Shared publicly  - 
I just called Google begging to get out of +Google Glass. The final straw is this case for the Glass frames. I need a damned backpack to carry them around -- emblematic of the impracticality of the entire enterprise. I'm embarrassed that I paid a fortune for Glass. Once I stopped getting laughs demonstrating it, I find no use for it. I refuse to pay another fortune for these frames -- and yet another fortune for the lenses to go in them. I just want out. Jane, stop this crazy thing!
Jordan Settlemyre's profile photoJoel Hurley's profile photoPeter Harris's profile photoCollin L's profile photo
Ooh i sense a good rant on twig this week :-) 
There are key factors for this product that they have not changed in spite of obvious practical limitations. But I do find +Google Glass to be quite useful for many situations - not $1500 useful, perhaps, but still useful.
I just heard that Google is selling the Glass project to Verizon...just to piss you off.
Just wait for Google Glass v2 or v3 .. you know, when the thing matured enough to be actually usable without being an "embarrassment". 
I don't see the problem. The only time my ordinary glasses are not on my nose is when I sleep or bathe. 
+Jeff Jarvis 
You know, you can just put them down and back away. I'm not sure what you mean by "get out of Google Glass". You bought them, you had them for 30 days or more I assume, what do you expect, a refund?
I can see why you may not be happy with Glass or the style of the frames (I agree no folding is kind of a bad design), but what, exactly, entitles you to a refund here?
They need to re-evaluate this design.
I'm sure you know Google Glass won't cost $1,500 when it launches. You paid a premium to try it out early, develop for it and give feedback. If you don't like something, just let Google know. That's the point.
Glass seems like a solution looking for a problem.
I'll taken them if you don't want them anymore. I would be very excited to have them but can't afford them myself.
I wish my ordinary glasses didn't fold, the hinges always seem to break. Like +Jan Bruun Andersen , the only time my glasses are not on my nose is when I sleep or bathe. 
Well, +Kenneth Lesch, obviously, I'm not going to wear Glass all the time so I need to be able to put them away. But they defy that. 
+Michael Durwin Yes, I greatly regret not returning them then. But now they want me to turn them in for another new pair. And thus I am yet more offended by the waste of it. 
So you're going to call an entire product impractical because the first version of the protective case for the first version of the just-released, optional glasses frames for its beta version is maybe an inch or two larger than it could be?

I'm sorry, but what?! Can you really call this the "final straw" without acknowledging that it might be possible for at least one company to come up with a more compact case? Do you think that the first edition of the closed-beta test case for the first edition of the closed-beta test of a specific accessory for the first edition of the closed-beta test of a radically new product platform is at all representative of the capabilities of said product platform?

I'm looking forward to your explanation, because as it stand right now your post just doesn't make sense to me. I don't have this case, though, so for all I know it really could be as utterly and horrifyingly destructive, and such a clear and all-encompassing representation of the failure of a product which apparently has no possibility for improvement in the foreseeable future, let alone before the very first consumer edition is even unveiled.
How much you want for it let me know
But +Jeff Jarvis , I did include a smiley! (Teasing both you, and that lame meme of a response)
+Jeff Jarvis don't worry Jeff. I'll give them a good home if you want to get ride of them.
Google is king of less is more... yet that case. I guess they haven't heard of hinges. 
+Jan Bruun Andersen There are numerous situations where Glass shouldn't be worn and one would need to remove them and put on conventional glasses.
+Jeff Jarvis That's because the new onws allow the temple to be removed and attached to prescription frames if you want, and works with the new earphones. You don't have to return them if you don't want. You can just say no.  But, if it gives you something to rant about, please continue to act as if you're between a rock and a hard place! ;)
Can't you just slip them up onto the top of your head when not in use? Or is that too hipster?
I'd be more offended by the frames. Look like they belong to Clark Kent.
For $1500  they should also supply a porter to follow you around with the case.

