for overpriced Apple products that you certainly cannot carry around like this.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 10:05:02 PM

Everything is always overpriced if you're broke. If you're gainfully employed, and a technology enthusiast then $1500 is kinda chump change. I built and sold a 10K Gaming rig only a few weeks ago. It was not overpriced, Just used all of the Newest Tech.

Apples Chinese dollar store tech is overpriced, but True innovation is harder to put a price tag on. That is why this is only aimed at those that have an open purse, and an interest in the adventure. -CB
Score
-1
February 25, 2013 11:02:02 PM

Perfect vision required to use that tech.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 11:58:59 PM

If they (google) include things like G+ hangout and Google voice then this will effectively replace cellular phones. At $1500 if they make this prescription strength it would be about the cost of a pair of glasses and a high end smartphone combined, but way cooler than both.

Kind of reminds me of the eye phone...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Killer_App
Score
0
February 26, 2013 12:04:14 AM

"Everything is always overpriced if you're broke. If you're gainfully employed, and a technology enthusiast then $1500 is kinda chump change. I built and sold a 10K Gaming rig only a few weeks ago. It was not overpriced, Just used all of the Newest Tech.

Apples Chinese dollar store tech is overpriced, but True innovation is harder to put a price tag on. That is why this is only aimed at those that have an open purse, and an interest in the adventure. -CB"

If only douche bags are going to get this I will def pass. Just because you overpay for something does not mean, everyone who does not want to drop 1,500 bucks on something is broke. Maybe it will have an Anti DB feature. People like you are whats wrong with the world. A fool and his money get parted quickly.
Score
0
February 26, 2013 9:04:14 AM

fkrthis is not overpriced. a galaxy note 2 is $650 unlocked or a dual core apple laptop for $1,600. This tech is the beginning of something well beyond either of those. Since when can you get into a truly innovative product on the ground floor for less than $2,000. This is the gateway to life changinf tech. http://www.ted.com/talks/pranav_mi [...] ology.htmlgoogle search: Pranav Mistry: The thrilling potential of SixthSense technology


apple, already over priced
cellphone, already overpriced.
lets look at a fire hd, or a nexus 10

the only thing this has over them is you wear it on glasses.

(i chose those two tablets because fire is suppose to be at cost, and nexus 10 is great value for what you get)
Score
0
February 26, 2013 11:34:22 AM

I don't know how you folks can be saying it's overpriced. It's a HUD (heads-up-display) for everyday use. As far as I'm aware there are no competing such devices. This is the first. We're not even fully aware of what its capabilities will be or how much R&D had to go into bringing such a device to the mass market.

Given the aforementioned, I believe those of you who feel $1,500 initial consumer cost is too much are deluding yourselves. I have a headphone amp and headphones that cost way more than this*. Gotta pay to play, nothing's changed in that.






*(Burson Audio HA-160D+Pangea AC-9+Pangea 24ga SS USB Cable+Senn HD650+Cardas cables)
Score
0
February 26, 2013 12:05:35 PM

halcyonI don't know how you folks can be saying it's overpriced. It's a HUD (heads-up-display) for everyday use. As far as I'm aware there are no competing such devices. This is the first. We're not even fully aware of what its capabilities will be or how much R&D had to go into bringing such a device to the mass market.Given the aforementioned, I believe those of you who feel $1,500 initial consumer cost is too much are deluding yourselves. I have a headphone amp and headphones that cost way more than this*. Gotta pay to play, nothing's changed in that.*(Burson Audio HA-160D+Pangea AC-9+Pangea 24ga SS USB Cable+Senn HD650+Cardas cables)


yes its stupidly overpriced for what it is. from what i can tell its glass that projects a glare into your eye in focus... i cant see this being an every day thing. at the absolute most i would pay 500 for it if it worked perfectly and played video at a decent resolution, but i cant make a full comment on it because all we see are mockups of what its like to wear one.

and as much as i want to call your audio setup retardedly expensive, i dont know what standard cables for the650 cost, andi dont know what 3 of the items are, and as much as i would like to comment on the amp, i also cant say much because i dont know its quality off the top of my head.

but in lets say 10-20 years, a decent amp and those headphones will still be usable, and still be just as good than as they are now, but can you see a gen 1 glass be as good as a gen 2 a year or two after this one comes out? hell would a gen 1 even be good enough to take a youtube video in 5 years without getting those stupid "what did you record this on, a potato" comments.

point is this is retardedly expensive for what it is, a cellphone on your glasses.
Score
0
February 26, 2013 12:40:01 PM

@alidan, it's the first of its kind. That is why its expensive. ...and as an audiophiles we spend what we can to get us as close as we can pay to get to the music. Don't feel sorry for my wallet, to me its money well spent, I've been an audiophile since 1980.
Score
0
February 26, 2013 5:57:29 PM

The glass has many functions. The price may look over its value to some, but to me it's worthy. Especially, I liked the ability to command via voice. You can do a lot of things through this from buying a ticket to taking photos etc. Cool!
Score
0
February 27, 2013 2:30:19 AM

halcyon@alidan, it's the first of its kind. That is why its expensive. ...and as an audiophiles we spend what we can to get us as close as we can pay to get to the music. Don't feel sorry for my wallet, to me its money well spent, I've been an audiophile since 1980.


same here but im on a budget that allows for at most a 598 when my 555 breaks.
when you get to high end audio, there are people who take advantage of people who dont know anything about it, ever see those 100$ crematic cable raisers. im pointing out that i dont know what 3 of the items do mention do for audio quality, im assuming it offered more shielding, but is it really a noticeable difference from the standard? and with that said, is it a several hundred dollar difference. without really looking into the amp i cant say if it was over priced or if its a great value, but the headphones, i do know those ones require some form of an amp to drive right.
Score
0
!