10 ms·

Despite all the negativity around Google Glasses' camera, that was actually the best feature. You could really capture some great moments directly from your eye

Despite all the negativity around Google Glasses' camera, that was actually the best feature. You could really capture some great moments directly from your eye's perspective at the wink of an eye. My mother recently passed and out of all the photos and videos, my favorite was a 10 second video of me handing her flowers shot from Google Glasses. It looks like she's staring right back into my soul. I have a three month old daughter now and I find myself fumbling about with my phone trying to take photos of her. Just last night I dropped my Pixel phone while trying to capture a photo of her. Phone is fine, but she wasn't too happy with the loud noise of my phone hitting the wood floor :) I kind of miss Google Glasses simply for the camera feature. Instead of a minimal heads up display, I would much rather have a minimal wearable camera without all the extra functionality Google Glasses offered. Google Clips seems to be an alternative hands-free camera with different pros and cons (+I can be in the photo. -Can't capture the same type of photos from my eye viewpoint).

pavel_lishin 9y ago
Yup, another father here: I'd love an always-on camera that I can tell to save the last 30 seconds of playback. There are a lot of moments I'd love to have on video or camera that are there-and-gone - even if I had my phone in my pocket, by the time I pulled it out, it would be too late.
- nogridbag 9y ago
  And from my short experience even if you manage to pull out your phone or DSLR quickly to capture that special moment, the baby immediately stops cooing/smiling and instead is staring at this black object you're sticking in their face. I think Google's onto something with Google Clips. But I think there's more to this concept. Would definitely be interested in a v2 that is able to capture video.
- tlrobinson 9y ago
  GoPros (and other action cameras, I assume) have a feature like that. But please don't be "that guy" constantly recording unwilling subjects (except in your own home, of course)
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    > ... unwilling subjects (except in your own home, of course) Not even.
    - tlrobinson 9y ago
      Well, not secretly, but otherwise people are free to leave your home if they find your recording obnoxious.
- maltalex 9y ago
  Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? The trade-off between the convenience of having an always-on camera and living in a society in which everyone has an always-on cameras seems like a no-brainer to me. There's even a Black Mirror episode like that - "The Entire History of You".
  - naasking 9y ago
    > Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? If the camera had a light indicating when it was actually recording, that seems better. There are probably many small changes to make such cameras more acceptable.
    - oarsinsync 9y ago
      Google for “activate webcam without light” Ever noticed people have covered their laptop cameras even though they have a light to indicate if it’s on? How do you do that to someone else’s camera that has been remote activated with the light disabled?
      - naasking 9y ago
        You don't make it software controlled, you hardwire it so it can't be hacked.
  - gpm 9y ago
    That camera is already pointed at me, via security cameras, strangers cell phones, etc. This just makes the situation symmetric. So yes, I would be fine with that.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      No all of us live in the UK or some city that has cameras everywhere. Private CCTV footage and most government footage not part of a dragnet collection program is usually discarded after a few weeks or months if it's not needed. Cell phones are not always on. I agree that everything being recorded all the time is somewhat inevitable considering the way things are going. While this does make the situation symmetric to some extent as far as the capacity to record interesting things goes. However, I believe that in the foreseeable future the negatives outweigh the positives. You might be able to get the clerk at the DMV to be nicer if they're on camera but your ability to influence society with the ability to record video doesn't extend much beyond there. Only the incumbents (tech giants and the government) have the ability to store and mine this sort of data for interesting things that are only interesting in retrospect. You do not have access to a big chunk of the data set. Your bank, insurance company and government do. They can mine that data to punish you or others for whatever behavior they deem bad and to extract compliance to their whims. You, neither as a individual nor as part of a group do not have the capacity to do the same analysis, the means to use what you learn to manipulate individuals. Even if you did you don't have access to a large enough chunk of the data set. Until the power to access and draw meaning from this sort of data is in everyone's hands the situation is not symmetric. I hope you and those who agree with you reconsider your opinions.
