15 ms·
A 33-Year-Old NPR Story Convinced Me Google Glass Will Stop Looking So Dorky
- mattgreenrocks 13y agoI'm not sure why people worry about social acceptability so much. Mainstream opinion is basically that of sheep. I'm old enough to remember when the Internet use had a significant social stigma. Now teenage girls gorge themselves on it in public. The same people who'd be so quick to judge now keep their mouths shut. What changed? Oh, right: absolutely nothing.
- mwfunk 13y agoWhen was there ever a widespread social stigma associated with Internet use? This is not something that ever existed, so it's probably not a good analogy.
- mattgreenrocks 13y agoThe Internet was seen as this nerdy, niche thing for a long time. Thus, by extension, you'd be more inclined to admit you stayed up late 'watching TV.' This was the late nineties. But correctness of analogy doesn't change the thesis: mainstream opinion is whatever people are force-fed through bottom-of-the-barrel social norms.
- bcoates 13y agoThat 1981 story is bizarre. Pocketable (AM-only!) transistor radios with an earphone were on the market in the 50s and the "little Japanese radio" was ubiquitous by the 1960s. By 1981 I'm sure there were people still grousing about the good old days but it would have been the equivalent of complaining about e-mail and the death of the handwritten letter in the 2010s (and I'm sure NPR has done more than one story about that in this decade because that's their shtick). The Walkman was revolutionary because it was a portable cassette deck, the first true plays-anywhere format that allowed someone to completely divorce themselves from radio music without any compromises.
- overgard 13y agoI think the counter argument is the Segway, which has probably gotten dorkier
- tokenadult 13y agoThe story reports that the Walkman changed people's opinions about wearing headphones. (The kind of listening earpieces, even paired in a framework, used with the Walkman I usually think of as "earphones," but I see that the contemporary news story called them headphones, back in the day.) What I most remember about the Walkman is that it liberated public places from boomboxes, unaffectionately known as "ghetto blasters," which I used to hear all too often when I was out in public as a student and as a recent university graduate. AFTER EDIT: And after thinking about this some more, and after pondering the other comments kindly posted here, I think maybe the future of Google Glass will depend in part on whether wearing Google Glass is seen as eliminating a disgusting previous habit (like looking down at one's lap to text while driving) or is seen as a new disgusting habit with no good purpose. I have no idea what most people will think about this--I have still never seen anyone with Google Glass on in my part of the country.
- CompleteMoron 13y agoI would like a return of ghetto blasters. Those things are cool and I have one wired up to an ipad cut into it to play tunes. I have a google glass too and I don't wear it so much in public. You can't really see it with a hat - probably mounted in real glasses and long hair or a hat is best. I'd hold up for the contacts over the eyes, this is sort of a half step that will be great proving ground - but ultimately too invasive into life - like at a partttty!
- analog31 13y agoIn my view, one thing about any wearable device is that people form an impression of what you're doing with it. That's what makes it socially acceptable or not in the long run. Earphones / buds / blueteeth don't have unlimited social acceptance. If you're talking to me while wearing headphones, I might ask you to take them off, especially if you're one of my kids. If I see you wearing them while while careening towards me on your bike, I might dive for cover. If I see someone wearing them while communing with nature, I might think they're weird. If any prediction is possible, I'd guess that Google Glasses will also gain some sort of conditional social acceptance based on what they are capable of being used for.
- 13y ago
- adamnemecek 13y ago> It causes people to isolate themselves from their experience, the contact with nature - sort of, a neo-existential prelude to doom. Mmm, yes. Shallow and pedantic.
- mwfunk 13y agoWhat's pedantic in that quote?
- adamnemecek 13y agoIt's a quote.
- Dylan16807 13y agoDefinitely a quote. I still don't understand what you're calling pedantic.
- adamnemecek 13y ago"Shallow and pedantic" is a quote.
