11 ms·
Google Glass on Saturday Night Live
- tovmeod 13y agoWe're sorry, but the clip you selected isn't available from your location. Please select another clip.
- DigitalTurk 13y agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcpWxF9hbI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcpWxF9hbI
- appplemac 13y agoMuch better, thank you.
- cs702 13y agoThis mocking of Google Glass as something that only "geeks" would ever use, because it is awkward and fails too frequently in embarrassing ways, suggests the product and technology have a very long way to go before they cross the chasm into anything resembling mass-market appeal. While I think that ever-more-personal Internet-powered products like Google Glass ARE the future, I can't help but see some parallels with Apple's original tablet computer, the Newton MessagePad, which never quite recovered from the drubbing it took in a Doonesbury comic strip, because its handwriting recognition software was awkward and failed too frequently in embarrassing ways.[1] -- [1] Here's one of the Doonesbury comic strips mocking the Newton MessagePad: http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/db930827.gif?w=900&h=294 http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/db9... and here's a NewsWeek article from 1993 discussing it: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1993/10/10/the-handwriting-on-the-wall.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1993/10/10/the-handwri...
- mtgx 13y agoSeems like the equivalent of MaxiPads to me. Once Google Apps get some killer apps, that you can't do with any other device, or not nearly as well, they'll come around.
- cromwellian 13y agoGoogle Voice recognition isn't anywhere near that bad. There are two times I have seen Glass fail to understand badly. The first was a woman wearing it over long hair, the hair might have been interfering with the mic. The second and more important case is with Indian accents.
- fyi80 13y agoOr someone who has never used it, mocking its imagined failures, shows that when people gets there hands on it, they will see it wildly outperforming expectations and achieve mass-market appeal.
- OGinparadise 13y agoFine. Why would a normal person need this, especially since this is in addition to his/her smartphone? Instead of looking like a dork all the time with G glasses on, why not look at the phone for a restaurant or directions and then put it in your pocket /purse? How hard is to pull the phone again 5 minutes later if you aren't sure?
- jedberg 13y agoWhen I'm driving and I need directions a heads up display would be immensely useful.
- OGinparadise 13y agoEven a Garmin from 5 years ago works great with voice commands and great displays. Of course we have iPhones and Galaxys that do that too, no need for extra gadgets
- jedberg 13y agoI have a nav system that talks, but I still have to glance down occasionally. I'd much rather have it in my peripheral vision.
- snowwrestler 13y agoIt doesn't matter where it's displayed, looking at a map while driving takes attention away from the road. In the days of paper maps everyone knew it was silly and dangerous to try to unfold and read one while driving. I don't know how this common sense has disappeared just because of LCD screens.
- stevewilhelm 13y agoVoice commands and adorning one's face are both very physiologically charged acts. Combining both in one device and topping it off with this photo, http://s831.us/ZJFtkm http://s831.us/ZJFtkm, Glass was just begging to be lampooned.
- defen 13y agoIs that a real, not-photoshopped image?
- stevewilhelm 13y agoIt's the real deal from the Google announcement of the Glass Collective. http://s831.us/YozC2O http://s831.us/YozC2O
- cma 13y agoThis one begs to differ http://mashable.com/2013/04/24/william-gibson-google-glass/ http://mashable.com/2013/04/24/william-gibson-google-glass/
- OGinparadise 13y agoThis is comedy, of course they exaggerate things so you can't take it literally. But they are spot on looking weird and talking to 'yourself.' This is a great niche product, IMO, other than that it will suffer an embarrassing death. Most people do not need up to the second information while out and even those that do (say drivers) will probably be distracted by them. Brin did make a fool of himself when he said that phones are emasculating, essentially saying that using Glass is cool. I guess that's an opinion, but I disagree. Unless it's part of your job, you'll look like a pretentious, know-it-all @sshole. And unless you're careful you can subject yourself to physical harm, like if used in bathrooms, bars, getting in people's faces with it etc. This got a lot of press because tech bloggers, professional "early adopters" and wannabe cool techies are bored, they needed a new product to hype to death and to show how hip they are. It's been a while since a new gadget came out.
- nijk 13y agoOr maybe Brin made an effort to learn English when he came to this country. https://www.google.com/search?q=emasculating https://www.google.com/search?q=emasculating
- OGinparadise 13y agoMaybe, to use the part that is convenient to him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emasculation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emasculation . I would feel emasculated with dorky glasses on.
- myko 13y ago> Maybe, to use the part that is convenient to him Yes, why would he assume he meant it in the way that actually makes the most sense. We should assume he just meant something boneheaded instead.
- alexqgb 13y agoJohn Pavlus, writing for the MIT Technology Review, made an outstanding point about wearable computing, and the basic problem with treating the body (which needs interfaces) as an interface itself. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514136/your-body-does-not-want-to-be-an-interface/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514136/your-body-does-n...
- nijk 13y agoDoes he find the concept of a keyboard, using our amazingly skillful hands to punch out letters, equally ridiculous?
- alexqgb 13y agoRTFA.
- jessriedel 13y agoI really don't get what the claim of the second half of the article is > When you drive a nail with a hammer, you feel as though you are acting directly on the nail, not “asking” the hammer to do something for you. In contrast, “present at hand” describes a tool that, in use, causes you to “bump up against some aspect of its nature that makes you focus on it as an entity,” as Matt Webb of BERG writes. Most technological “interfaces”–models that represent abstract information and mediate our manipulation of it–are “present at hand” almost by definition, at least at first. As Webb notes, most of us are familiar enough with a computer mouse by now that it is more like a hammer–“ready to hand”–than an interface standing “between” us and our actions. A mouse became “ready to hand” just like a hammer did. Have you every seen a child with a hammer or other tool? It's “present at hand” for them until they master it. So the real question is not "how is Glass different than hammer?", it's "how is Glass different than a mouse?" > Still, a mouse is also like a hammer in that it is something separate-from-you that you can pick up and set down with your hands. What if the “mouse” wasn’t a thing at all, but rather–as in the Fjord example of “staring to select”–an integrated aspect of your embodied, phenomenal experience? Do we really think that the thing that makes a mouse a good interface device is that it's a solid object? Look, I get the idea that if you try to overload bodily actions with new results on top of the existing ones (i.e. making thinks "selected" when you just wanted to look at them) you'll obviously get problems. But does anyone really think that, say, rubbing your fingers together would be some horrendous input method merely because it doesn't have a physical object? No, not as long as you rarely had need to rub things in real life at the same time as you were using the device.
- zw123456 13y agoI still think that Google Glass is the next Segwey. It just is, sorry.