In the current configuration Google Glass is destined to become the Segway of electronic devices -- not the iPhone (I believe that analogy is +Robert Scoble's). And maybe that is not so bad -- as long as Google is aware of the likely outcome and is planning for it.
+Steve Thomas In my case, I can't see worth a crap without my glasses so doing that would be undesirable. Switching to a different pair of glasses would be needed.
+Joe Phelps - I cannot think of one. But then, I am more than a bit socially challenged, and rarely adhere to what others think I should do or not do. It is my way, or I am walking the highway. 
+Jeff Jarvis I think these frames were meant to appease frame manufacturers. The right temple is short so they can not be used as everyday glasses unless Glass is attached. They can not be folded which is a design flaw and they are only available in limited frame styles with only in one dimension. I'm guessing google is working on some sort of open handset alliance with frame least that's my hope (as an optometrist)!
If Google fails to provide a set of frames that can fold before release, than this exact inconvenience may be the decision making factor for many potential buyers. On the other hand, this may be an opportunity for a third party to one-up Google on accessories.
+Jeff Jarvis  Once I had seen the early version of the eyeglass frame without a hinge I took matters into my own hands and made a mount for my glasses by cannibalizing the stock titanium frame. ( I can easily remove Glass from one of several pairs of eyeglasses/sunglass, and I can keep it in a small case in my pocket or bag. It's DIY, but it works beautifully!
+Joe Phelps - the law is ever changing. Once it was legal to own slaves. Once only men could vote. Once an active homosexual life was unlawful. Once it was legal and common practice to sterilise mentally ill people.

Why should people respect the law, when the law clearly lacks respect for people?
Beta +Jeff Jarvis, Beta! I have never held/touched glass but from looking at them, they aren't bendable! Perhaps that is something that they need to fix but that invovles finding out that it needs to be fixed and I bet they know now! 

If you don't want to use glass anymore, feel free to ship them to me in Australia! I'll give you my address! 

You knew what you were getting into. You knew the cost and you knew it was beta and you knew, in relatity, it was too expensive for its use. You can't blame Google for this. Heck they are shipping you a brand new version! Who knows how many more you get within the same single price! 

I do understand your frustration but they haven't sold you anything they didn't say they would. In fact, you could argue they over delivered! 
I have never really gotten it...having this thing on all the time. There seemed so little freedom in it, not more. The no more laughs thing made me laugh!
Jason S
This entire post is kinda ridiculous
If they were uncomfortable or awkward, i'd wear them like a battle scar. A badge of honor...
I love when Jeff Jarvis blows his cork. 
I'm sure there is a tax write off coming.  Business expense.
I saw a professional bowler wearing glass today on tv. But you are no professional bowler
+Joe Phelps I agree but I wonder if this will be the same trend as apples ipods. Everyone was up in arms banning them from gyms because they had a camera. As long as it has a hardware protected led indicator when the device is recording I don't have an issue with it.
This is almost as funny as "Pretty white people with problems" skits on SNL.
+Philip Oberg Yeah, I saw that yesterday on the TV while at the gym. Neat point-of-view shots.
I thing, you guys, missed to see the key sentence in his rant "I find no use for it".
So, it's an expensive piece of plastic.
So, it's impractical to transport.
But on top of all, it has limited functionalities.
+Joe Phelps - do not be shy. Pray tell me, what are one of those situations?

Edit: And tell me what amount of respect other people are showing me if I tell them that I not using any special features of the glasses during that "situation". 
I'm confused. Was there some type of contract? You want out, but you keep buying yourself further and further in. 
Tell you what, send them to me. I'll develop apps for them and I'll split the revenues with you 50/50?
I tried 'em didn't like 'em.  It's a great concept but our technology isn't quite to the point where a wearable like this can function as they intend. The glass tech (sans the camera) will work very well in watch form.
Maybe you can trade them for a toilet that'll wash your ass. Now THERE'S technology. 
+Jeff Jarvis There are many reasons why you should just put this in a drawer and call it experience.
If you do that you may never see the product that will be. Your input on the short comings to Glass will guide Google toward a better product.
I wish you would keep at it, finding the uses where Glass will make sense and helping others too.