- keville 9y ago
  You have described the exact use case the Google Clips [0] camera seems to have been designed for. [0] https://store.google.com/us/product/google_clips https://store.google.com/us/product/google_clips
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Given Google refused to allow you to store pictures local-only, Glass' camera was... it's least-used feature for me. I loved notifications without having to get out my phone (or look at my wrist). Google's absolute refusal to make photo sync optional on Glass was honestly the beginning of the end for my trust in El Goog.
- lev99 9y ago
  I agree that the creepy thing about Google Glass isn't the camera or the display it's Google.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Yeah, I loved the form factor, it was the software and the cloud dependency that crippled it. I've actually been looking at a Vufine+ combined with an Intel Compute Stick to create a more customized alternative.
    - lev99 9y ago
      The Vufine+'s battery life kills that option for me. Wearables need to have a long enough battery life that you can use them most of your day without taking them in and out.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Definitely true. My impression is that I'd use it cabled with a battery pack (that could also power the Compute Stick), but since I already need micro-HDMI running off of it, that's two separate cables. I've mentioned this idea to the Vufine team, but if they removed the battery (to lighten up the unit significantly), and switched the cable type to a USB-C that delivered both video and power, it could reasonably offload battery to an external pack, and run video along the same cable, and I'd maybe clip something on my belt and be rocking. That being said, Vufine's current hardware isn't designed to be a day-use wearable, it's intended to be used for things like seeing the camera on a drone you're flying (which also has a very short battery life).
thaumaturgy 9y ago
That's all well and good, and I don't think many people are disputing the value of having more and better memories of loved ones. The trouble is in resolving that against the kind of culture that has fostered things like the "creepshots" subreddit. Smartphones (and GoPros) have already shown the value of being able to film and share more of our lives, but they've also shown the downsides of having our graceless moments broadcast to the world, or the many events that are now impossible to enjoy in a sea of smartphones held aloft, or, if you're an attractive woman, far more of you put online for other people to gawk at. Until those abuses are resolved somehow, people are going to resist having a little camera attached to everyone's face.
azinman2 9y ago
Snap’s glasses?
SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
The trick is getting a camera powerful enough to get acceptable quality pictures but small enough, and blended with the surroundings enough that you don't notice it.
- nogridbag 9y ago
  Yup absolutely. For me that was Google Glasses biggest flaw. I could capture beautiful photos of family and relatives instantly, but they were beautiful because no one else in the photo was wearing Google Glasses. Another reply mentioned Snaps, which I haven't heard of. It looks interesting, but ultimately it has the same flaw. I'm not going to wear dark sunglasses with LEDs indoors to take family photos. I suppose there really is no ideal solution. It's either going to be noticeable and thus culturally acceptable or hidden and be bashed for being used by creeps. I suppose a device like Google Clips is probably a better solution for my needs, but it lacks that killer "wink to take a photo" feature.
  - macintux 9y ago
    > noticeable and thus culturally acceptable I'm not sure that correlation is inevitable.
mjlangiii 9y ago
Just my two cents; I'm a father of 4 and I'm okay with not capturing those moments on film. And I mean that in two senses. One, I'm fine using my very imperfect memory to recall special moments and two, because of the logistical problems with grabbing the camera I'm not willing to risk missing out being fully in the moment. The occasionally photograph from an event or time period seems sufficient to conjure up the feelings from that time. Regarding an always on camera - I'll second other comments in warning there are just so many concerns with abuse, I don't see how to get around those.
- lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
