Am I the only one that thinks that a) it's obvious that these sorts of devices (face wearables) aren't led by people who have worn glasses their whole life and b) if you haven't lived that, you shouldn't try to build devices for people's faces?
I say it's obvious because neither Glass nor Spectacles were wearable by people who need corrective lenses AS corrective eyewear.
None of the leadership had any idea what it meant to have a large piece of hardware on your face all day every day. Nor, importantly, how to convince someone to put a large piece of hardware in their face every day all day.
It's like they didn't even BOTHER to call the guys at warby Parker, or zenni, or even the anti-christ Luxotica
Glasses are SO much more personal than a computer or a phone, or even a shirt or other clothing. They are your face. Your literal identity.
It's so tone deaf of both teams (and everyone in the AR/VR community that thinks some manner of out-in-public eyewear is "close) to not deal with that need for customization at minimum.
Sorry had to rant about that. M sure all those people are actually pretty sharp, and I'm just being grumpy.
They are wearable, I had lenses cut for mine by a lenscrafter in Westchester NY. It was easy, and cheaper than most pairs of glasses I've had in my life. I still wear my spectacles everyday with corrective lenses. As a wearable they work great!
I say it's obvious because neither Glass nor Spectacles were wearable by people who need corrective lenses AS corrective eyewear.
This reminds me of Canon vs Nikon. Fanboys on the Internet wank on about megapixels and whatnot but the real differentiator is the eyepoint of the viewfinder, which is probably literally as simple as, the eyepoint guy at Nikon wears glasses themselves and their counterpart at Canon doesn't.
Is there a large difference in viewfinder design nowadays? I wear glasses and use a Canon 1DX2 and have tried out a Nikon D5 — if anything the Canon is more comfortable for me to look through.
The specifications bear me out: Nikon has a 0.71x magnification VF with a 17mm eyepoint, while Canon has a 0.76x magnification VF wish 20mm eyepoint.
My experience of this is back in the day when it was a real eye opener if you'll forgive the pun when I switched to a Nikon F5 from a Canon EOS 3. I expect both companies have different viewfinder designers now, but it just goes to show how a simple usability test can be overlooked.
I say it's obvious because neither Glass nor Spectacles were wearable by people who need corrective lenses AS corrective eyewear.
None of the leadership had any idea what it meant to have a large piece of hardware on your face all day every day. Nor, importantly, how to convince someone to put a large piece of hardware in their face every day all day.
It's like they didn't even BOTHER to call the guys at warby Parker, or zenni, or even the anti-christ Luxotica
Glasses are SO much more personal than a computer or a phone, or even a shirt or other clothing. They are your face. Your literal identity.
It's so tone deaf of both teams (and everyone in the AR/VR community that thinks some manner of out-in-public eyewear is "close) to not deal with that need for customization at minimum.
Sorry had to rant about that. M sure all those people are actually pretty sharp, and I'm just being grumpy.