+Jeff Jarvis In 20 years Pawn Stars and American Pickers will be coming by your house offering you tons of money for those. Tuck them away.
I keep wondering why they can't make Google Glass so that it can attach to a pair of glasses rather than being on big thing? That way you could choose your frames, maybe even more than one frame, then attach the device to whichever frame you'd like. Perhaps there's something that prevents Google from doing that, but they should consider this. Imagine you could remove Glass when going to a movie. You could take it off of the frames and store it when your out and about, and you could get folding frames for better storage.
+Robert Barry there are dynamics you would not believe in attaching small items to minimal objects
jeff I find that hilarious that there's so much 'stuff' with the concept
You bought a dev kit. The cost assumes that you are going to profit off of launch app development. Not sure what you expected... 
Yes, the case for #Glass  would be big. The original Dev version doesn't fold. I noticed that from the first photos.

But you're upset they want you to trade in the version that doesn't fold to the new version that DOES fold--and thus could be stored in a regular-size eyeglass case ... and that's bad how?
Come on Jeff, you were an early adopter who paid for a development version. You're treating this like a fully baked, consumer product. You went in with the wrong expectations it sounds like.
+Jan Bruun Andersen do you think they want me to take off my Galaxy Gear watch in "certain situations"?  It has pretty much the same photo/video capabilities as Glass.
Yet, comparing the price you paid to the caliber of your work, makes a them cheap to me. Who else besides Jeff Jarvis, would compare Google glasses to Jane? As I'm sure many of us wished similarly with other "freaking" devices that, crash, don't work, break, and, so on. I don't think it's the glasses, it is the fact you can't conceive any benefit worthy of your time. God, only know's how many ten's of thousands of dollars, I've spent on technology, only to sell it for scrap two years later. 
+Jeff Jarvis for a brilliant man, your approach to buying electronics is as emotional and unstudied as mine! And that's not a compliment, sir. 
+Alex Ander its almost like I am reading some patent copy or law agreement...the first version of the prototype case of the first version of just released. .. totally awesome
+Jeff Jarvis Are you a developer? Why did you get glass? I remember you pleading/begging on TWIG to get a pair. I find your views on tech things very much like my dad's and he knows nothing about it either. Keep up the good work
It's a restricted program for 'Explorers'. It's not 'ready' yet for 'normal people'.
What needs 'exploring' is:
- what apps can devs create to best utilise the h/w?
- what utility can the users gain from them?
Together users & devs can discover new ways to do things we already have and hopefully new things entirely based on the characteristics of the device.
Most people won't be suited to being an Explorer for glass.
That's OK.
I thought +Jeff Jarvis would make a great Glass Explorer, especially on behalf of us TWIG watchers.
The insight I'm hoping for wasn't 'this early beta h/w is awkward & restrictive'. I already knew that from the photos/spec./reviews.

Seems like a missed opportunity. Disappointing :(
The cost of the early adopter is incomplete technology at a high price. Yet without the early adopter, products stay expensive and incomplete.
Let's get rid of Google - the whole kit and kaboodle not just glass. I am totally fed up with constant so called upgrades which in fact degrade original product versions and then jumping abuse my phone to lock up resulting in lost data when i have no option but reset to original factory settings. And then whenm you you inform Google of errors all you get is a bland reply they will investigate but never a serious explanation of what caused the error in the first place and how they intend to correct it.
Not sure Glass was ment for someone like you. Just saying it's a beta or development tool for developers.
Sad to hear. What would Habermas and Gutenberg do? Will your Chipotle burritos taste the same? Glee sing along episode about Glass coming up.
Really going to sit here and bitch about how useless Glass is when you were already prepared to shell out the money for the frames and lenses before you saw the case?

Just like any early adopter you should expect to pay a premium for access, it's common sense. You honestly sound like a spoiled fucking child crying because they didn't get enough presents for Christmas. Maybe you should be more thankful for the opportunities you have in life that have enabled you to get a pair instead of posting obnoxiously on G+ over the functionality of a product casing and how horribly it has ruined your life. As many people here have pointed out, they will gladly take them of your hands if you're so opposed to owning them anymore. Please for the love of all things holy just give them away so nobody has to read another one of these ostentatious posts again.
So you don't really use Glass, and don't like the official case for them.

