This is a story that involves lots of public intrigue, a futuristic wearable technology, a secret laboratory, fashion models, sky divers and an interoffice love triangle that ended a billionaire’s marriage. This is the story of Google Glass.
Definitely a story that’s worth a read, but I can’t for the life of me understand why the author decided to add the ‘love triangle’ nonsense. It comes in out of nowhere, has no bearing on the story, and feels like it was only put in there to draw clicks. While I would expect such behaviour from Buzzfeed or celebrity gossip sites, it has no place in The New York Times.
“Mr. Brin, who was dealing with the fallout of his affair at Google, stopped wearing Glass in public, too.”
Leading up to the Glass announcement, the leader of that group was dealing with “personal issues”. I don’t blame the somewhat tabloid angel – it seems relevant to me.
Personally after reading it, I don’t think it was worth the read. About the only thing going for it is the last paragraph. But then again you have to read it for context.
I was going to say it’s not worth the read because Google Glass failed because it’s useless
No, Google Glass is nice to stay in touch with your friends :
http://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2013/11/google-…
A would be excellent product ruined by serious mismanagements and personal issues.
In the end, the first wearable “smart” device that became popular (useful? not really) was a watch.
Casio Databank…
With a better screen, bluetooth, sensors and a far worse battery life.
The yellow journalism aspect of the article is hardly surprising given that is the first place articles tend to go as their medium becomes obsolete; and let’s face it, for daily print to survive the decade they’re going to need significant shifts in business model and embrace the web…
… and let’s be brutally frank the Times’ web presence is more afterthought and ineptitude than a serious push. There’s a motto in web development that goes “The web is not print!” — and it’s painfully obvious that they are unable to wrap their head around that concept. The accessibility train wreck and laundry list of “how not to built a website” being why their website is probably more expense than revenue generator — since it’s such a sucktastic disaster I sure as shine-ola wouldn’t use it as a loser.
The Goofy “four words per line” narrow column crap might fly in print, but it’s NEVER been any easier to read/follow than putting 80 words on a line. It’s annoying and is more likely to send people hunting for some better site’s news. The serif conts on screen media, px metric fonts, elements seemingly thrown into the page with random/inconsistent alignments… and that’s without talking the painfully slow loading bloated codebase (>30 seconds here thanks to it being 3 megs in 40 files to deliver 16k of plaintext and 4 content images.) that is entirely typcial of what happens when HTML 5-tards implement their bleeding edge of 1997 coding practices. (not a fan). Even the markup alone is a rat**** bat**** insane 174k — easily four to eight times as much code as necessary and a clear cut indicator of developer ineptitude. Though entirely consistent with todays trend of regressing to the worst of pre HTML 4 strict methodology and sleazing together pages with off the shelf framework asshattery!
It reeks of what happens when an inept developer who has NO business even writing HTML meets someone who’s design knowledge is for print and not screen media, and that’s why their web presence is doomed to “also ran” status… You’d almost think the people running the company STILL don’t take the web seriously and are trying to sabotage their own efforts.
You combine the “also ran” web status with the decline in print viewership, and don’t be surprised when you start to see more and more sensationalist articles and misleading headlines as they desperately try to draw in readers… and hey look, it worked!
“Sensationalist web headline results in other sites linking to it” would make a pretty good headline in and of itself… even if that would be a nasty case of “here’s your sign” and “thank you Captain Obvious”. Good filler for a slow news day though… kind of like said article.
Edited 2015-02-06 00:42 UTC
Ok, what the hell… who edited the content of the above post changing user to loser? Particularly with the edit time a minute after I walked away from the keyboard?
Really, has OS News come to this now?
You spotted the just one word that changed in your wall of text ? You really think someone is actively monitoring your activity and promptly edited your input just after your submitted it ? Perhaps it was late and you don’t remember and prefer to accuse someone else.
Considering I have the original typed up in Flo’s Notepad 2 since the crappy little in-browser text boxes are useless — unless it got changed somewhere between ^C and ^V, uhm… no.
I probably wouldn’t have noticed it if I hadn’t come back and seen “edited” at the bottom of it, and thinking “what edits”?!?
Though to be frank, the mouth breathing twitter generation TLDR “wall of text” halfwits can piss right off for all I care. OH NOES, TEXTS!?!? N0TS tH4Tz!!!
:/
Edited 2015-02-06 08:20 UTC
Something must be wrong on your end because we don’t edit comments at all. Heck, I wouldn’t even know how.
Probably autocorrect or something.
Someone edited your input again, just one minute after you were AFK. Recurring.
Ok, my bad.
Posting this from my workstation as I just had several oddball word replacements happen on several other sites. It would appear that my laptop hath been compromised. Time to nuke the drive from orbit… it’s the only way to be sure.
Thankfully I have a backup lappy waiting in the wings and a netbook if I get really desperate — hoping whatever it is that nabbed me didn’t spread to my NAS. Deep scan time.
Apologies all around, my paranoia got the better of me.
— edit, yes it’s me editing —
… and WOW, panda SUCKS. Was trying it out, just ripped it out and put Bitdefender in it’s place, threw a rikki fit over multiple infected executables. Yup, gonna nuke it.
Edited 2015-02-06 11:54 UTC
It failed because spectacles are ugly and people don’t like wearing them unless they have to.