The question isn't really with use cases, it's about practicality. Having instant access to what you do most of the time with a smartphone is practical. People certainly will appreciate that; it doesn't matter if the use cases are limited in nature.
Of course, the price is too high for what it offers right now, but it's kind of like the Pixel: a vision of the future that can be attained relatively easily for anyone with the dough. It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices. The Newton wasn't like this -- PDAs were already being developed at the time. So far, we've seen nothing like Glass. It's a milestone.
So it will take time, and it is a paradox to have two devices that do the same thing connected to each other, but Glass is only going to spur a big change.
> The Newton wasn't like this -- PDAs were already being developed at the time.
That'd be a hard argument to make, given that the term "PDA" was coined to specifically describe the Newton.
The only tablet-style computer of consequence prior to the Newton was the DOS-based GRiDPad (1989). Before that it was all "palmtops", that is, crummy keyboard devices, mostly running DOS.
> It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices.
I think the Newton had a enormous influence on other mobile devices, but not really because it was a tablet, nor because it had a stylus and handwriting recognition. Rather, the Newton's influence came first from its dedicated operating system and graphical interface custom designed around its usage model, rather than cobbled together on DOS. The Newton devised a number of UI concepts in use on smartphones today. Second, the Newton featured a nice application development environment which sat on top of a dynamically-bound programming language running on a portable virtual machine (NewtonScript), which was pretty much a first for devices of this kind. NewtonScript had a major influence on the development of Java, while Naughton and Gosling were mulling over Oak. Third, the Newton was promoted as being a wireless communications device and its OS was developed to be easy for mobile communication to get baked in. Unfortunately, that didn't pan out so well for Apple.
How quickly time passes ^_^ The Newton was a major influence on the PalmPilot, particularly as the platform where Graffiti was developed. Granted, that line of product is functionally extinct as of the smartphone, but it had a good run.
The Pixel is nothing more than a featureless MacBook with a fixed web browser. If you think that is the future then you're in for a rude shock.
And you seem to be obsessed with the future and less concerned with reality. People don't need to check email, weather, time, ask questions so frequently that they need a fixed device on their head.
You may see the device as "nothing more than a featureless MacBook with a fixed web browser", but I see a future of computing -- a thin client with an ultra-crisp display and great industrial design.
Like it or not, the cloud is the future. The Pixel is a glimpse of that.
Of course, the price is too high for what it offers right now, but it's kind of like the Pixel: a vision of the future that can be attained relatively easily for anyone with the dough. It's not going to be an ephemeral flop like the Newton was; I foresee it being a major influence on other devices. The Newton wasn't like this -- PDAs were already being developed at the time. So far, we've seen nothing like Glass. It's a milestone.
So it will take time, and it is a paradox to have two devices that do the same thing connected to each other, but Glass is only going to spur a big change.
The Newton did not.