Why beg and whine at Google? Plenty of people willing to buy them off you.
Early days Jeff. Not everyone is meant to be an early adopter. If you are serious I will give you $750 for your used Glass... Didn't think so.
I don't think you're entitled to bitch, really. The whole concept is (was?) so avant garde, and you went into it knowing that. You paid what you did, not just for a piece of beta technology, but for a chance to be part of the Google Glass experiment. Although I think the results of the experiment will fail Google Glass as a mass consumer product, Google (and, by extension, you) have achieved a lot, and pushed at a lot of boundaries both in terms of engineering and the place of wearable tech in society.
The man has every right to kick his self for spending 1600 on a want item. Can't really think of why anybody would actually need a pair. They are cool for about 5 minutes then when the credit card bill comes reality sets in. I would probably have to advise people that make under 150k a year to pass on Glass at the current price especially if you have a family, it's kind of selfish. I am a developer and when I found out your not able to sell apps or advertise on apps I changed my views pretty quick. 
One thing that jars with me about Google is the way they launch products. I know that some people view their approach as 'public, open betas', but as well as not being 'open' (just a convenient version of the concept, much like most of their output), it just looks like they haven't got the balls to commit fully to their vision. 

I try to remain open-minded about most stuff, but this Glass thing has been a cliquey, expensive, smug ball-ache from the beginning. Jeff's vision of how Glass should be allowed into every area of life without question is unrealistic too. Forget guns and knives; if someone walks into a public toilet holding a pineapple in front of their face in Manchester, UK in the year of our Lord 2014, I can guarantee 'questions' will be asked.
+Jeff Jarvis as you complain about the expense, you do forget to mention that you traded in your original Glass that you've had for months for a brand new pair (version 2) for no cost. This upgrade allowed you to change color if you wish, came with polarized tinted shields, a mono earbud and was compatible with frames, albeit non-folding ones.  As a Glass Explorer, I would be the first to admit that Glass will NOT become as ubiquitous as the smartphone. However, there is an active community of developers that will push Glass to much more utility over time and within certain fields of profession, Glass will become a game changer. For example, one  of the people I extended an invite to plans to develop apps for automotive repair instruction using the heads up display to offer step-by-step guidance while under the hood. If Glass doesn't work for you, that's fine. I just have a hard time understanding why Google should "get out of Google Glass" merely because you are having buyer's remorse for a limited release beta product. Respectfully written as a huge fan of TWIG. 
Not an explorer.  Not that I do not have $1500 to blow on gadgets.  Is there a way to project an image without that block...directly on to the see-through glass?
+Josh Jett Yes, the dev version of #Glass  probably won't be ubiquitous as the smart phone--but neither were 1980s brick phones / cell phones, or car phones. Even the 1990s #Motorola   #StarTac  phones have been eclipsed in ubiquity by smart phones.

Glass, while far from the first commercially available set of smart glasses--and technically, not quite commercially available--has the advantage of #Google  behind it with SERVICES to make it useful, a platform that devs can use to make apps to make it more useful and Google marketing (which has of late been eclipsing even #Apple  in humanizing and selling tech) to make sure the public knows about it.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. The #Amiga  was the best home computer released in 1985, was technologically a decade ahead of then rival IBM-compatibles & 5 years of then Macs--that no one ever heard of. It died because #CommodoreBusinessMachines  did the WORSE marketing for it ever. #WhatMightHaveBeen
What interests me is that you found no use for them the whole time you had them. I could never quite imagine what use they'd be, other than as a convenient camera, but I was willing to see what emerged. It seems nothing of any real value has been created for Glass. Is that really the case?

Anyway, respect for having the guts to publicly reverse your opinion - a move you seem to be getting considerable flack for!
Yeh.  Once they hit me with the price... I'm like... for WHAT?!  No thanks.  My phone will document what I want to capture just fine.
+Jeff Jarvis If you really are offended by the waste of it (and not something else) then I guess your financial situation would allow you to give them to someone who could make good use of them, while not being able to get them on his own. 
I've gone through half the comments so far, here's the breakdown:

"omg wtf stfu" - 10%
"can i have your stuff" = 90%.
We all come with better built in sensors. Mine have worked for over 68 years with only a few minor recalls. A slight loss in quality but still working.
This seems like a first world problem +Jeff Jarvis. If you want to part with them i can take them.
+Jeff Jarvis You should ask Google to make an exception to their "non-transferable" policy for you.  Then hold an auction and donate all proceeds to charity.
+David Fitzpatrick Well, we all have feet for that matter, yet most of us aren't hesitant to appreciate autos and airplanes.
+Josh Jett I have not traded in my original Glass. That's the point. I'm offended by the waste of getting another $1,500 pair -- no matter that it's Google's money -- plus my $250 frames plus lenses that will cost me at least another $250. So that be a total $3500 investment in something that is not useful, not well designed, and clumsy. As I said: Jane, stop this crazy thing. 
Two problematic views I see in these comments...