- Dylan16807 13y ago1. Quote of what? It's not in the article. 2. Why are you quoting it, do you agree or disagree in its original context, are you applying it to the first quote in a serious/ironic/____ manner?
- TheZenPsycho 13y agoPast results do not guarantee future results. Behold the stack of counter-example dorky looking technologies that didn't catch on. The missing ingredient is cool and popular people have to be seen using the technology, and make it look good while doing it.
- aresant 13y agoI disagree that people will become comfortable with Google Glass - the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you (that may or may not be recording). To which the analogy vs. headphones is not relevant. I anticipate, however, that Google (or somebody) will find a way to make this product largely invisible to anybody but the wearer in the near term future. Through more discreet projection / camera placement, or future-tech incorporation with a contact lens. So for a company in the business of printing money, investing in BETAs at this stage to understand UX, function, etc is wise.
- hangonhn 13y agoTotally agree. I refuse to talk to anyone with one of those on. It's not only creepy but also really unfair. It also throws the whole concern of private conversations out the door. Get rid of the camera but keep the glass. Maybe then we will be more comfortable.
- kibibu 13y agoPull out your smartphone and record them through it while talking
- aestra 13y agoWeirdly, when I was in 7th or 8th grade I thought it would be a neat idea to put an audio tape recorder (the cassette type, remember those?) in my bookbag and record the audio of my entire day at school. I have no idea why I thought this was a neat idea. I don't believe I still have this tape, and if I recall the audio wasn't very clear.
- drcode 13y agoHeadphones are STILL smug and alientating. I wear them all the time because I like listening to music on the go. However, I still think, objectively speaking, they are silly and off-putting. Just because they are so common now doesn't mean we have to deny their intrinsic nature.
- chubot 13y agoRight, headphones still aren't appropriate in many situations. You can wear them on the subway (although a pretty small minority of people do). But try showing up to a meeting at work with headphones on. Or to a family gathering. You would instinctively take them off immediately. The presence of headphones is still a social cue, and the presence of Glass will always be one too. It's not going to become just a neutral thing like wearing eyeglasses.
- rdl 13y agoBig difference IMO is that the Glass is worn, and even more, is worn on the face, specifically around the eyes. Remember how douchey the bluetooth headset people were? Very small by comparison, and that was mostly hidden if you had long hair, or were viewed directly from the front. The Pebble is about the limit, which is why the wrist-computer thing is so interesting, even though it doesn't provide a huge amount of new capability for "heads up" computing vs. a vibrating smartphone. I'm mostly unwilling to wear the "old" Pebble, but probably will wear Pebble Metal, and will definitely wear Pebble 3.0 (if it improves by roughly the same amount; 1-4mm slimmer would be nice). Glass would be fine alone, or in a car, or in the field, but probably not something I'd wear at dinner, or in a casual meeting (unless by using it I were much more productive and useful). The article seems to think wearing headphones in public is ok. It's fine when you're sitting down avoiding people, but the kids wearing large, crappy headphones in other environments (e.g. at meals) are kind of pathetic.
- corresation 13y agoRemember how douchey the bluetooth headset people were?...but the kids wearing large, crappy headphones in other environments (e.g. at meals) are kind of pathetic. Isn't this really judgmental? Doesn't this say more about you than about them? I'm completely serious. I do not judge people on the tools they use in their life that is of no consequence to me. The same holds for Google Glass -- it is somewhat perverse, if not an attempt at group bullying, however so many try to get some sort of group disdain going about it. The single credible complaint anyone has about Glass -- after you dig through all of the noisy subjective blather -- is the privacy angle. It may be defeatest but I think that ship has sailed, and we're absolutely surrounded by things recording us (someone mentioned lapel mics, for instance, but of course every smartphone around you might be audio recording. Video recording is often more ubiquitous, but the "pretend you're using your phone" tactic is hardly uncommon)
- rdl 13y agoYes, it is ultimate subjective as a fashion decision, but I have articulated the mainstream prevailing view which will likely remain so for decades.
