News - Google Glass teardown shows it costs only $80 to make

[HEXUS]

Mountain View disputes the estimate, given by the teardown experts, for its $1,500 device.

Read more.

[jim]

It's an irrelevant number anyway. The only one that matters is what people are prepared to pay - and whilst I won't be shelling out $1,500 any time soon, or $150 for that matter, I'll bet a huge number would.

[Spreadie]

Meh, let the hipsters and early adopters recoup google's R&D cost for them. With unit costs that low, I'm sure the price will tumble; should it ever become mainstream.

[HMS_Victory]

I thought the user testing was being done by those who payed the $1500 since its still classed as a prototype

[Brewster0101]

- and whilst I won't be shelling out $1,500 any time soon, or $150 for that matter, I'll bet a huge number would.

$150 , you surely would would you not.

Anyway, Teardown.com's figure is complete bogus rubbish. They should prove it by building one for $80.

[Hicks12]

$80 is way too optimistic! I think costings like these need to be ignored simply because the cost of the materials of the device is never relative to the cost of a PROTOTYPE as Google has spent a crap load of money on R&D so of course when they want to test in limited numbers they will price it as such, Glass seems like an amazing device so I cannot wait for it to come to the consumer market as I would be willing to spend about £300 for it as a replacement for the phone .

[jim]

$150 , you surely would would you not.

Anyway, Teardown.com's figure is complete bogus rubbish. They should prove it by building one for $80.

I look enough of a pillock without a pair of these on.

[AETAaAS]

I look enough of a pillock without a pair of these on.

edit; Sorry, phenomenally silly mood last night.

[Saracen]

$150 , you surely would would you not.

....

I wouldn't. They'd have to stick at least four noughts on the end if that figure (before the decimal) to get me to wear them. Per week.

[Spreadie]

I wouldn't. They'd have to stick at least four noughts on the end if that figure (before the decimal) to get me to wear them. Per week.

Soooo... just to be clear... Not a fan of them?

[Saracen]

Soooo... just to be clear... Not a fan of them?

Ever thought of a career as a detective?

But .... correct. Primarily, not a fan of a the great big commercial, privacy-invading, data-sucking, intrusive threat to personal privacy that is Google. And, personally, I will not EVER accept such a device from any company, trust or not, let alone from Google. There is, in fact, a bigger chance of me disconnecting from the internet entirely, in all aspects, then there is of me ever wearing, let alone buying, such an obnoxious device as this. Personally, I think they ought to be illegal.

[Tpyo]

Ever thought of a career as a detective?

But .... correct. Primarily, not a fan of a the great big commercial, privacy-invading, data-sucking, intrusive threat to personal privacy that is Google. And, personally, I will not EVER accept such a device from any company, trust or not, let alone from Google. There is, in fact, a bigger chance of me disconnecting from the internet entirely, in all aspects, then there is of me ever wearing, let alone buying, such an obnoxious device as this. Personally, I think they ought to be illegal.

Just out of interest - would you consider something like this (as a hardware platform) if you could just wipe it and stick your own software on, should an appropriate OS/apps be available?

EDIT: I suppose what I'm really asking is whether it is the companies access/control over this kind of potentially intrusive software you are concerned about or if it is the idea of people walking around with cameras etc. (even private ones) strapped to their heads in general.

[Saracen]

Just out of interest - would you consider something like this (as a hardware platform) if you could just wipe it and stick your own software on, should an appropriate OS/apps be available?

EDIT: I suppose what I'm really asking is whether it is the companies access/control over this kind of potentially intrusive software you are concerned about or if it is the idea of people walking around with cameras etc. (even private ones) strapped to their heads in general.

On the first point, perhaps, yes. I'd want to see more detail, but I wouldn't rule it out out of hand.

It certainly is the intrusive, or at an absolute minimum, potentially intrusive nature of the thing I object to.

First, it's Google. I don't trust them any further than I could throw their corporate HQ, and I wouldn't voluntarily give them the time of day, never mind personal information. I'm certainly not about to give ANY corporation a constant, running commentary on my location, let alone what I'm seeing.

But second, it's not just what might be gathered from what my device is seeing, but from what might, now on in the future, be gathered about me from everhbody else. It's bad enough having CCTV surveillance cameras all over the place, but at least they are, nominally at least, about crime prevention, detection and supposedly in the public interest. But the notion of vast numbers of individuals walking around feeding vast amounts of data into Google's data-vampire mouth .... ?

Ever seen the TV show Person of Interest? Imagine "the machine" in the hands of a private corporation? Used for .... who knows what?

What bothers me is not what might happen now, but what might hapoen in a relatively few years, given the pace of technology.

Right now, facial recognition is pretty much in it's infancy, and is in the hands of, basically, governments, and moreover, so is access to large databases with faces attached to a database record. But, essentially, it works. The US government has fingerprint scanners, mugshot cameras, etc, connecting back to a vast federal database (well, actually it's a bit more complex than "federal database" - see note below) and all sorts of agencies feed into, and query, that database. Not just police and FBI, but customs and immigration, etc, and it all links to vehicle details, gun registration, and so on, and there are (currently) millions (well north of 10m) queries, per day. And, for that matter, while nowhere near as advanced or widespread, the UK uses those same fingerprint scanners.

Think back a few years. Viable voice recognition was something out of Star Trek. Now, I've had a working version on my PC for several years, and it cost under £100. We can buy laptops and even safes with fingerprint scanners for little more than laptops and safes without. How much longer before facial recognition is a common consumer device, maybe attached to your front foor lock?