1. People do not realize glass cannot be transferred. If I recall correctly, they cease to function if anyone but the original owner attempts to log in with their Google account.

2. Case: in theory, Google means for you to rarely or never remove them, as the point is to always be connected. Therefore the fact there is a case at all is surprising.


I can see Google conceptually separating payment/cost and explorer program. Getting 'out' is one thing, but due to timeframe, early adopter-ness, and theory of initial willingness to purchase, I honestly doubt there would be a refund occurring. I don't think they see 'you bought a product'... They see 'you're a paid member of this club'... The 1500 is a lifetime membership that happens to come with some tech; it's not about the cost of the physical device.

Perhaps what this should do though, is restart talks for some new-ish first sale doctrine to apply for transference of products linked to services, and the needed disconnection thereof in the high-tech, big-data era...
This reads as "I'm an old angry man and since I can't figure out glass it must be a shit product"!

Your complaints aren't legit, you're mad you have to carry them around in a bag? Maybe you should actually wear them instead, maybe then you'll get some "use".

If you're getting laughed at in your demos, they are laughing at you, not glass. It was your duty to show people how glass works.

No worries though, not everyone is meant to be an explorer, please return them so someone who will actually use them can try them. 
+John Blossom I was traveling and also now am considering whether I think it's just too much of a waste of money -- theirs or mine -- to sink more into this. 
+Jeff Jarvis  All in all Its still a beta. Granted a hell of an expensive beta, but a beta nonetheless.  I have faith that before it becomes a consumer product they will work out the little things like portability, and with ramped up manufacturing the cost will go down significantly.   
You can just bet if Sergey wore prescription lenses the design would be entirely different. Fold-ability etc.
+Donald E, Riley Yes, both from a prescription and non-prescription perspective. If you're going into a theatre, for example, you're not likely to detach your sunshade and then stow your frames.
The camera on it turns me off. I'd like to own one, without the camera attached.
It's not even beta or for early adopters. It's a developer prototype. People who complain about price, aesthetics, or convenience are missing the point.  It's not a product. Google hasn't announced the consumer product yet.
Sad thing about all of this is that +Jeff Jarvis was the biggest advocate for Google Glass and now the whole relationship has gone south.
Oh, look at me, I have Google Glass! And I'm too good for it!
1) Yes, +Jeff Jarvis is not a developer, we know that. However, Google still sold Glass to him, probably hoping to get positive feedback from a public person. Jeff is now offering that feedback, which is part of what he does!

2) He spent $1500 of his own money on Glass. If you buy a product from a company for that kind of money, you deserve to have a say and consideration from that compsny, even if it is a developer version. Besides, this kind of feedback is exactly what Google needs in order to make a good, finished product, if that's even possible.

3) Jeff is doing you all a SERVICE by giving you his opinion on this product. He's giving you first-hand knowledge into a product that most of us couldn't get. Don't be so quick to judge and criticize someone who is ready and willing to give you some insight into his experience.
Wait, weren't you carrying a tablet in your pocket a number of years ago?
+Robert Barry it sounds like Jeff barely tried to use glass. I use glass every day and love it. But I I had to load my own apps and I first had to figure out how to do that.

I had to "explore".

And Jeff said people laughed at him during the demos, it sounds like they would laugh if the demo was going south.

Maybe Jeff should have looked more into the demo features and actually did some reading on how to work the features of glass (which are online).

I appreciate all Jeff's feedback, glass is still in prototype, so of course we should be getting mad at it and trying to make it better.

But we shouldn't respect Jeff's opinion in this matter, he's giving no real explanations or ideas on how to solve his problems.

All he is saying is it's too expensive (well duh, it's the dev model, the actual cost of the unit is around $300)

He knew the cost beforehand, and of course if he didn't "explore" it then I could totally see why he can't justify the price.