- bryze 13y agoMaybe I'm just old, but I still think wearing headphones conveys a detached air. My reaction isn't as strong as the 1981 interview, but it's there. Anyone else feel that way?
- benched 13y agoListening to music as I move through my day is sublime. I fucking hate the rest of you, so if people think I am merely detached, I come out way ahead.
- dllthomas 13y agoI think this does a good job of speaking to one issue with Glass. "It looks dorky" will fade. There are negative reactions for other reasons, but conflating all negative attributes of Glass isn't a good analysis. For those raising privacy concerns as an issue with this analysis - do you think the "that looks dorky" reaction is in fact significantly motivated by privacy concerns, or can you imagine a hip-and-chic styled product that is nonetheless equally (potentially) voyeuristic raising only some of the present objections?
- baby 13y agoActually, I still find big headphones weird. I bought one myself so I started finding them okay, and there are a lot of people wearing them now that it doesn't look so silly anymore. Makes me think about this as well: "Annette Kellerman promoted women’s right to wear a one-piece bathing suit like this circa 1907… She was arrested for indecency" http://i.imgur.com/3aFSWSg.jpg http://i.imgur.com/3aFSWSg.jpg
- zacinbusiness 13y agoI used to only wear earbuds simply because they were more portable. More recently, though, I've begun wearing a full-size set (Bowers and Wilkins P3) because I was tired of my music sounding "small." The difference is amazing and I'll never go back.
- baby 13y agoI remember a time when even earbuds would make me uncomfortable because I found it weird wearing them in public. Things have changed...
- ssully 13y agoI think it's entirely dependent on the type of headphones. The kind you mention are really slim and sleek; they don't really look out of place. It's when I see people wearing Beats or even bigger over/on ear headphones that attract my attention. I don't think ill of people wearing these headphones, but I do think they look silly because of how unwieldy the headphones seem.
- zacinbusiness 13y agoYou're correct about the larger cans. Personally, I dislike the weight of those type, and also how unwieldy they are and that they do not produce superior sound to smaller, more intelligently designed models (that usually don't cost more).
- kenrikm 13y agoI can see the point don't know if Glass will make it however it used to be EXTREMELY weird to see people with bluetooth headsets and even more odd if people were talking on them in public places "Are you talking to me?" now it's so normal for the most part I don't even notice them.
- ozten 13y agoI think looking at Bluetooth headset adoption would more informative.
- massysett 13y agoI said "Bluetooth, that will never catch on, who wants to go around with a thing in your ear with a flashing blue light? Makes you look like Borg." Now people wear them all day. And I never thought I would see people walking down the street staring at a phone. "That would be dorky." Now people nearly collide with me on sidewalks because they're looking down and, what's more, they eat meals in public places with the phone sitting on the table like it's a little person.
- mwfunk 13y agoThey most definitely do not wear Bluetooth earpieces all day. There was a brief period years ago when it was (relatively) a lot more common, but the richly-deserved backlash appears to have mostly eliminated the practice. I can't even think of the last time I encountered someone who just kept it on all the time. Purely anecdotal, but I think I've actually seen people using phone holsters more recently than I've seen anyone walk around with a Bluetooth earpiece when they weren't actively talking on the phone or driving. Maybe it's regional, I dunno. I'm in the Bay Area FWIW.
- jakejake 13y agoI think Bluetooth is a fair comparison with the aesthetic quality of glass. The recording capability is what pushes glass into new territory though, in my opinion. I can imagine people actually flocking to a glass wearer for attention, hoping they are being recorded and posted online just as they might flock to someone with a cellphone camera. At parties, hanging out with friends, at a club, etc. I can imagine it being a lot of fun. If I were discussing business or a stranger approached me wearing google glass, though, I would probably be hyper-aware that I was possibly being recorded. I can also imagine plenty of scenarios where google glass would make people extremely uncomfortable to the point where you would be asked to leave (nicely or not). Which is not something that would probably ever happen with a bluetooth receiver.
