Well, the point he opens with is just him being rude, nothing to do with the limitations of the Glass itself. What's he's actually asking for in that very first point is a way to view content on Glass without the other person in the conversation realising that you're tuning them out. As someone else commented, this is the same as pulling out your smartphone and playing with it instead of conversing.
The conspicuousness point is also trueish, but overblown. The sunglass clip-ons do reduce the visibility of the unusual headwear, they just don't eliminate it. From experience with our set at work, people out in public react considerably less when the sunglasses are clipped on. It's not going to fool someone you're in a direct conversation with, but you get fewer odd looks. Obviously this is with one of the subtle charcoal colours, and not the day-glo varieties. I would argue that you shouldn't be fooling someone you're in a direct conversation with anyway. If you want to do that, there are other tools for single-party recordings.
So we're down to 4.5 points out of 10. Not accounting for uneven ears, sure. Battery life, sure. Bulk, maybe. Voice recognition? It's actually pretty good, for voice recognition. It just doesn't have the same capabilities as a human (no tech does, hence my original comment). We got a set straight from the US, it was responding happily to my broad, middle-Australian accent, and it would still recognise a colleague with a very strong French accent who passed by me saying "OK Glass, google porn" ("drive-by" commands are a different problem...), all with no particular calibration done. Voice recognition doesn't work with background noise? Even humans have trouble with that.
So no, it's a bad review all around, for both techies and naifs. It sets expectations for naifs that are impossible to achieve, despite there a few real issues being described. I personally don't think Glass is ready for the public yet, but this article offers a lot of misdirection on why.
The conspicuousness point is also trueish, but overblown. The sunglass clip-ons do reduce the visibility of the unusual headwear, they just don't eliminate it. From experience with our set at work, people out in public react considerably less when the sunglasses are clipped on. It's not going to fool someone you're in a direct conversation with, but you get fewer odd looks. Obviously this is with one of the subtle charcoal colours, and not the day-glo varieties. I would argue that you shouldn't be fooling someone you're in a direct conversation with anyway. If you want to do that, there are other tools for single-party recordings.
So we're down to 4.5 points out of 10. Not accounting for uneven ears, sure. Battery life, sure. Bulk, maybe. Voice recognition? It's actually pretty good, for voice recognition. It just doesn't have the same capabilities as a human (no tech does, hence my original comment). We got a set straight from the US, it was responding happily to my broad, middle-Australian accent, and it would still recognise a colleague with a very strong French accent who passed by me saying "OK Glass, google porn" ("drive-by" commands are a different problem...), all with no particular calibration done. Voice recognition doesn't work with background noise? Even humans have trouble with that.
So no, it's a bad review all around, for both techies and naifs. It sets expectations for naifs that are impossible to achieve, despite there a few real issues being described. I personally don't think Glass is ready for the public yet, but this article offers a lot of misdirection on why.