+Robert Barry
Google wants developer feedback, not consumer feedback.  It wants to know what kind of apps can be developed for it, and what kind of features it would need.  Yes, it's useful feedback to say you would prefer a foldable version and a smaller case.  But if you're rejecting it out of hand for that reason, you shouldn't have bought one in the first place.
+Michael Jefferson people aren't bashing him for returning it, they're rightfully bashing him for giving no real reason why and acting like he expected something else.

That's fine if he wants to return Glass, but if he's gonna make a PUBLIC post saying Glass sucks without really saying why or providing solutions, then I think everyone should call him out on his bull 💩
Why not just sell them? Many Glass owners have. Is there really a point to whining about it on twitter and other social media?
I am not surprised, you bought a beta product and now don't like it you go begging to Google! I really think you need to move away from tech journalism, you do not understand it and often don't seem to be able to use it!
That's why it was called the Explorer program. You would have people explore different uses for it. If you just wanted it to be the cool guy telling everyone how you got them then it's your fault. Now that the novelty worn off and you can't feel like the cool kid on the block it sucks. 
+Carlos S. Lebrón Jr. Great point. And to boot for your $1500 you do get some pretty good value. Problem/broken units are replaced promptly, free hardware upgrades (so far), great support (a concierge fitting for free in NYC - same one that +Jeff Jarvis used, BTW). It's a pretty deluxe pilot programme. That doesn't mean that the product doesn't need some reworking, but to be on the cutting edge of a whole new form factor, it's pretty neat. Maybe Google TV should have been done this way...
I wonder has anyone tried to mod their google glass to be a bit more small?
Sorry to see you go. I, however also have a Galaxy Gear smart watch, and find Glass infinitely more useful. I value the photo/video sharing at my job for making POV videos and for keeping up with texts while driving, which I rely heavily on "read aloud" commands and voice responses. I also find with the ear buds that phone calls are much simpler to handle. But, are they worth $1500. Shrug. Some people don't find the Note 3 worth $700, but I do.
Glass needs electronics small enough to fit inside the arm, and project a refracted image on the actual lens. Where's my engineer?
+Jeff Jarvis you didn't find it useful being able to take pictures of anything you wanted to remember or for any reason then it being in reach instantly and then going to your Google+ and see your life in highlighted pictures day by day?

I still have the old case which is just a bag, once the new frames/ new case/ more glass apps (especially mine) that are coming then you will be reordering them again, but Jeff I'f you are not a developer should be waiting till market release as it will be 1/3 the cost and stacked full of the most useful apps you can imagine on one of the most technologically advanced pieces of hardware ever made +Google Glass
Honestly, most new tech is overpriced, buggy, under delivers, etc. But that seldom matters to those living on the bleeding edge.
If Jeff doesn't like it can't be good. It must really be bad. Jeff is a big Google supporter usually.
Personally, I knew what I was getting into with the explorer edition, it was clearly laid out for me before I ever paid a dime, it's pre-release and expensive! You should not have bought it if you didn't really understand that. It's really unfair to sign up for something like this of your looking for a finished product, you are supposed to help finish it, not complain that it's not finished
+Jeff Jarvis I was underwhelmed almost immediately and returned them two weeks after receipt.  I don't miss them.
great job at sensationalizing like almost all journalists do.   way to drive your own agenda for ratings.  
Don't like them then return them. No one is holding a gun to your head. 
early adopter remorse. Can one say lifes lessons?? Run with what you have learned. Feel good that you still are in for lifes lessons! 
Aren't you meant to wear them all the time? Isn't that the point? So what difference does the case make? Grumble about something that matters, Jeff. Save that bile for an issue, god knows there are plenty of them about as you well know. 
Development of Glass could and should be moving more quickly. Nonetheless, this product is making social and cultural history. It will not just change the market for wearable computers, it will make such technology ubiquitous.

