Google Glass is a wearable computer that’s only available to a select group of people right now — and folks that get invited to join the Glass Explorer program still have to pay $1500 for the privilege of wearing a camera, head-up display, and Android device on their face.
But researcher Jason Tsai suggests that when Google Glass is ready to go public it could sell for closer to $299, although Yahoo news has sources saying it’ll cost more than that — possibly as much as an unsubsidized smartphone, which could put it in the $500 to $600 range.
That estimate seems pretty reasonable when you look at the components used to actually produce a Google Glass device. It’s likely that the reasons Explorer edition devices cost so much are that they’re being produced in limited quantities, and Google wants to keep the number of users low in order to prevent casual users from buying a pre-release product, deciding it stinks, and spreading the word.
In other words, Google wanted to start testing Glass in the real world by giving people who don’t work for the company a chance to use it and start developing software for the platform. But if it started selling Glass for $299 today, it’d probably go the way of the Microsoft Surface RT as people decide there’s not enough you can do with the product to justify even that price tag.
Developers and enthusiasts willing to spend $1500 are less likely to jump to that conclusion. And they’ll help make sure that when the product is ready for its public launch, there are enough apps and services available to keep early customers happy.
Even at $299, Google Glass could be a tough sell in countries like the US where people tend to think of smartphones as devices that cost $199 or less (even though customers generally sign long-term service plans that require them to pay hundreds of additional dollars for that phone over the course of a contract).
But if Google can sell Glass for $299, it’s not inconceivable that we could see wireless carriers offer the wearable computer for even less money (up front) to customers willing to add an extra $10 per month to their data plan until the cost is paid off.
Keep in mind — Google hasn’t said how much it expects to charge for Glass. Right now we’re still talking about an estimate from an industry analyst. It’s making news because it seems plausible, and because $299 sounds a lot better than $1500.
via Phone Arena
Can anyone confirm that the side will be reversible?!?! Or that they will see a left eye version? Someone I know only has vision in their left eye.
Personally, I probably wouldn’t be a buyer for much more than $100. I don’t currently own a smartphone or tablet, both of which I think would be more useful to my daily computing needs than Glass, so it would have to be cheap enough to be an impulse buy. I would consider buying a phone/Glass bundle when I do get my first smartphone though.
I strongly believe this is an ALMOST obsolete product in it’s current form. As a display technology it’s pioneering and needs further development however. I say this because, there is no need for the glasses to do anything other than display data. A cellphone powered by Miracast or some other wireless display tech (Chromecast even) should be doing the bulk of the work and flinging the display part of things to a display technology like Google Glass or even Oculus Rift or whatever VR tech you want to use. The projection part of this device is it’s saving grace. I think you’ll see a lot of HUD and display tech using the likes of wireless broadcasting to all kinds of devices…in car, at home, on windows, tv screens etc. The key to this is wireless display and it already exists. People just don’t know about it and why it’s so… Read more »
Something like the Sony Smartwatch that’s been miniatured as a HUD. Integrate a bluetooth headset or mic into it and it’d be amazing and incredibly cheap. Provided you could keep the energy efficiency in check, you could almost create a headless phone, something small that you could pack with battery and connectivity without having to worry about accommodating a display (and making it paper thin and bigger than your face).
Now you’re thinking Sam…
Also If google glass was an “autonomous” phone, I might pay for it 200 to 300, but you also need to carry around another device (a phone) in your pocket….
Anyway instead of the Glass design I would prefer this integrated directly into sunglasses 😉
As for Miracast and Oculus that would be cool if they get the latency low enough to not be too noticeable.
For the reasons you stated, I wouldn’t buy a Google Glass device at all if it were available to buy right now at its current state.
The girl is se
The girl is sexy!
No one wants to wear a pair of glasses! Stupid idea. Next thing you know, these things are used for terrorism. Great job Google. Another thing, stop screwing up YouTube! ftw!
you mean I have to pay THEM so I can look like a kook walking around…
How much would I pay to destroy my privacy and the privacy of everyone on the planet and bring about an Orwellian surveillance state? I would pay minus one billion dollars.
Devices in the vein of Google Glass are both a dream and a nightmare.
I might allow Google to pay me to wear them.