Shared publicly  - 
 
It's Time to Start Developing on the +Google Glass Mirror API
536
104
omar acone's profile photoRodrigo Barcat's profile photoGeorge Burnett's profile photoChernerCollisionCt's profile photo
40 comments
 
+Abraham Williams That's not a valid reason to keep glass hardware US only. They even started geo fencing some features (myglass site). And we are talking about developers, we can deal with beta software that is not correctly localized. 
 
+Florian Westreicher yes it is, shipping and supporting multiple countries is a huge logistical nightmare and is expensive. Jutt like how Nexus devices slowly get rolled out to additional countries, expect Glass to do the same when Google is ready.
 
+Abraham Williams i'm not talking about consumer hardware or distribution. I can't see why a developer in Europe would be more work for Google than a developer in the USA. The main difference is shipping, that's correct. And it's still no reason to geofence features.
 
+Florian Westreicher it's not just shipping, it's accepting financing from other countries, translating UIs, making sure warranties and privacy policies are valid in each country, etc. In your mind it's simply extra stamps, but if Google cuts corners, there's multi-million dollar lawsuits.
 
UI is no issue and warrantie stuff is already done. Privacy policies for Europe are also nothing new for google. Also, in Europe it's not that easy to launch multi million dollar lawsuits - our legal system works totally different.
 
+Abraham Williams You make it sound like growing a market into other countries has never been done before. It's been done for over a hundred years, with millions of products. The fact is Google has always been quite slow to get products and services overseas for one reason or another. I could write you a list of current products that either don't exist abroad, took 2 more years to emerge or are severely crippled compared to the US counterpart.
 
+John Stock don't put words in my mouth, I never said it hadn't been done. It's just very hard and takes a lot of time, effort, and money.
 
Another issue to consider is that, while the US is one nation following the same federal laws with which to work under to develop Google Glass, the European Union consists of a bunch of smaller nations tightly-knit, but still independent nonetheless. And they cant exactly make a separate version of Glass for EACH one of those nations, it's much better/easier to try to get one out that works for all, or at least the extreme majority, of Europe. That being said this is a new form of technology, unprecedented in nature as it is being implemented now, and it's bound to step on some opposing toes with these nation's laws, for varying reasons.

Logistics, yay!
 
+Luis Garcia why would anybody create different products for all over Europe? It's not like the Nexus 4 is different in Germany and England or Austria. Also, launching a product in the EU is not as complicated as you think, that's why the EU exists in the first place.
 
+Abraham Williams No one is suggesting it's easy. The point that is being made is that it's taking longer than competing products from other companies. 
 
Most people will probably search "how to fix eyes after being crossed with google glass all day."
Translate
 
This is a great tool for our war on terrorism. What other information can be as good as instant recognition.
 
wishing glass will be available soon in my country.

just can't resist to play with this toy and build some funny app
 
I would have thought this stuff would have been integrated into the android development stuff.
 
+Florian Westreicher "Why would anyone create different products for all over Europe?"

Exactly. They DON'T. Now, I'm no legal expert, but Glass delves into a previously non-existent realm of legalism, privacy concerns, and silently opposing nitwits. This means that there are no doubt bound to be some issues in making a standard Glass version that will conform to all of EU's laws and stuff which VARY due to their nature as independent, unique nations. The Nexus 4 is one thing; it's a smartphone, which have been around for nearly a decade now. Glass is a Retina-Display for the average pedestrian. That can record. There are bound to be problems.

Now I hate saying this because I think it is a terrible excuse and just really a tactic only used by those without a good argument, but the way I see it...

You're just gonna have to deal with it.

Morning Fever, Yay!
 
+Luis Garcia Except that Glass is not really that different to a smartphone.  Users can record audio and video discreetly using a smartphone, probably more discreetly than Glass.  Privacy policies are not defined around specific device types so that is not a valid excuse.  There is nothing Glass will do that other already available devices cannot do currently and the EU is fine with it. The general, non technical public may have a view that is different, but from a legal point of view, public paranoia is not a factor, that's just politics.  Localization also does not hold water either, since Google must address that at some stage anyway.  Nor is cost a real reason, not for a company with Google's wealth - the logistics costs and regulatory and legal framework management can all be managed out of Google's European HQ.

The real reason, I suspect, is that Google wouldn't be able to cope with all the feedback from global developers and testers.  I suspect a secondary reason might also be that the US government would prefer Google to market it first in the US.
 
+Mosh Jahan I understand that, however, when you say "Policies are not defined around specific device types," it's exactly what I mean; because they aren't, what someone does with Glass may or may not sit well legally.