- zacinbusiness 13y agoI believe the idea that these technologies is alienating is false. There are some people (such as myself) who simply do not wish to engage with their fellow passengers on a train or airplane. So, if someone politely speaks to me then I am forced to either a: engage with them (there's no harm in doing so, but I simply don't want to), or b: come up with some sort of way out of the conversation and hope to not appear rude (I don't wish to offend anyone, but I just don't want to talk to them). However, people are much less likely to speak to me if I'm wearing headphones or if I'm reading something on my phone, laptop, or tablet. However, I also disagree here that Google Glass will stop being dorky, and I really think that it will be a while before it goes "mainstream." The reason is that people were somewhat hostile when the iPad was first released. Indeed, many people still look at tablet users as smug and see them as somehow offensive. So, as has been said here, now you're making the tablet very tiny, very expensive, and adding a nearly always-on camera to it. Furthermore, I'd like to point out bluetooth ear pieces. You simply look like a smug bastard or an idiot when you're using one (full disclosure, I used to have one during college so that I could listen to music while riding my bike to class, but also keep an ear open for traffic etc.) And Google Glass is really not that much different from a bluetooth ear piece, except, again, that it's got a little screen and a nearly always-on camera.
- jimmytucson 13y ago> I believe the idea that these technologies is alienating is false. You know, there's one side to "alienating" where the world shuts you out. But I think it's fair to say when people talk about headphones or Google Glass, they also mean you shutting out the world. You're describing a scenario where headphones basically make it harder for people to interact with you (correct me if I'm wrong), or make it easier for you to avoid that interaction. So I think these people are right in their sentiment that it makes the ocean between us a little deeper and wider but maybe the use of the word "alienating" is not quite right. Does that make sense?
- zacinbusiness 13y agoYou're exactly right. Too often words like "alienating" are considered negative, as I did. As a tool that allows me to focus on my work, alienation is a good thing. Note that I'm not bashing serendipitous meetings, those are often the best (I met my wife that way). But I'm semi-neurotic (there's probably a word for it that I don't know, maybe ADD?) and find it nearly impossible to get back to my work if I'm even distracted for a short while.
- mehwoot 13y agoI still think people wearing big headphones look stupid. I've never gotten used to that. And if was chatting to somebody and they were wearing headphones I would be uncomfortable. None of which touches on the main reason I find google glass uncomfortable- the thought that the other person could be recording everything. People say "well CCTV records you all the time" but that is a world of difference between having an overhead shot of you when you pay for gas and someone pointing a camera in your face as you're chatting to a friend.
- eli 13y agoPredicting the future is hard. Some very smart people thought the Segway would change the world, but when it launched a lot of "man on the street" types thought it looked really dorky. A decade later... it still looks dorky. (A lot of fun to use though, if you ever get the chance)
- bonemachine 13y agoAnd that's what's so terrifying about Glass. That one day, suddenly, it will just be... the new normal.
- bonemachine 13y agoAnd that's what's so terrifying about Glass. That one day, suddenly, it will just be... the new normal.
- gammarator 13y agoMy speculation is that looking at someone wearing Glass messes with us on a deep-seated, perceptual level. Direct eye contact is a huge part of how humans communicate, and Glass interferes with that. It's worse than eyeglasses or sunglasses, though, because it's asymmetric and offset, so it seems (to me) to trigger some kind of "deformity" cue. If it really is violating our evolutionary preferences for symmetric faces and unobstructed eye contact, fashion won't be enough for it to catch on.