  I hate that I lost it, will have to spend an afternoon on the internet achive, But these are so tired. It's the exact same things people were spouting when phones started to have cameras. That came, and it turned out, having a quality camera you take with you is pretty cool and the end of the world didn't happen. Button cameras have existed for literally decades, if someone wants to take discrete pictures of you the means are there and it's a hell of a lot less awkward than staring at someone while your HUD camera grabs them. A heads up display with no way of taking in data from the outside world is gimped to the point of uselessness and I think you really need to sit down and logic through the "concerns of abuse". There's no opportunity for privacy violation that isn't easier with another form of tech; at least Ive never heard one that sounds remotely plausible.
  - cryptoz 9y ago
    > That came, and it turned out, having a quality camera you take with you is pretty cool and the end of the world didn't happen. It's a little early to say that, given that we're talking about things that take 50 years to transpire. You're telling people right now, in the midst of the smartphone explosion, that it's all said and done and over - you won't regret it at any point in your life, you'll always be glad of that smartphone, etc. But you don't know that yet. And I will say that for some people it has already happened. I have missed countless things in the last 10 years because I was looking for my phone to take a picture. Events that happened and I never witnessed them to even get a memory of, just because I was looking down for my phone. I already regret having the camera nearby but not quite ready to go for the last 10 years. Your examples are already wrong, and actually quite offensive in your tone, suggesting that you know better than everyone and that you know how everyone will feel in 50 years. The concerns are real and justified, even if you personally don't share them.
magic_beans 9y ago
It's ok to not have pictures of every single minute of your daughter's development. It's probably better for you -- and for her -- not to have so many photos.
bluntfang 9y ago
this is how we turn into simple rick.
xPhobophobia 9y ago
Except Google Clip is like the camera in the movie "The Circle" and is a rabbid privacy violation. The discontent with Google Glasses was likely because it was ahead of its time.
- nogridbag 9y ago
  I'm not familiar with that movie, but how does Google Clips violate your privacy? As far as I understand, everything is local on the Clips device (including the AI). You can view pictures on your phone and choose the ones to save. This is completely different from a device like Echo which sends your voice (and everything it hears in the background) to Amazon for processing.
stcredzero 9y ago
Despite all the negativity around Google Glasses' camera, that was actually the best feature The negativity around Google Glasses amounted to a mismanaged launch. iPhones were introduced to a public already familiar 1st-hand with cell phones, camera phones, and digital cameras. The public was already passingly familiar with smart phones. Google Glasses were introduced with maximum hype to as many early adopters as possible, with no thought as to how it could backfire, and how to navigate those pitfalls. In retrospect, is it any wonder that there were so many inadvisable actions, all adding up to a societal backlash? Google Glasses should have been rolled out to far fewer people, and in a form factor almost indistinguishable from ordinary eyeglasses.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
craigsmansion 9y ago
> You could really capture some great moments directly That should be, "you could really capture some great moments directly on film..." You already captured these moments; you were there; they are ingrained in your memory. > My mother recently passed and out of all the photos [..] staring right back into my soul." First of all, my sincere condolences. Again, you were there. That moment, that specific wonderful moment you witnessed, nice as it is to have something to remember it by, it feels very personal, not something you could share unless you were there, and you were you. Back in the days of photo-lab development, there existed magic moments caught on camera as well, but it was the luck of the draw. Since they were so rare, there was no fear of missing out, but any such moment caught on camera was all the more special for it. Maybe this fear of missing out on your own life, pushing one to commit everything to camera, comes at the cost of actually missing out. Life is made better by witnessing these magic moments, but I'm unsure the drive to capture them all enhances the experience, witnessed and remembered in that particular fashion by no one but yourself.
starsinspace 9y ago
I don't think anyone cares if you use such a glasses camera in your private space, with people who know you and are fine with it. The problem is when it becomes normal and everyone has them on all the time, in public spaces too. Then nobody can opt out anymore.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