All these things require are :-

- sufficient processing power (and we're there now, or close)
- some software development (and we're there, or very close)
- communications bandwidth (we're there now)
- money ( Google doesn't seem short of it)
- the data sitting behind the database (and .... Google, again)
- sufficient miniaturisation.

If there are thousands, or worse, millions of people wearing these things, with a constant stream of 'data' being fed back, then who controls what gets done with, and by whom, that data?

Remember, it's not necessary for video to be fed back all the time, but IDs, and perhaps video/audio on-demand. After all, that's fundamentally how automated fingerprint matching works - a scanner scans the print, extracts a digital profile and matches that. Next, facial recognition profiles. What next? GoogleDNA?

My voice dictation software isn't perfect, but for some years, ir's been peetty good. I speak, and it's not an audio recording that gets kept, but a real time (or, near real time) text transcription, that then either activates PC functions, or appears as text. And if it's voice and fingerprints today, it'll be faces or DNA tomorrow. And, of course, GPS location data.

I note Google were recently in trouble in Canada for using "sensitive personal" data to target behavioural advertising. Essentially, having Google'd a medical problem (sleep apnea, IIRC) a guy noticed that adverts for treatments for it were following him round the web.

Canada's Data Protection Commissioner apparently delivered a roasting to Google, and quite rightly. This is an example of what I mean by what Google might do, tomorrow, with data they gather today, once capability develops.

I don't want Google, or any similar corporation like it, knowing I even exist, let alone storing so much as a single byte of data on me. And, personally, I don't want my life, location, browsing habits or ANYTHING else about me stored and used unless it's with my EXPLICIT permission (opt-in, and not opt-out). I also don't want targetted behavioural ads, from anybody, about anything, under any circumstances or for any reason whatever, EVER. I can't (unfortunately) avoid adverts altogether, but I intensely resent targetted ones.

Hence why I said I'd consider the hardware platform but would want to know more. It's not just the cost to my privacy if I wear this and it feeds Google, but the risk to my privacy if someone else does and it feeds Google. Databases are phenomenally powerful, and while a lot of what you see on TV about facial recognition, etc, is tarted up by Hollywood and TV production companies, the core underlying capabilities are very real indeed. And it's bad enough government's having them, but corporations? That really is 1984's Big Brother.

I know that sounds like a bit of a paranoid rant but, well, you asked.


Note - the NCIC "database" is actually a series of databases, running on some very disparate hardware, and while the data is "owned" by the individual states, the system is, sensibly, run by the federal government, the FBI to be exact.

[Tpyo]

...

I know that sounds like a bit of a paranoid rant but, well, you asked.

I did, and that was a pretty thorough answer. Slightly more negative than my own views but not far off - I don't mind people having that sort of data if there were (much) closer restrictions on how and why it could be used (which would need to include some pretty serious 'teeth' in response to breaches to be meaningful).

Re: Google - As I see it, users agree to Google having their data in exchange for free software. However, that is their choice to make. A device that could capture e.g. wifi/Bluetooth details from its environment (yet alone images/video and voice/facial recognition) would be collecting information from people who did not opt in, and have not given any consent. This is where I'd like to see much tighter regulation applied (with teeth!)

[Saracen]

I did, and that was a pretty thorough answer. Slightly more negative than my own views but not far off - I don't mind people having that sort of data if there were (much) closer restrictions on how and why it could be used (which would need to include some pretty serious 'teeth' in response to breaches to be meaningful).

Re: Google - As I see it, users agree to Google having their data in exchange for free software. However, that is their choice to make. A device that could capture e.g. wifi/Bluetooth details from its environment (yet alone images/video and voice/facial recognition) would be collecting information from people who did not opt in, and have not given any consent. This is where I'd like to see much tighter regulation applied (with teeth!)

Anyone that opts-in, with a genuine and informed consent, especially in return for some payback, well, fair enough.

It's like store 'reward' cards. You give them extensive details of your purchasing habits, and they give you a few quid (or perhaps more than a few) in vouchers, points, or whatever. I have some doubts as to just how "informed" that consent is, especially given the cynical and deceitful presentation of it as some kind of loyalty reward (which is hogwash, by the way, as it's a naked attempt to buy your privacy, IMHO). But, people signing up are adults, so need to take responsibility for their actions and it does, after all, require people to apply.

Also, no doubt, some people will cheerfully sign up, eyes wide open and actually fully-informed, because they don't care about privacy and do care about the money/vouchers, etc. Again, fair enough.

Me? Hell will freeze over first. I don't want ANY of these companies, be it Google or Tesco, or whoever, holding such data on me, any more than I can possibly help.

I won't use a smartphone, not least because of GPS. It wouldn't be the first time where such a feature is "off", only to find data is sent anyway, or that the function can be remote-activated. GPS certainly can be, though I've no idea if it is. Similarly, I don't want a phone with NFC capability, and I certainly don't want a store knowing when, or even if, I walk in (or walk by) let alone what I buy, and when. So .... cash, and very rarely even credit/debit card, and under no circumstances, store card, for me.

Hell, I don't even use Google as a search engine, unless/except when it goes through a secure and encrypted anonymous proxy. Google account? Hell, no.

[mikerr]

$150 , you surely would would you not.

Anyway, Teardown.com's figure is complete bogus rubbish. They should prove it by building one for $80.

http://geeknizer.com/diy-build-google-glass/ for under $100 with a raspberry pi