- resu_nimda 13y agoI am actually pretty shocked at the responses here on HN, of all places. Not because, as technologists we should all automatically love any new technology, but because, as technologists we should have perspective on its inexorable march. How many times have we laughed at definitive statements, pontificating on this or that newfangled thing, that were proven to be wildly off-the-mark only a few years later? How many times have we facepalmed at the print media's desperate attempts to combat or stave off digital publishing? Whether it's Google Glass or something else, "invasive" wearable tech will be utterly pedestrian in a decade or two. Similarly, privacy is going away, and future generations won't care. You can already see it with the kids. It's just the obvious extrapolation of computing technology, and it won't be stopped by the old guard. If you disagree, care to put our thoughts in a time capsule and see who looks more foolish in 10 years?
- 3pt14159 13y agoIt isn't the invasiveness of glass that is the trouble. It's the minimum focal length of the eye and the speed of focusing. I want an overlay that is in focus, not to read email while I'm walking my buddy's dog. Once glass is directly on the optic nerve things will be better.
- r0s 13y agoProjected onto the retina is more likely.
- d23 13y ago> Once glass is directly on the optic nerve things will be better. I really hope we get to see biological interfaces in our lifetimes. If there's a singularity, I'm guessing that's where it'll begin to take off.
- XorNot 13y agoUnless there's a big advance in magnetic field manipulation, I doubt it. Basically - unless we find a way to inject data non-invasively using an advanced version of transcranial magnetic stimuation. The basic problem with bioscience - in fact anything that's not computer science, is you can't just hit "recompile" when you screw up. We can't just replace an optic nerve that goes bad, in fact anytime you do even minor surgery you run the risk of an infection that wipes out whole systems of the body from a tiny mistake. Abstraction is a big problem, basically.
- kevinalexbrown 13y agoAs someone in the habit of sticking my tongue out at surveillance cameras, I might have to learn to restrain myself when staring at a human/camera mixture. More seriously, I think this suggests a general principle: if something has intrinsic value, that will eventually outweigh fashion concerns. Even though bluetooth didn't totally take off, it seems like roughly half the people talking on phones in lower Manhattan have earbuds in, and I can't think of a place in the US that's more fashion-conscious. The real question isn't whether people can't grow accustomed to glass, but whether the benefits of glass outweigh the disadvantages, minus the fashion-centric ones.
- becauseGoogle 13y agoGoogle Glass represents yet another bar set by the ever-evolving shitty arms race of the invasive miserable grind of the human social condition. If there's any proof that only the machines will survive in a world where we used machines to kill each other off, it will be our inability to collectively resist the unnecessary escalation that Google Glass represents.
- markerdmann 13y ago"Looking so dorky" is actually fairly low on the list of ways in which Google Glass fails to be a usable product. Dustin Curtis wrote an excellent review in which he discusses these more serious problems: http://dcurt.is/glass http://dcurt.is/glass
- hrjet 13y agoOh whoa, I didn't know that the eye had to refocus to watch the screen! I thought it was more like a HUD and assumed that Google had mastered that part of the system (and was probably the major innovation behind Glass). Are there competing HUD systems out there which can be worn near the eyes and don't require a refocus?
- hrjet 13y agoWould a version of Glass sans camera be more acceptable? Less voyeurism & less surveillance. I haven't used one so not sure how much of its functionality needs the camera. As a user I might miss facial recognition, OCR, etc. One middle ground could be to have a camera that only outputs information useful for shape recognition, say for example, a monochrome sensor with an edge detection pass.
- fizx 13y agoNo one cares if you wear headphones. You're a jerk if you order coffee with earbuds/bluetooth in. I've never seen anyone flip up a Google Glass to the top of their head to have a conversation, but if that was standard behavior, Google Glass would be widely accepted. The problem today as I see it isn't the camera ($diety knows tourists take enough pictures of you in SF), its people (influenced by clueless Google marketing) being smug and oblivious enough to keep the Glass on during normal human interaction.