Yup, another father here: I'd love an always-on camera that I can tell to save the last 30 seconds of playback. There are a lot of moments I'd love to have on video or camera that are there-and-gone - even if I had my phone in my pocket, by the time I pulled it out, it would be too late.

nogridbag 9y ago
And from my short experience even if you manage to pull out your phone or DSLR quickly to capture that special moment, the baby immediately stops cooing/smiling and instead is staring at this black object you're sticking in their face. I think Google's onto something with Google Clips. But I think there's more to this concept. Would definitely be interested in a v2 that is able to capture video.
tlrobinson 9y ago
GoPros (and other action cameras, I assume) have a feature like that. But please don't be "that guy" constantly recording unwilling subjects (except in your own home, of course)
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  > ... unwilling subjects (except in your own home, of course) Not even.
  - tlrobinson 9y ago
    Well, not secretly, but otherwise people are free to leave your home if they find your recording obnoxious.
maltalex 9y ago
Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? The trade-off between the convenience of having an always-on camera and living in a society in which everyone has an always-on cameras seems like a no-brainer to me. There's even a Black Mirror episode like that - "The Entire History of You".
- naasking 9y ago
  > Would you love that camera if it was pointed at you? If the camera had a light indicating when it was actually recording, that seems better. There are probably many small changes to make such cameras more acceptable.
  - oarsinsync 9y ago
    Google for “activate webcam without light” Ever noticed people have covered their laptop cameras even though they have a light to indicate if it’s on? How do you do that to someone else’s camera that has been remote activated with the light disabled?
    - naasking 9y ago
      You don't make it software controlled, you hardwire it so it can't be hacked.
- gpm 9y ago
  That camera is already pointed at me, via security cameras, strangers cell phones, etc. This just makes the situation symmetric. So yes, I would be fine with that.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    No all of us live in the UK or some city that has cameras everywhere. Private CCTV footage and most government footage not part of a dragnet collection program is usually discarded after a few weeks or months if it's not needed. Cell phones are not always on. I agree that everything being recorded all the time is somewhat inevitable considering the way things are going. While this does make the situation symmetric to some extent as far as the capacity to record interesting things goes. However, I believe that in the foreseeable future the negatives outweigh the positives. You might be able to get the clerk at the DMV to be nicer if they're on camera but your ability to influence society with the ability to record video doesn't extend much beyond there. Only the incumbents (tech giants and the government) have the ability to store and mine this sort of data for interesting things that are only interesting in retrospect. You do not have access to a big chunk of the data set. Your bank, insurance company and government do. They can mine that data to punish you or others for whatever behavior they deem bad and to extract compliance to their whims. You, neither as a individual nor as part of a group do not have the capacity to do the same analysis, the means to use what you learn to manipulate individuals. Even if you did you don't have access to a large enough chunk of the data set. Until the power to access and draw meaning from this sort of data is in everyone's hands the situation is not symmetric. I hope you and those who agree with you reconsider your opinions.
keville 9y ago
You have described the exact use case the Google Clips [0] camera seems to have been designed for. [0] https://store.google.com/us/product/google_clips https://store.google.com/us/product/google_clips

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Given Google refused to allow you to store pictures local-only, Glass' camera was... it's least-used feature for me. I loved notifications without having to get out my phone (or look at my wrist). Google's absolute refusal to make photo sync optional on Glass was honestly the beginning of the end for my trust in El Goog.

lev99 9y ago
I agree that the creepy thing about Google Glass isn't the camera or the display it's Google.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Yeah, I loved the form factor, it was the software and the cloud dependency that crippled it. I've actually been looking at a Vufine+ combined with an Intel Compute Stick to create a more customized alternative.
  - lev99 9y ago
    The Vufine+'s battery life kills that option for me. Wearables need to have a long enough battery life that you can use them most of your day without taking them in and out.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Definitely true. My impression is that I'd use it cabled with a battery pack (that could also power the Compute Stick), but since I already need micro-HDMI running off of it, that's two separate cables. I've mentioned this idea to the Vufine team, but if they removed the battery (to lighten up the unit significantly), and switched the cable type to a USB-C that delivered both video and power, it could reasonably offload battery to an external pack, and run video along the same cable, and I'd maybe clip something on my belt and be rocking. That being said, Vufine's current hardware isn't designed to be a day-use wearable, it's intended to be used for things like seeing the camera on a drone you're flying (which also has a very short battery life).

thaumaturgy 9y ago

That's all well and good, and I don't think many people are disputing the value of having more and better memories of loved ones. The trouble is in resolving that against the kind of culture that has fostered things like the "creepshots" subreddit. Smartphones (and GoPros) have already shown the value of being able to film and share more of our lives, but they've also shown the downsides of having our graceless moments broadcast to the world, or the many events that are now impossible to enjoy in a sea of smartphones held aloft, or, if you're an attractive woman, far more of you put online for other people to gawk at. Until those abuses are resolved somehow, people are going to resist having a little camera attached to everyone's face.

azinman2 9y ago

Snap’s glasses?

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago

The trick is getting a camera powerful enough to get acceptable quality pictures but small enough, and blended with the surroundings enough that you don't notice it.

nogridbag 9y ago
Yup absolutely. For me that was Google Glasses biggest flaw. I could capture beautiful photos of family and relatives instantly, but they were beautiful because no one else in the photo was wearing Google Glasses. Another reply mentioned Snaps, which I haven't heard of. It looks interesting, but ultimately it has the same flaw. I'm not going to wear dark sunglasses with LEDs indoors to take family photos. I suppose there really is no ideal solution. It's either going to be noticeable and thus culturally acceptable or hidden and be bashed for being used by creeps. I suppose a device like Google Clips is probably a better solution for my needs, but it lacks that killer "wink to take a photo" feature.
- macintux 9y ago
  > noticeable and thus culturally acceptable I'm not sure that correlation is inevitable.