That being said, while public paranoia is not a factor, and it is politics, those politicians tend to be the ones who, you know, legislate.

All in all, it ultimately comes down to the simple fact that deploying it in the US, where Google has already wrestled with the politics of it, the legalities, as opposed to launching it globally with the risk of even one or two nations opposing it in a major way, and suddenly opposition to glass would gain a great deal of momentum. A couple months ago the media was going crazy over these supposed civilization-shattering privacy issues, until everyone realized they were being stupid and just really shut up about it because more interesting things happened. Further, if it works out well in the US it becomes much easier to deploy it globally without too much opposition or friction because, despite many Europeans (I know it's not most, these just yell a lot louder) have a tendency to be vocal about their belief that Americans are over-indulging, obese idiots, we aren't, and governments know this is nothing more than stereotyping.

Really, I think Google just doesn't want to risk too much flux in the Glass area of things, in other words; they want to take it slow and steady, resolving issues as they go along (such as the prompt action taken against pornography apps and other apps that allowed secretly taking images) and pushing the project forward, one step at a time.
 
+Luis Garcia I understand your point of view, I don't agree with it, but I get it.  I also don't see the link between the electorate and what politicians ultimately legislate, in the real world the two things really don't matter once the elections are over.  

I agree with many around the world that it would serve Google better if the beta/development programme were to be extended globally, or at least to the major economic states.  In the long run it would help Google to get the product into consumer space sooner and with less general public resistance.  The other danger for Google is that by focusing on the US, Glass is seen as US centric elsewhere and that could slow early adoption. It's local developers that best know the kinds of services to develop to serve local users.  

Having said that, while I personally would consider using a Glass unit in some circumstances, I have doubts about demand from  non geeky/techie consumers.  If Google were basing its decision to limit it on that basis, that would make more sense to me.
 
+Mosh Jahan Oh, of course, I personally believe that it would serve Google's interests to deploy it globally, I'm just saying why it is they may not be doing it at the moment.

But personally I'd like nothing better than to see everyone involved, here at home as well as overseas.
 
+Mosh Jahan This: The other danger for Google is that by focusing on the US, Glass is seen as US centric elsewhere and that could slow early adoption. is exactly how I perceive glass right now. The mentality is "forget about Europe, US is way cooler". This happens with so many things, especially in the tech industry, it makes me sick. And 99% of all times it has nothing to do with regulations, just companies not bothering with Europe. I can understand that launching services can take a lot longer in Europe but this is certainly not the case here. And even if it is, there is still no reason to geofence already existing glass units to the US.
 
+Florian Westreicher But there is, it's much easier to respond to the political shitstorms that follow from people who don't know what they're talking about when they yell out "PRIVACY AHH SURVEILLANCE" in one nation rather than 20 or 30, and adequately make changes to counter such claims, in one nation. By taking this approach they can have the situation well in-hand as opposed to MAYBE having it in-hand with many more nations involved. 

It's also about forcing the issue. For instance, recently, a glass Explorer recieved the first traffic ticket for wearing Glass whilst driving. That ONE isolated instance and the quiet back-row discussions about Glass as a safety compromise by state Rep. looks alot better than half a dozen countries banning the operation of a motor vehicle while wearing glass, and another dozen having a province or state that opposes it in a similar way. This may even lead to a domino effect, and ultimately, that's not good. They want to "sneak" it in, so to speak, without cascading something potentially detrimental to it's adoption.

I understand both sides of the coin, but again, I'm just saying why I think they might be doing it, not agreeing with their tactics, but I think I see at least some of their motives.
 
+Luis Garcia I don't think it has anything to do with "sneaking it in".  The privacy concerns will always be there and will be raised with louder voices when the product goes to market.  In Europe it will almost certainly be illegal to operate a motor vehicle on public roads and be using Glass at the same time, even for navigation purposes because one eye will be distracted.  On this I actually agree that Glass should be banned while operating vehicles or other similar situations.

It's one of the other reasons.  As big as Google is, I don't believe even Google would be able to cope with developer feedback from around the globe.  Google just doesn't have the resources to cope with that level of feedback - think about it, that's a huge amount of feedback to stay on top of.  Patriotism toward the US is I think another reason, but on this point it may not be Google's decision, the US government may have some influence over Google.
 
I need information abaut to ici pass iwas used 200 gaithesburg to baltimore my registrations and jn8ar05y9xw330776 
 
I need information abaut to ici pass iwas used 200 gaithesburg to baltimore my favorite flag record registrations and jn8ar05y9x30776 
Add a comment...