- abvdasker 13y agoThe idea of a google glass that can be temporarily disengaged (flipped up) is a really interesting one. It seems like that gives the wearer more control over where they would like to direct their attention. It also signals to whoever they're dealing with that their attention is undivided. This is probably the single biggest difference between headphones and google glass. I wonder if the designers at google will figure that out.
- larryla 13y agoI still think people who walk around with headphones on look ridiculous.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dhughes 13y agoIt was the same with cellphones. My uncle likes to tell a story of when (sometime before 1985) he had his brick phone and was talking on it in the entrance of a K-Mart. He was leaning up against a wall back to everyone trying to be discreet with the new fangled invention of a cell phone. As he was talking an elderly women was lurking behind him, he could hear her looking through her change purse. He said he realized she was waiting for the pay phone she thought he was using. He left abruptly leaving nothing but the empty space and the wall and shocked the woman who couldn't seem to grasp where the pay phone went.
- syntaxfree 13y agoThat says something interesting about behavior and how the function/form relation is contingent but slow-moving. Star Trek communicators were supposed to be used on loudspeaker and looked directly at, and yet when we got flip phones we used them exactly like rotaries. Your uncle had a mobile, but when he needed to talk in public, he needed the kind of physical anchoring that was associated with talking on the phone in public -- enough that he generated the illusion of being on a payphone. (Much like if you talk on a cellphone that's connected to a charging chord, you still generate the illusion of a landline). What does this say about glass? That we want it to work like things that are already there -- an always-with-you screen, for example, or a mini-GoPro -- and it might take a while to really come on its own. If it ever takes off, of course. Google has deep pockets but the acceleration is unrelenting and unforgiving.
- huxley 13y agoWhile I generally hate the idea of Google Glass, a recent story by Ted Chiang gave me a lot think about regarding omnipresent recording: http://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall_2013/the_truth_of_fact_the_truth_of_feeling_by_ted_chiang http://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall_2013/the_truth_of...
- natch 13y agoI took a commuter train the other day. A girl sat down next to me with her glass on as I was texting. My texts aren't always the most private thing in the world, but I don't really want to have to give even a moment's thought to whether the person next to me on the train is recording what's on my screen. Whether it's even feasible or not to capture adequate quality with whatever version of glass she had (old? new? super-high-res beta?) is not the point. I do not want to have to think about it. If you have a camera on your head, and it is pointing outward all the time and potentially recording stuff like what I'm saying/doing/reading/writing, people near you are going to be uncomfortable, end of story.
- nettletea 13y agoI'd barely notice glass if it looked like that, far less prominent than bluetooth headsets or white headphones, or people clutching smartphones and bumping into each other, or just randomly standing stationary like the zombies that we've become gazing into our navals, I mean smart phones.
- nettletea 13y agoI'd be more concerned about the repurcussions of having it record everything rather than what it looks like. See Black mirror: The entire history of you. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089050/
- EGreg 13y agoThere's a difference between having headphones on/in your ears and having something obscuring your face, between the person looking at you and your face. Doubly so when it has a camera pointed at said person. It feels like it's BETWEEN the two of you, and delivering extra information to you. It feels unnerving for that reason. Are you really looking at me? Humans establish eye contact for a reason. Kind of like when I'm talking to someone with headphones on. They take them off before I feel comfortable to talk at length to them.
- jorgem 13y ago>> You know, next thing they should do is have a little movies, you know, little sunglass movies so you don't have to look, either. Prior art.
- fuzzywalrus 13y agoSkimming the original NPR article: "Unidentified Man #2: You know, it's nice when you're walking around to hear other people talking and see what they're doing. And you're kind of putting blinders on." Culturally we've evolved to taken wearing headphones publicly in a public place (such as a Grocery Store) as a subtle social cue that "I don't want social interaction". I imagine with early augmented reality devices like the Google Glass, we will adapt social etiquette around them. Its less of a question if it will be accepted but how social graces will accommodate such a technology. I imagine similar behaviors will evolve around the Glass. I can speculate what those might be but I think more importantly that the Google Glass may not stop looking super dorky, but rather we will develop culture around said device, and its acceptable uses.