mjlangiii 9y ago

Just my two cents; I'm a father of 4 and I'm okay with not capturing those moments on film. And I mean that in two senses. One, I'm fine using my very imperfect memory to recall special moments and two, because of the logistical problems with grabbing the camera I'm not willing to risk missing out being fully in the moment. The occasionally photograph from an event or time period seems sufficient to conjure up the feelings from that time. Regarding an always on camera - I'll second other comments in warning there are just so many concerns with abuse, I don't see how to get around those.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
I hate that I lost it, will have to spend an afternoon on the internet achive, But these are so tired. It's the exact same things people were spouting when phones started to have cameras. That came, and it turned out, having a quality camera you take with you is pretty cool and the end of the world didn't happen. Button cameras have existed for literally decades, if someone wants to take discrete pictures of you the means are there and it's a hell of a lot less awkward than staring at someone while your HUD camera grabs them. A heads up display with no way of taking in data from the outside world is gimped to the point of uselessness and I think you really need to sit down and logic through the "concerns of abuse". There's no opportunity for privacy violation that isn't easier with another form of tech; at least Ive never heard one that sounds remotely plausible.
- cryptoz 9y ago
  > That came, and it turned out, having a quality camera you take with you is pretty cool and the end of the world didn't happen. It's a little early to say that, given that we're talking about things that take 50 years to transpire. You're telling people right now, in the midst of the smartphone explosion, that it's all said and done and over - you won't regret it at any point in your life, you'll always be glad of that smartphone, etc. But you don't know that yet. And I will say that for some people it has already happened. I have missed countless things in the last 10 years because I was looking for my phone to take a picture. Events that happened and I never witnessed them to even get a memory of, just because I was looking down for my phone. I already regret having the camera nearby but not quite ready to go for the last 10 years. Your examples are already wrong, and actually quite offensive in your tone, suggesting that you know better than everyone and that you know how everyone will feel in 50 years. The concerns are real and justified, even if you personally don't share them.

magic_beans 9y ago

It's ok to not have pictures of every single minute of your daughter's development. It's probably better for you -- and for her -- not to have so many photos.

bluntfang 9y ago

this is how we turn into simple rick.

xPhobophobia 9y ago

Except Google Clip is like the camera in the movie "The Circle" and is a rabbid privacy violation. The discontent with Google Glasses was likely because it was ahead of its time.

nogridbag 9y ago
I'm not familiar with that movie, but how does Google Clips violate your privacy? As far as I understand, everything is local on the Clips device (including the AI). You can view pictures on your phone and choose the ones to save. This is completely different from a device like Echo which sends your voice (and everything it hears in the background) to Amazon for processing.

stcredzero 9y ago

Despite all the negativity around Google Glasses' camera, that was actually the best feature The negativity around Google Glasses amounted to a mismanaged launch. iPhones were introduced to a public already familiar 1st-hand with cell phones, camera phones, and digital cameras. The public was already passingly familiar with smart phones. Google Glasses were introduced with maximum hype to as many early adopters as possible, with no thought as to how it could backfire, and how to navigate those pitfalls. In retrospect, is it any wonder that there were so many inadvisable actions, all adding up to a societal backlash? Google Glasses should have been rolled out to far fewer people, and in a form factor almost indistinguishable from ordinary eyeglasses.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

craigsmansion 9y ago

> You could really capture some great moments directly That should be, "you could really capture some great moments directly on film..." You already captured these moments; you were there; they are ingrained in your memory. > My mother recently passed and out of all the photos [..] staring right back into my soul." First of all, my sincere condolences. Again, you were there. That moment, that specific wonderful moment you witnessed, nice as it is to have something to remember it by, it feels very personal, not something you could share unless you were there, and you were you. Back in the days of photo-lab development, there existed magic moments caught on camera as well, but it was the luck of the draw. Since they were so rare, there was no fear of missing out, but any such moment caught on camera was all the more special for it. Maybe this fear of missing out on your own life, pushing one to commit everything to camera, comes at the cost of actually missing out. Life is made better by witnessing these magic moments, but I'm unsure the drive to capture them all enhances the experience, witnessed and remembered in that particular fashion by no one but yourself.

starsinspace 9y ago

I don't think anyone cares if you use such a glasses camera in your private space, with people who know you and are fine with it. The problem is when it becomes normal and everyone has them on all the time, in public spaces too. Then nobody can opt out anymore.