I told myself I was going to boycott covering Google Glass related events until the eye-glass computers became available to the general public, but I couldn't resist. Why are they still in a trial period when they're so ready to go doctors are offering them in prescription lenses and Google itself posted a manual detailing their etiquette?

Google, which I most recently praised for their legendary Gmail platform and most recently used to find the information to write this article, has continued to relegate their super cool glasses to $1,500-paying "explorers" in order to obtain feedback and perfect their design -- as if the technology were some kind of dangerous weapon the greater world wasn't ready for.

I can't think of another piece of technology that's undergone such an extensive trial period; likely, there have been, but none that have generated such positive press because of it. The next best example (but with negative press) that comes to mind is "Spiderman" on Broadway, which, aside from its other issues, staged a record 183 preview shows, some of which were unclearly marketed as finished performances when they weren't.

My theory is that Google never intended the explorer program to last this long, but discovered how insanely fascinated people were with it, then how insanely fascinated people like me were with those people's fascination, and decided to retain the program indefinitely as a PR boost. (On Google's FAQ related to Glass, it doesn't give much of a time frame for when the technology will become available; my guess would have been next Christmas, but I'm beginning to think Google wouldn't want the holiday to detract attention from the debut of its legendary product so I'm revising that to spring 2015.)

The latest event to put Google Glass in the thick of Google News either validates the company's extended test period or exposes it.

On Saturday night at 1:45 am, a woman was at a bar in San Francisco wearing Google's glasses when two patrons, believing she was recording them, grabbed the eye-wear off her face and ran. According to the Associated Press's report, the woman was able to recover the glasses, but in the process had her cell phone and wallet stolen (no further details as to how this switcheroo occurred).

Maybe stealing her glasses was just a ploy to grab her wallet and cell phone. Maybe the two perpetrators really believed the woman was recording them and had (a) second thoughts about stealing her Glass and decided to give it back to her or (b) were so put-off by a piece of technology addicting to the point that people were now wearing it in bars during the wee hours of the night, and then either (aa) decided to steal her wallet and cell phone as a teaching lesson or (bb) recognized, as petty thieves would, her unprotected wallet and phone as an easy grab.

Whatever the case, if Google Glass was more prevalent, the perpetrators either (a) wouldn't have had a reason to remove the woman's glasses because they would have better understood the technology or (b) wouldn't have been able to execute their con move in such a convincing fashion to leave the woman so ruffled that she'd leave her wallet and cell phone unprotected.

Of course, Google might say that the incident just proves the world isn't ready for Glass after all.