- motters 13y agoGoogle glass has its problems, but barring any major catastrophes I expect augmented reality eyeglasses to be very popular perhaps by the end of this decade or the beginning of the next. I see Google glass as the ZX-80 of augmented reality.
- syntaxfree 13y agoDoes this mean that every teen can write google glass apps now (Z80 assembly was really easy to learn) but in twenty years time AR technology will be unwieldy, crashy and overfeatured?
- aaronbrethorst 13y agoI don't think the Walkman is a good comparison at all. Instead, look at the boom box. Big headphones today, or the Walkman in the 80s didn't invade someone else's space. They allow a person to withdraw. Boom boxes, and Google Glass, on the other hand, are explicitly outwardly focused. They force your presence upon others.
- pjc50 13y agoGood insight; imposing yourself on others is never going to be very popular. The modern equivalent of the boom box is people playing music loudly on their phone speaker on public transport.
- thechut 13y agoYou clearly haven't used Google Glass. With the exception of the camera, everything is inward focused. Everything you do and see and interact with glass happens with only visibility to you. Nobody else can see what you are seeing. I wouldn't compare it to the boombox at all.
- michael_h 13y agoWith the exception of the camera... The camera is a large part of what people are objecting to.
- aaronbrethorst 13y agoI have, so don't make such sweeping assumptions. I've also been around people who are using them. I find their use in my presence to be an invasion of my personal space.
- blazespin 13y agoGoogle glass will become acceptable because it will be miniaturized and mostly invisible, not because the currently obscene format will become 'a Walkman for your eyes'. Until then the only socially acceptable way to use them will be in work situations, such as first responders and military. Note, I currently own a google glass (amongst other wearable tech) and develop for it.
- Cthulhu_ 13y agoI disagree on the comparison, tbh. Headphones is a purely personal experience; when you see it, you know that person is enjoying some private time, isolating himself from the busy / noisy outside world, or just being a douche. They don't cause uproar because, even if they look silly or make you look silly or like an audiophile (depending on make and model), it's something they do for themselves. Wearing Glass, on the other hand, is pretty much saying "I AM GOING TO RECORD ALL THE THINGS!". Actually, nevermind; if Glass did not have a camera but was just a heads-up display of sorts, nobody would care. All of the controversy surrounding Glass is about the camera, not about what the original concept was, a heads-up display. tl;dr: the comparison makes if Glass was just a heads-up display for personal information purposes, but it doesn't because it has a camera. Picture headphones with a camera.
- codingdave 13y agoI think the analogy with headphones is accurate, but the article missed something important" Headphones in public are absolutely considered obnoxious. Old folk like me do think they look silly, and we do think it says something negative about people who cannot live without pervasive music in their lives. The attitudes from 33 Years ago have not changed. But the youth just don't notice (or don't care) that us older folk still think that. EDIT: Now you kids get off my lawn!
- aestra 13y agoI'm in my 30s and I completely agree with you! Fahrenheit 451 was a dystopian novel not only because of the book burning but because of the people's use of technology to divorce themselves from the outside world and especially their relationships. Ray Bradbury said in 1960 "In writing the short novel Fahrenheit 451 I thought I was describing a world that might evolve in four or five decades. But only a few weeks ago, in Beverly Hills one night, a husband and wife passed me, walking their dog. I stood staring after them, absolutely stunned. The woman held in one hand a small cigarette-package-sized radio, its antenna quivering. From this sprang tiny copper wires which ended in a dainty cone plugged into her right ear. There she was, oblivious to man and dog, listening to far winds and whispers and soap-opera cries, sleep-walking, helped up and down curbs by a husband who might just as well not have been there. This was not fiction." http://digboston.com/boston-news-opinions/2012/06/rip-ray-bradbury-reflections-on-fahrenheit-451-and-science-fiction/ http://digboston.com/boston-news-opinions/2012/06/rip-ray-br...