And Google is only two years from achieving that. All that is required to accelerate its adoption is acceptance in popular culture (elimination of the Dork Factor), demonstrable use cases, and reasonable pricing. 
+Robert Linthicum It does seem to be not moving as fast as hoped but could one of the problems be that too many went to Journos and the like who just wanted the next big thing and are not willing to give long term input? To my mind there were two groups who could help with Glass. Developers of course - unless they can see what the product can do & how can they get the product right. But the other group should have been people who were willing to sign up to the full experience. Like the lady who was recently in the news for wearing them whilst driving - she wears them all day. And the gentleman who was in the cinema. These cases also looked at the social ramifications of  the tech. Could it be that too many of the explorers were not ready to keep being explorers? That they gave up too soon because it was not what they wanted? With the cost of them they were looking at the relatively rich only rather than targeting the recipients another way. But I can't say I have a better way to select the explorers. 
Either Glass or something Glass-like will be as ubiquitous as tablets when the bumps are ironed out.

The only thing standing in Glass's way is, again, the Dork Factor, which is why Segway never achieved the success it could have. (The only thing that looks dorkier than a person on a Segway is . . . a person drinking from a straw, perhaps? You go.)

The key is that Glass is being released that doesn't make the wearer look like a borg. When Ray Ban and Luxottica get involved, watch out.
+Jeff Jarvis Thank you for speaking your mind.  $1,500 for a device that has no killer app.  3 hour battery life, battery pack you need to carry around.  Bridge too far!  For the ordinary consumer.

Let the Glassholes hate!
Brad T
We all can't be a Lewis or Clark.
+Michael Jefferson but beta testing devices aren't made for regular customers are they? The whole point of the explorer program was for early adopters to push the device, to explore possibilities and to conceive of the killer app. I agree that there is no killer app beyond hands free computing, but what was the killer app for Android or iPhone?
Hi +Jeff Jarvis. I’m a community manager for Glass and saw your post. I’m sorry to hear you’re frustrated, but just wanted to let you know that we’re listening and that Explorer feedback is really important to us. It’s what’s shaping the future of Glass. 

When Explorers first started picking up Glass, a lot of their favorite features - like screen lock, web browsing, volume control, vignettes, transit navigation, the iOS app and sound search - weren’t there yet. We have Explorers, who told us what they wanted to see in Glass, to thank for these features now. They’ve been great about sharing their experiences and letting us know when we can do better. 

You’re still within the return window for your frames and I’m happy to help you with that. But I hope you decide to stick with Glass  and share your experiences, both good and bad, with us along the way. 
I'm not a Glass candidate. I can't see well enough with my right eye to read, but I have enjoyed watching its evolution as part of the move to wearables.
+Teresa Zazenski thanks for chiming in. Its good to know you guys are listening for both good and bad. Keep up the good work.
+Michael Jefferson I think you might have a complete misunderstanding of the Explorer program, and where this product is in its development cycle. 
That case actually looks nicer than the BAG they sent me in October.  

But I sent mine back at 30 days.  Thirty days without a single improvement in the software.
Same vicious cycle; enthusiasm, evangelism then it's get out its dead and useless. Shades of Scoble in this post. 
It's an experiment, with a "for developers" units.

But you juge it like a full finished product in its tinyests details: price, case... complain that you have no use for it, when it's meant to be used by dev teams to actually test and find usages. Heads up displays are with no contest going to be essential for certain professions and activities. If you have a day to day business/dev/design life in the city that's pretty normal you don't have an urge to use it or develop apps to simplify certain of your tasks.

It does not even represent a form factor or a product Google is looking to launch, it's an experiment, opened to who want to invest time and effort. And its price is not meant at all to make you feel comfortable with your "purchase". It's a dev kit, an investment.

From day one I've been reading rants about this glasses and it makes no sense (as "reviews" don't either). I don't own a pair, I don't want one, don't need it, have no idea for apps, but I've understood its purpose and potential the very firs day I've seen SBrin with them on his nose.
+Vincent Bidaux at $1500+ I had no choice but to judge it.  And I judged it "just barely ready for Alpha."  Not Beta, and definitely not a user-pays Beta.
Jeez Jeff. My 12 year old ADHD daughter has more impulse control than you! The one certainty we have in this unpredictable world, is that you will adore something, then abhor it shortly after. Probably appropriate that you are working with the British media. That is their standard M.O.
Jeff, I have been following your adventures with Google (not just Glass) closely. I understand your enthusiasm when you first get something as I am much the same. I wait for the new to wear off for you. Then we get some idea of just how good something really is. I see the new has worn off for you and Glass now. You just saved me lots and lots of money. 
Add a comment...