As if to signal Google Glass’s quickening progression from madcap concept to looming reality, the product’s newly published terms and conditions are grabbing attention by preventing a variety of third parties from cashing in on Glass hype.
The most significant development comes via Google’s advertising policy for the device, as developers working on apps for Glass have been told they will not be able to place ads within the display, while companies will also be prohibited from charging for apps.
Prospective users, some of which are being shipped their own trial Glass right now, are no doubt heaving a sigh of relief that adverts won’t be thrown so readily into their eye-line while sporting the digital glasses, but it will be intriguing to see how Google does go about maximising the profitability of Glass – and if advertising will play any role in that.
In a very separate incident, meanwhile, Glass terms and conditions have robbed a US man of nearly $100,000, reports Forbes. An American known only as “Ed from Philadelphia” was responsible for Glass’s very first appearance on eBay, having put the device up for auction after winning the chance to be a ‘Glass Explorer’ and trial the product.
But as bidding surpassed a whopping $95,300 (£63,000), Ed noticed that Google’s terms specified, “If you resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person without Google’s authorization, Google reserves the right to deactivate the Device, and neither you nor the unauthorized person using the Device will be entitled to any refund, product support, or product warranty,” leading him to end the auction and kiss goodbye his plans of paying off student debts.
“I didn’t want to jeopardize my getting a pair of Glass,” Ed told Forbes. “So, I voluntarily removed the auction and I’m still excited to get the Glass even if I cannot sell it.” He did however reveal his disappointment at not having the power to do as he wished with the product – something Glass Explorers have still had to pay $1,500 (£983) for, despite ‘winning’ the privilege.
“It doesn’t make a lot of sense,” he adds. “If I’m paying $1,500 for it, it’s my property. Why can’t I resell it?”