- Zigurd 13y agoI believe the wearable format of Google Glass has a good chance to succeed because it is radical enough to deliver enough value from its capabilities. Watches are too tame, and too limited. It can't be stopped. I want to know, based on face recognition, is the cop walking up to my car known for aggression or for professionalism? I want to know the population density of Bt and PLMN radios around me. I want a subconscious sense of direction. I want to see impurities in air and water. I want senses nobody has thought of yet. Glass is only the beginning, and it is only perhaps minimally capable in the wearables spectrum of capabilities. It is very likley this means multiple body-worn sensors. Maybe they will be small, but, if not, they will probably become accepted as much as glasses, rings, belt buckles, and other functional adornments.
- thechut 13y agoI have been using Glass for almost 3 months now. I have tried out almost all the different apps for it at least once. And even written my own apps. My experience has changed greatly over time. When I first got glass, I felt extremely weird wearing it, it didn't feel right on my face (I have never worn glasses for vision). But not only that, i was very self conscious about it, it looks weird and I knew it. I would maybe wear it for a little while and then take it off when I saw someone. However, as time has progressed I wear it much more often. I have started to see the value in it, hands free headset. Driving directions, step by step instructions for things, and then the standard watch type functionality of SMS and email alerts. It doesn't feel weird on my face anymore and I don't feel like an ass hole wearing it around anymore. It just took some getting use to. It has been said here several times already, but the real key here is usefulness. There needs to be a Glass killer-app, and I think that we are close to having it. There will be lots of great use cases soon, and more will crop up as time goes on. If you are at ITEXPO this week and want to try glass and see a cool demo of how it can be used in a real world situation, contact me and stop by our booth and check it out.
- MatthiasP 13y agoPeople still go to greath lengths to get rid of their optical glasses even though those were around for hundreds of years now, are widely-used and are usually associated with positive attributes like intellectuality. For me that's the strongest indicator that anything similar to Google Glass will never become mainstream. Attractiveness beats out easier access to information any day.
- pwf 13y agoA relevant quote from 'Snow Crash': Gargoyles represent the embarrassing side of the Central Intelligence Corporation. Instead of using laptops, they wear their computers on their bodies, broken up into separate modules that hang on the waist, on the back, on the headset. They serve as human surveillance devices, recording everything that happens around them. Nothing looks stupider; these getups are the modern-day equivalent of the slide-rule scabbard or the calculator pouch on the belt, marking the user as belonging to a class that is at once above and far below human society.
- rwhitman 13y agoIf attractiveness is based on facial symmetry and we wear an object asymmetrically overlapping our face, does it make us seem less attractive? Could that be the issue here?
- snowwrestler 13y agoPeople stopped caring about headphones to the extent that they liked using headphones themselves. The biggest problem with Google Glass is that it does not meet a clearly defined need or desire that most people have. So there is nothing to balance the dorkiness.
- jff 13y agoEveryone's so busy shitting themselves over Glass users "recording everything all the time". Oh no! They might have a recording of me entering a bathroom! Maybe they'll record me talking about the movie I saw last week! Where is all this footage going to be stored? Decent-resolution video is not exactly small. How long will it take to fill up the 64 GB on your phone? If you have a 1 TB disk at home to archive the video, how many days worth can you store there? People certainly won't want to automatically upload to Youtube, because then they'd be broadcasting their home address, the location of their hidden house key, their credit card info every time they pay for something, etc. And how long can you record video with Glass before the battery dies? I've heard that the battery is good for about a day with "normal" use; I don't think capturing video and sending it to your phone for storage all day long counts as "normal", I'd expect to get maybe 2 hours tops. Have a little bit of fucking perspective, maybe.
- scelerat 13y agoHeadphones still look dorky.