Oops: Someone Actually Lost a Google Glass

[exfileme]

That's $1,500 down the drain if the specs are never found.

Oops: Someone Actually Lost a Google Glass : Read more

 

[bllue]

"Lost." Most likely some stunt

 

[dimar]

Marketing BS. Not even funny anymore..

 

[gsxrme]

of course there was a contract ass-hat otacon72. He more than likely sold the damn glasses for way more than $1500 to some china based knock-off company

 

[g-unit1111]

Fail. If I had that device it would not leave my sight for more than a minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

 

[Guest]

Cannot be resold? That's not really up to them. According to US law, they cannot prevent reselling.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

I wonder if you can install "Where's my Droid" on Google Glass.

 

[hotroderx]

"The company plans to be a little more lenient when Glass finally goes retail next year, allowing customers to buy a unit and offer it to someone else as a gift. Like the current Explorer model, it cannot be resold'
That right there turns me off of google glasses completely. Really puts a sour taste in my mouth about Google in general. What in the world is google thinking.
When I buy a product it belongs to me it no longer belongs to Google. Them telling me what I can and cant do with my product is complete BS. This is no better then company's who add the insane DRM to there products.
I am just completely blown away by this its extremely anti consumer. I am going to assume the retail version will be treated like there treating them now. Where once there registered to someone if there transferred they will be remotely wiped and disabled.. Think about it this way if that's the case its like your PC manufacture disabling your computer because you decided to sell it or give it away.
Also if Google does get away with this how long before other company's follow suit. I could see cell phone and tablet manufactures going the same route if this works.

 

[The_Trutherizer]

Geez! but they can really shit their pants when they wanna shit their pants....

 

[cats_Paw]

So... they can deactive your eyes?! Purity first was right, stop human augmentation!...
Oh wait... wrong article.

 

[maigo]

Lost? More like sold to Apple

 

[house70]

If someone took Google to court Google would lose. You can't tell someone they can't resell something they purchased outright unless you signed a binding contract stating that fact. You can't agree to a ToS that is inherently illegal. It doesn't run some proprietary software either... it's simply a modified version of Android. Is it worth taking Google to court over? not at all.. just scare tactics by Google.

Leave it to a hater to make no sense. Of course they run proprietary software on that Android-based system. Android is just the OS. All the drivers, the kernel etc. are proprietary at this point, that's why they sold these developer edition glasses to developers, to give them access and enable them to code for it. Geez. Retail versions will likely have different TOS, but as of now it is similar to having access to an early edition of a smartphone to give you the chance to create apps for it. There WILL be restrictions.
Next time at least try to make some sense when you're hating. Unless you enjoy making a fool out of yourself on every post.

 

[Kailash Nathan]

I think I left my "glass" at the same bar where I lost my iPhone

 

[Cazalan]

Good to know their backdoor capabilities. I will never buy a device like that which can be remotely wiped/deactivated/activated.
They're probably also taking random picture/sound samples for "quality of service" purposes. Read the fine print.

 

[Cazalan]

Off topic, but comments seem broken for Firefox (20.0.1). Had to switch to Chrome.

 

[maigo]

Lost? More like sold to Apple