Tipex Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Suppose I should chip in with my two penneth given I appear to have started the argument! Some of the statistics MrMe has quoted I find hard to believe, however, it's his field of work, so personally (whatever I may think of him otherwise) I respect his input on the subject and don't doubt those figures he's provided. Mac has also commented, and he's another member who's opinion on these subjects I respect. Statistics can be flawed, often massively so, but I'd be amazed if, with the volume of information people willingly hand over to them, the likes of Facebook would be far wrong on their stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Anyhow, I'd still quite like to know what the Google Glass supporters on here think about the withdrawal? Which is why I resurrected the thread in the first place! Edited February 5, 2015 by Tipex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mook Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Like the tories spending £100,000 a MONTH over the past few months on getting people to "Like" them on FB For clarity, here is the evidence-based link to the amount they've been spending http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31141547 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mook Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Anyhow, I'd still quite like to know what the Google Glass supporters on here think about the withdrawal? Which is why I resurected the thread in the first place! I simply don't get it - wearing massive specs. I think it's a few years ahead of its time, but it'll happen - a lot more subtly next time round though, I reckon, like built into glasses or sunglasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Of course it's guess work. It isn't. You of course all you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Then factor in the social networks are giving you these figures themselves. ...and they're not. Edited February 5, 2015 by Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 I suspect you're mixing up statistical projections and statistical analysis through data mining. By your example of 20k people at football match, you're doing a statistical projection that they like football. It's an assumption of an opinion. One I already know is flawed as my daugthter gets dragged to the footie and she hates it. Statistical analysis would simply say 20k people attended the football match through the gates. There's a significant difference between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Google Glass I note they have moved it to another division which is odd - either that is a face-saving get-out to quietly bin it after all the publicity or else they perceived a flaw and it was a political move and public slap in face of person fronting GG now. All in all very odd - I would love to know more about the decision they made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Statistics can be flawed, often massively so, but I'd be amazed if, with the volume of information people willingly hand over to them, the likes of Facebook would be far wrong on their stats. This is kinda my point on the projection via data mining analysis. FB stats are the latter, what you choose to do with those figures is projection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Google Glass I note they have moved it to another division which is odd - either that is a face-saving get-out to quietly bin it after all the publicity or else they perceived a flaw and it was a political move and public slap in face of person fronting GG now. All in all very odd - I would love to know more about the decision they made Remarkably close to this happening don't ya think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mook Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Google Glass I note they have moved it to another division which is odd - either that is a face-saving get-out to quietly bin it after all the publicity or else they perceived a flaw and it was a political move and public slap in face of person fronting GG now. All in all very odd - I would love to know more about the decision they made I thought it was completely canned, with the team who worked on the project being moved into other parts of the business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Remarkably close to this happening don't ya think I thought it was completely canned, with the team who worked on the project being moved into other parts of the business? I read it the other way round that the project was being moved to another team? Mac - yes there was another MS publicity virtual doobery and remember seeing around the same time and did wonder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 I simply don't get it - wearing massive specs. I think it's a few years ahead of its time, but it'll happen - a lot more subtly next time round though, I reckon, like built into glasses or sunglasses. Yep. The functionality is something I'd really like to have. In a different form, I'd have gone for the product without hesitation. But the fact that you couldn't combine it with normal glasses rules it out for me anyway, and the fact that in style terms it was akin to having GEEK tattoo'd on your forehead ruled it out for everyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Can't wait to get my grubby mits on that MSFT unit - had a play with some of the early stuff and it was EPIC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 I haven't read a great deal about the Google Glass move of division, but that's all I understand it to be? Not axing the product, but moving the project under the control of the bloke who founded Nest? I still think the project has a lot of potential and I'd be surprised if they canned it completely (but maybe they have, I don't know enough to say). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser647 Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Like the tories spending £100,000 a MONTH over the past few months on getting people to "Like" them on FB For clarity, here is the evidence-based link to the amount they've been spending http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31141547 I'd do it for £50K a month. Sit there clicking 'like'. From different IP address on the same FB account. Oh, hang on................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiser647 Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 I haven't read a great deal about the Google Glass move of division, but that's all I understand it to be? Not axing the product, but moving the project under the control of the bloke who founded Nest? I still think the project has a lot of potential and I'd be surprised if they canned it completely (but maybe they have, I don't know enough to say). Yes, I was under the impression that they have not canned it, but put it on the back burner to bring out later some time and updated. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Most of the reports read that they have canned it, but that they wont admit it, hence the impression it's 'on the back burner' or whatever. Personally I think the tech will reappear at some point, but not as Google Glass. Edited February 5, 2015 by Tipex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Bangle Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 Glass isn’t dead-in-the-water, but rather, being kept back until they look like the kind of thing people might actually want to buy and more importantly wear. They’re going to have to work on the price too. The project has been passed to Tony Fadell, he of NEST fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 Its certainly not dead, just been sent back to the drawing board to see where they go with it next. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31164840 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 "There is very little that Glass does well, so with a reboot, there isn't much to currently work from," So it is dead, and they are starting a completely new project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now